Talk:Maidashi Ryokuchi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed deletion

I understand your proposal, it should be decided in view of community's decision. It is mere local park, the reason is written in the history of the park in the article. I think the park is important places and bear mentioning in view of the history of Fukuoka city. We should be waiting for a while. --Hot cake syrup (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

[1] is removed from this note by DAMF, it should be provide a neutral forum.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak Keep, perhaps it should be trimmed and preserved in the Higashi-ku Ward article, as that page is quite sparse. Some of the cultural observations as regards how Japanese people like to enjoy their parks, are interesting, but perhaps should be somewhere else . . . although I am not quite sure where, just now.Leutha (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks dear friend. Your proposal is very interesting. Let us listen to others opinion for a while.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Having seen the Higashi-ku,_Fukuoka#Parks reference that it was formerly a railway, I now think that it is much more significant than the other 400 parks in Higashi-ku. Indeed we could do with a new category including High Line (New York City) and perhaps even Greenway, London, as reclaimed recreational facilities. The main issue is that the text needs editing.Leutha (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Weak Keep The article does not state what the significance of this park is, especially since it is a long article considering the subject. There are also some photos that do not seem that significant. 218.186.9.11 (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Note to Hot cake syrup: Per this, Fg2 passed away almost two years ago, so it's unlikely he'll be answering any questions for you here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, your canvassing (see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]) possibly violates WP:CANVASS. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I noticed only after your assignment about Fg2 , thanks you.----Hot cake syrup (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

KeepParks are important in Japanese culture.I would be reluctant to see this deleted, even though it needs editing for style. The information is fine and the article will benefit from an editorial make-over. ≈≈≈≈user:Philip.marshall≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip.marshall (talk • contribs) 09:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what all the "Keep" votes are for, as this isn't an AfD. While the quality of the English in this article is certainly very sub-standard, that was not the reason for the proposed deletion. It was proposed for deletion because it describes an extremely non-notable small neighbourhood park that is one of probably tens of thousands of similar such small parks in Japan. As articulately set out in WP:AMOUNT, I am not at all convinced that any amount of copy-editing or tweaking can make up for the total lack of notability. If I thought it had even a grain of viability, I would have improved the English and tidied up the article myself. --DAJF (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep
An allegation of deletion has some problems. For example, as pointed out by Mr. Leutha, in Wikipedia there are same articles of parks, such as High Line (New York City) or Greenway, London. If this article should have been deleted, for the same articles should be treated in the same manner. It would be become out of hand.　--Hot cake syrup (talk) 05:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Note to closing admin

While no one has actually removed the PROD notice I added to this article (possibly because of confusion between Proposed Deletion and AfD), I am guessing that the "Keep" votes and comments by four editors above mean that there is a strong chance that the PROD will be denied by the reviewing administrator.
As arguments in favour of deletion, however, I would highlight the following two points.

1. No one has yet offered any convincing reasons or sources to indicate the notability of this minor park. (Note that it is not even called a "koen" (park) in Japanese because it is so small.)
2. The useful details from this article (about two lines' worth) have now been merged/added to the Higashi-ku, Fukuoka article.

To be honest, I was surprised that anyone (other than the article's author perhaps) would object to the proposed deletion of an article that is borderline speedy-deletion material, but if the PROD is denied, the notability issues still remain unaddressed, so I will take it to AfD. --DAJF (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

DAJF is not a solitary voice. More research may resolve this problem, or additional material may become available online in the future. For now, the notability of the subject is questionable. --Tenmei (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I support Tenmei's claims. Because the Most of commenters confirm keep, let's not whip a dead horse.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

@Hot cake syrup -- perhaps you misunderstand the word "questionable"? --Tenmei (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DAJF that "the notability issues still remain unaddressed." DAJF is not "flogging a dead horse".

If this article were considered in a formal AfD review, I would not support keeping it. DAJF presents valid critical comments. Further research and editing are needed to clarify how and why this subject is notable. In other words, without added support from reliable sources, this article seems likely to be deleted in accordance with WP:Notability. --Tenmei (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see.

Whether or not, conclusion of community is preserved, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maidashi ryokuchi. That's a dead issue. Let's contribute productively to Wikipedia. --Hot cake syrup (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, the AfD did not appear on my watchlist, or perhaps and I overlooked it. In any case, the issues raised by DAJF are not addressed, not dead. Please be aware that this article may be relisted unless you or someone else invests time in remedying the notability questions. --Tenmei (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)