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 speedy keep per Criterion 3 as "[t]he nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question." Despite the nomination statement's claim that there are no sources in the article, at the time of nomination, the article had a valid inline source as well as external links that could serve as references. The nominator may have been misled by the out-of-date {{unreferenced}} banner, but it's clear he did not so much as skim the article. (As an aside, per ARTN, a lack of sourcing in the article is not a valid reason for deletion.)

Based on Citobun's evidence, Criterion 2(b) may also apply here. (non-admin closure) Rebbing 03:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Central Kowloon Route (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article does not cite any source it therefore fails WP:GNG. Source found are promotional links Jamzy4 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The one news link on the article, http://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1236039-20160115.htm, isn't terribly good I agree. Gnews reveals more. But not much more. I would say weak delete (and very selectively merge if desired) to Hong Kong Strategic Route and Exit Number System does mention the proposed route, unreferenced. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The news sources mentioned by Shawn are probably enough to keep this, and the sources found by the Google Scholar and Google Books searches linked by the nomination process make notability beyond doubt. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I didn't get a chance to go beyond Gnews. Of course, then there's also the question of Chinese language coverage we're missing. This may well meet GNG, easily, if non-English sources are considered. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep there's quite a bit of Gbooks coverage, too. I'll stay neutral but this does seem to be a notable planned (if delayed) transport infrastructure project in one of the world's leading urban centres. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to administrators - I created this article. This AfD is part of a slew of revenge nominations that Jamzy4 has made today on articles I created, including:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halifax Examiner
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mu Kuang English School
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buildings Department
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Kowloon Cultural Centre
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova Scotia Association of Architects
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Kowloon Route

The reason that Jamzy4 is seeking revenge against me is the three below deletion nominations in which I allege that he is an undisclosed paid editor representing non-notable Nigerian musical artists, as evidenced by the highly promotional tone of the articles, the self-authored promotional photos, the lack of reliable sources, and the fact that this user hasn't contributed articles on any other subjects.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Kaywise
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Magic (musician)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dremo

This and other articles that Jamzy4 nominated today were selected at random and the nominations should be dismissed. Jamzy4 is not here to build an encyclopedia. This is a waste of time. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2016 (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.