Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K11 MUSEA

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 keep. Sandstein 16:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K11 MUSEA[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:TOOSOON. Opening a year from now and most of the coverage provided links back directly to the press packs available here on the website of the development. Lacking truly independent coverage to establish notability. This may be established nearer to the time opening, but not yet. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is already sufficiently sourced - I would regard both SCMP and Bastille Post as reliable sources in this topic area. Rather than deleting the article only to have somebody re-create it in a year's time (I can't see Victoria Dockside or K11 (Hong Kong) getting deleted any time soon), we may as well let this stick around. Deryck C. 17:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan: I see where you are coming from. However, I don't think that WP should be a "slave" to marketing efforts of new development projects and front ride notability while the developer is at this very minute probably negotiating terms of future tenants. I would 100% discount all sources given in the article (including the SCMP and Bastille Poste ones) as directly related to the press packs. They completely follow the line of thought and vocabulary of the press packs, they were released around the very same time. Okay, SCMP did a little bit of own work drawing a comparison with PMQ in two sentences. Still, 90% or more of the remaining article is derived from the press pack. This is hard on the border to promo at this stage. Sources need to be independent, those are not. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your rationale, but if we 100% discount all sources that are derived from the subject's own publications, the way the news cycle works would mean that the only "independent sources" we have left are those about controversies. We will be left with no detail about the basic facts and statistics about any property development or art project. In that interpretation, notability of any property development becomes not "are there multiple independent reliable sources" but rather "has this thing been embroiled in a massive PR scandal yet", which isn't a position Wikipedia should take. Deryck C. 09:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

well, for NCORP we say that pure “business as usual” reporting does not establish notability. Business openings etc are specifically mentioned I believe. I agree with you that we shouldn’t be a place for scandal reporting but we also shouldn’t be a business listings site. There may be other writing such as an editor reviewing the mall with a proper write up or other reporting related to the mall. I’m just very uneasy that this closely aligned PR writing is very promo-esque which we definitely don’t want. I’m not saying musea isn’t ever notable. Just not yet with effectively only unverified PR floating around will those descriptions of what the developer imagines it will be. How many times have we seen HK developments wildly overhyped and then under-delivered? Let’s wait until the thing has proper independent reporting. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Deryck C's rationale, which was also mine when creating the article. The project seems to be already underway, and having a reference of this is a useful contribution at this time. Ypatch (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deryck C. The arguments against independence don't hold water because the SCMP and Bastille Poste are not owned or otherwise controlled by the developer. They are free to print what they like. If they choose to believe what the developer says, that is fine. Non-independence implies a lack of choice. James500 (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: I'd like to use Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources#Non-independent sources and specifically reference Churnalism. I would generally question the genuine independence of any HK media from major local conglomerates such as New World Development and its parent Chow Tai Fook given their significant leverage through advertising spend. This is an interesting read related to the "tycoon problem" which is why I believe standards should be higher when we evaluate notability. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. A major ~~museum~~ [inserted: retail and entertainment complex] can receive an article before the official opening, provided that there are sufficient independent sources. BTW the word "proposed" sound like crystal balling but the place is already being developed. Perhaps this triggered the nomination? The other correction the article probably needs is a name change. All caps words are usually a self-style that we should not support. It comes across as screaming and makes us look like a press release forum. gidonb (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: this isn't a museum, though. This is a shopping mall with bits of art floating around and a few restaurants. I have probably been to the sister mall K11 hundreds of time and until this article not even noticed the arts angle. One of many many malls in HK. Sill, pure existence does not make a commercial enterprise notable as has been laid out at AfD thousands of times. Regurgitated press-releases I don't think have ever been considered sufficient for notability. If so, we'd have to undelete thousands of articles for start-ups or "up-and-coming" artists etc etc. Notability also isn't inherited, so the fact that a large conglomerate is behind this should not make a difference. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 05:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jake, thank you for pointing this out. I will make a few corrections in the article, addressing your and my concerns. gidonb (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2018 (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.