Talk:Hong Kong Morris

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 June 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Probably shameless self-promotion, and worth deletion, but may have some sort of cultural significance. I strongly doubt there will be any way to verify its notability, veracity or context, though.

All written by one user, who clearly has an invested interest and edits in an unencyclopedic tone. And what is with all the names in bold?

"Dave Wilmshurst, now academic editor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and a man who rarely misses the opportunity to air his opinions on the Sino-French War, also a"

Qué?! -Kez (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justification for removal of flags[edit]

I disagree. The article reads exactly like an encyclopedia, and I can find little evidence in this version of "shameless self-promotion". As you suggest it seems to have quite notable cultural significance. I have, therefore, removed the story flag and the COI flag.

As for the question of original research, whilst I have to agree with you on that it reads as if there is, I do not believe that it is necessary to flag the article as such: if there is no COI (established above), I do not see that there is a problem (established). Articles of this sort are bound to contain original research.

-Tomopope (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot, however, simply decide on your own that the flags are unneccessary.

A lot of the the name-dropping and non-notable (irrelevent) discussion of members' personalities has been removed.

However, tone is still unencyclopedic and self-promoting (for example - sections discussing the project's multiculturalism, when that is adequate in a sentence, and, similarly, positive weasel words inserted throughout the article and apparent in the non-standard bolding of 'multiculturalism' and 'inclusivity' in the introduction.

Most importantly, the article has all been written by one, involved, user. And the article cites no in-line references.

These need to be addressed, however, I am simply not interested enough in the subject to enforce the changes. This needs a third party involved. -Kez (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion: I'm with Kez on this; the tags most definitely need to stay on the page until the issues are resolved. And this article certainly has its issues... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently has one in-line reference, and I intend to add more shortly. The Hong Kong Morris will be holding its AGM on Saturday 17 January and I hope to be able to come away from the meeting with the minutes of previous years' AGMs, which will enable me to add several more notable events in the side's history to the article, and also provide precise dates and citations for most events mentioned in the article. Many of the side's members have kept clippings from the South China Morning Post and Hong Kong Standard newspapers on Hong Kong Morris events, and these will also enable accurate citations to be given.

I have unbolded the words multiculturalism and inclusivity in the introduction.

Djwilms (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]