Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nam Fung Sun Chuen (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Quarry Bay. Courcelles 22:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nam Fung Sun Chuen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable housing development, unreferenced and marked for notability since June 2009. Survived previous AfD. interwiki article also appears to lack references (I don't speak the language). All I'm seeing on google is apparent valuations and transport links, which are important if you're considering living there, but not indepth coverage to support notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:N. Unable to find independent WP:RS with no claims of notability as an internet search in Chinese turned up mostly classified listings, transaction reports, and weirdly, though an unrelaible source, a listing of which flats had deaths occurred in them. Presumably so that buyers are aware and can ask for a discount if so inclined.--Michaela den (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Quarry Bay. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Quarry Bay. Not notable enough to be standalone. Still, the statement "Because of its relatively large size of development it serves as the benchmark for premises developed in the late 1970s in the property market" is important in an economy where real estate plays a major role and frequently takes the front seat in political debates. The numerous mentions of the estate in "classified listings, transaction reports" found by Michaela den in fact support this statement. A pure deletion without porting of part of the content to another article is, I believe, not appropriate. olivier (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.