Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirogane tunnel


 * 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   delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Shirogane tunnel

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

A 'haunted place' in Japanese urban legend - according to a single unreliable looking book. Definitely doesn't meet notability guidelines. Fences &amp;  Windows  23:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. As Fences&Windows said, there is no reliable source for the information which, incidentally, is packed full of weasel words. Meguro Ward's website isn't a reference. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There's no indication that this has ever been mentioned in the article about Meguro in Japan, and I don't see any reason to merge it now. The source is legitimate, and I'm glad that the author at least referred to one, but even then the scary tunnel rates two sentences [] in Catrien's book ("Agonized faces have appeared on the tunnel's pillars, and the number seen seems to be increasing," p.122).  The usual outcome is that there have to be at least one hundred reported appearances of agonized faces on the pillars before a scary tunnel can become notable.  Even the Pont de l'Alma tunnel doesn't rate its own page. Mandsford (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree. Caveat - I don't read Japanese, so I was unable to review the website, however, one extremely brief mention in a not obviously notable book is a long way from notable.-- SPhilbrick  T  21:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing to indicate that there is significant, reliable coverage, or even anything to substantiate the article's claims.  Cocytus   [»talk«]  00:08, 21 December 2009 (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.