Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hong Kong Geographical Association

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (votes 9K7D). - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong Geographical Association

Appears to be a professional organization with 100 members - I think this falls under the bar of notability. Delete. -- 8^D ^gab 03:11, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

• Verifiable organisation with verifiable membership that publishes a verifiable printed periodical. Keep.--Gene_poole 03:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, has potential to expand into a longer article and link to many other subjects -Husnock 04:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Hong Kong Geographic.Klonimus 06:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Verifiability is distinct from notability. Delete, no notability established (what has it done that's notable)? Slac speak up! 14:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I can FAX you a copy of my birth certificate. That verifies that I exist. Does that mean I should have an article? As Slac says, verifiability is not notability. Delete. RickK 19:45, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • If you're important enough for someone unrelated to you to write about then you're important enough to keep. As you well know notability is irrelevant to this and every other deletion discussion as it is not part of Wikipedia's deletion policy. --Gene_poole 23:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Must you add these arguments to everyone who refers to the de facto criterion of notability? We get your point already. Read Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for Deletion, it's in there. Radiant_* 10:05, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • If you think "notability" should be defined as part of the Wikipedia deletion policy you're welcome to try to gain a consensus to that effect. --Gene_poole 23:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Radiant_* 10:05, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. After reading the article and the ext.linked webpage, I can't find anything that warrants this having an article. --NormanEinstein 14:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If this article is not interesting to you, then don't read it. --Zero 15:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 06:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• What is wrong with you people?? This is a serious longstanding academic organization that publishes a prominent peer-reviewed geography journal. Of course it deserves an article. --Zero 10:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Nothing wrong with this article. --Hunter 10:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. With an organization like this, it should be expanded a bit. Plus, Hong Kong is a tiny place (geographically) so they probably only need 100 members to get the job done. Zscout370 15:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the person proposing it is just jealous because he only has one member. SchmuckyTheCat 06:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep appears to be well connected and authoritive organisation Andypasto 08:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Zero. Kappa 21:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.