Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiodome River


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Shiodome River

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unclear notability Noahhoward (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Questionable notability, maybe just merge into existing article Shiodome Noahhoward (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 30.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 04:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 04:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Unclear deletion nomination.  No indication of any effort spent on wp:BEFORE.  No indication of any expertise (Japanese language skill would probably be very helpful) to perform wp:BEFORE, either.  AFD is not for cleanup.  It is or was a natural feature, so probably is notable per wp:NGEO and sources not looked for, not found, not understood. --Doncram (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep See jawiki article for some history . Simple Google Books search finds references that substantiate notability claim under WP:NGEO. Article can and should be expanded. Additionally, nominator's most recent comment above calls for a merge, which doesn't need to handled at AfD anyway, and redirecting/merging to Shiodome is not obvious, given the history of the river (could also legitimately point to Ginza, Shinbashi, Tokyo Expressway, Hamarikyu Gardens, etc etc). A strange nomination. Bakazaka (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak merge Notable or not, the present "article" is a content fork of the one sentence in Shiodome mentioning the river. Better wait to create a separate article when someone actually wants to create a separate article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  06:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Keep notable and meets WP:GEO  AD  Talk 07:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough sources to pass WP:NGEO. I empathise with Hijiri's point, as the article hasn't progressed a lot since what seems to be a content fork, but nevertheless it has progressed. The translation tag links to a better sourced article on jp-wiki with more content, which highlights the potential of this topic too. I've added the article to a more specific, and less populated translation category, so it's no longer lost in the backlog. Cesde v a  (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep definitely pass WP:GEOPURP, WP:GEOLAND, because it is a permanent natural feature.-- PATH SLOPU (Talk) 02:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that it's not "permanent", since it's gone.


 * Delete. What river? It's gone, and when it existed it was a glorified creek.
 * Enough sources to pass WP:NGEO. What sources? I count two blog links by amateur historians and a dead city government page that, from the title, is about the park mentioned in the article. --Calton | Talk 03:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Google is your friend. Cesde v a  (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Our standards for inclusion for named natural features are intentionally generous, because a gazetteer is one of the things Wikipedia actually is. And make no mistake, there are sources here. I'm hamstrung by my lack of Japanese, but relatively short mentions in English works are indicative of better native-language coverage. Coverage includes: historical importance of the river and its bridge crossing – and note that this bridge existed since 1604 and is itself the subject of quite a bit of discussion in the literature, public reaction to the plans to fill in the river (sadly, my access to Look Japan is limited), and the current status of the former watercourse. I will note that this article in the Japanese Journal of Ornithology appears to refer to a different river of the same name (on Hokkaido, rather than near Tokyo). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.