Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maidashi ryokuchi

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. v/r - T P 15:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maidashi ryokuchi[edit]

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

Unremarkable and non-notable neighbourhood park, which is one of roughly 400 in the city of Fukuoka alone. A Google search in Japanese turns up 99 hits, of which roughly a third are Wiki-related or similar mirrors. If I had thought the article had even a glimmer of notability, I would have cleaned it up and sourced it myself, but no amount of intricate detailed about park benches and street lamps can make up for the total lack of notability - as described in WP:AMOUNT. The previous PROD was overturned, but unfortunately, no one has yet been able to offer any sources to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibit A: A view of the park on Google Maps - gives a pretty good indication of how "significant" this park is in comparison with the many other parks in the local area. --DAJF (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note:The map is inappropriate, because it indicate only a part of the ryokuchi (park).--Hot cake syrup (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Most of commenters confirm keep, See Talk:Maidashi ryokuchi. Let's not beat a dead horse.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; does not appear to be notable. Listing every green space is hardly encyclopædic. bobrayner (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep If this green strip on Google Maps is the park, I find it kind of interesting. I can't judge if the coverage is significant, though. Moscowconnection (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its the green strip visible in that aerial view. Unfortunately, just being "kind of interesting" is not really a valid reason for justifying an article (see WP:INTERESTING), and the coverage available (including the sources provided in this article) consist of passing mentions in lists of parks in Fukuoka city and a personal web page that also mentions in passing how the strip of greenery known as Maidashi Ryokuchi happened to be the site of a former railway line. That's it, and I have searched the web for more, as I too would have liked to keep an article about a Japanese park on Wikipedia if I felt it had any merits. --DAJF (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel in sense of embarrassment for this proportion of for deletion/Maidashi ryokuchi. Because in 30 August 2011 DAJF labeled for deletion [1], and a week after, the label was peeled away [2] by Athaenara. Since most of commentator agree for Keep and discussion of community arrived at a conclusion. Despite that in 9 September this item was reclaimed by DAJF again. What's this all about? --Hot cake syrup (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure what's different, but I get ~4000 hits for "馬出緑地" and 1880 for the full name "第8号馬出緑地". It's a fairly unusual example of a rail trail in Japan, and it already survived an AFD on ja-wp: [3]. I generally lean on the deletionist side, but in this case all I can ask is: would it genuinely improve Wikipedia to nuke this bit of local history? Jpatokal (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you omit hits containing "wiki", you get 95, of which many are still wiki-based or Mapion hits. Any "local history" can easily be added to the Maidashi article instead, which still needs a lot of work. --DAJF (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we on different Googles or something? The link you give above gives me 3990 hits, which goes down to 3250 if I add in "-wiki -ウィキ". Jpatokal (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the Google 546,000 was hits for 馬出緑地 at 13 September [4], Maidashi ryokuchi is thought too little about.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When doing a Google search, you need to enclose the phrase in double quotes, otherwise you just end up getting hundreds of thousands of hits for pages containing "馬", "出", "緑", and "地". See Jpatokal's comment and mine immediately above. --DAJF (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, but by this exact wording or phrase 「馬出緑地」 hits 8,550　(in Japanese Google)[5], this number is large, isn't it?--Hot cake syrup (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This artical needs references yes, but it is not too short an artical, maybe it could be expanded upon. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2011 (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.