- 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 no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SCAA Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article on a "family" of mascots is an excuse to promote some blogs and other promotional websites. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete seems to be an add type work , fails its notability , at least not for English wiki . --Pearll's sun (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm neutral to the deletion, but someone pointed out in the article Talk page that the blog used as a source for the article is the official blog of SCAA, so while notability is questionable, I think the article is well-sourced. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The blogs sourced in the article are not promotional websites. They are official channels for Hong Kong football club SCAA for releasing news of the club. Checkiema (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then they are official promotional websites.... Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who cares? How can SCAA specifically benefit from it? Hikikomori.hk (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then they are official promotional websites.... Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just like Kingsley Royal, a football club mascot's article can be kept here. Hikikomori.hk (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kingsley Royal has third party citations or it would be deletable too. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then maybe you should suggest rewriting this page. Hikikomori.hk (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure the topic is non-notable, because I couldn't find any sources. Topics on non-notable articles are to be deleted. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should learn Chinese language. Hikikomori.hk (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure the topic is non-notable, because I couldn't find any sources. Topics on non-notable articles are to be deleted. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then maybe you should suggest rewriting this page. Hikikomori.hk (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kingsley Royal has third party citations or it would be deletable too. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam, User:Hikikomori.hk is welcome to try and promote the SCAA Family on the Chinese Wikipedia, where it appears to be part of the SCAA page rather than having its own article. AnteaterZot (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 14:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. This article has been tagged for rescue. The topic is encyclopedic, but it needs citations from independent, reliable sources. Deleting this immediately promotes the systematic bias of Wikipedia as being Euro-American biased; on the other hand, author of the article could be a bit more helpful in finding alternative citation sources - after all, wasn't Hong Kong under English control for about a century? B.Wind (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep hardly surprising that we're here on AfD given that the article creator has not bothered to cite a single intellectually independent, reliable source; some such sources (a few newspaper articles) seem to exist, but they're hard to find among all the youtube videos, blogs, and forum posts ...
- "南華吉祥物與市民接觸 (SCAA mascots get up close with city residents)", Ta Kung Pao, 2007-11-27; can't seem to access it directly but its headline shows up on their website [1]
- "南華吉祥物面世 (SCAA mascots make their debut)", Apple Daily, 2007-09-21; you need a subscription to access Apple Daily, but again, googling on the title of the article at least proves that the source exists [2]
- Cheers, cab (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on current content. The article is sourced only to the team's web site and a blog (which apparently is the team's official blog), meaning there are no independent, reliable sources. The article also focuses heavily on fictional content (such as the personalities, birthdays, and favorite foods of these fictional characters) with insufficient real world perspective per WP:WAF, other than promotional/advertising content relating to the merchandising of the characters. Nevertheless, I can imagine that the article could be improved to at least the quality of, say, The San Diego Chicken or Phillie Phanatic. But anyone who wants to keep this article should work on rewriting it to focus on real world context with independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Provided the sources provided by cab checks out. The sources currently given on the page is inappropriate to establish notability. Taemyr (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have been writing most of the contents in this article. I understand the comments above and I am trying to find some relevant and independent sources for this article, which is very likely to be from newspaper (like those suggested by cab). I think the best action towards this article can be a rewrite rather than a pure deletion.Checkiema (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this user already expressed his opinion above. —BradV 23:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No assertion of notability (what are they known for?) and no reliable sources. —BradV 23:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability does not have to be demonstrated in the article. Where you thinking about importance? WP:N calls for the existence of multiple independent reliable sources in order for an topic to pass. This have been shown to exist, thus the article passes our notability standards. Taemyr (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article does not even exist in the Chinese Wikipedia: it is a subset of the South China Athletic Association article. —BradV 23:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I suppose whether this article exists in Chinese Wikipedia does not add any reference value. There are a lot of articles on Hong Kong football in English Wikipedia which do not exist in Chinese Wikipedia. The non-existence of a separate article on this topic in Chinese Wikipedia may only due to a lack of people to develop an article rather than the notability of it.Checkiema (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per sources found by cab Hobit (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You'd think that a sports team's mascots would get some media coverage, but this isn't very much at all. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2008 (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.