Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shikawa Dam

:{{la|Shikawa Dam}} ([{{fullurl:Shikawa Dam|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shikawa Dam}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Page has been moved to correct name of Sichuan Dam

Notability not established. No citations. Johnfos (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, It is a dam, and it can be verified that it exists. Tavix (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

:Comment: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." see WP:NOTDIR. Johnfos (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia is, however, an encyclopedia of everything that's notable. Named dams are almost always major construction projects & important in the landscape, and thus notable. This one doesn't have numbers, but it does have a rather impressive photograph. Again, the author should have added some more text and references also, but if not the nominator should certainly have known to. Two articles in a row to demonstrate that a search for refs should be required prior of afd for lack of notability. DGG (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

:You say DGG that the author, "Again, the author should have added some more text and references". The articles were started with infoboxes and images and links to Japanese wikipedia and tags at the top marking the articles as needing translation from Japanese wikipedia ready for expansion. Given that I don't understand Japanese fluently, given that a great deal of notable content was missing I think I'm doing a good job of getting them onto here evne if you disagree with my methods of doing so.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep this article on a major public-works project. Fg2 (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Clear keep Wikipedia isn't a directory but who said this was a directory? It is a stub. A dam is a major construction work in Japan and may play a crucial role in the local economy with water management for agriculture or for recreation. The information can easily be translated from Japanese wikipedia and the link clearly shows government or public information that could be used to actually expand it into a full article. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep a project like this creates a massive papertrail. Just needs someone who speaks Japanese to link it in. Agathoclea (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Sources added indicate notability. --DAJF (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Even in the state the article was in at the time of AfD, a trivial amount of searching (less than what WP:BEFORE requires of all nominators) shows that the problem was not that that the subject isn't notable but that the article is a stub -- and per official policy being a stub is not a wikicrime. Good rescue, you all who've destubbed it, but I gotta say, AfD really shouldn't be used for inciting rescue work -- there's enough actual junk out there to sort through. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

::Well I have raised this issue again and again that the AFD procedure needs readdressing. The problem though seems to be confusing stubiness with notability, in my own view an article on a dam is a major construction project which hs environmental and economic implications on any given water basin so would seem to be notable however short the article. The nominator also raised concerns about Kawabe Dam that he couldn't find a reason why it should be included in the encyclopedia and suggested a list. I understand his concerns about article length but I feel sure they can all be expanded into full articles given time and if we are resourceful enough, perhaps in finding Japanese PDF files on them?? For sure any dam is going to have a great deal of documentation by the regional governments, its just a case of gaining access to them and having a knowledge of Japanese. Perhaps I am at fault because I am so active all over the encyclopedia often I compromise quality because of the sheer amount to get up and running but it is only because "I know" that the articles I start are on notable subjects and could reasonably be expanded by anybody. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Another needless, wasteful AfD. Took me just a couple minutes to find sourcing. And the content DAJF has added does not just improve the article well beyond AfD fodder, it shows that the potential for improvement was right there in the stub, and that this should have never been brought to AfD. Unless someone is watching these articles (I only came across it because the creator's talk page is on my watchlist) these kinds of nominations go through, removing good information from Wikipedia. I've said it many times before-- some kind of check needs to be put on the Deletion / AfD system. The nominator has nothing to lose-- and everything to gain if s/he is a "Deletionist" sort of vandal, or one seeking Adminship-- by attempting to remove information in these reckless nominations. Dekkappai (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. You think it's not notable, you try standing below it when they open the sluices and 1,650,000m³ [http://www.pref.hiroshima.lg.jp/page/1171428291940/index.html sez Hiroshima Prefecture] washes over you. Or does notability only start at 2,000,000m³? And get an earful of this: The mass recycling of the sludge earned the dam the Merit Award for Recycling in 2002 by the Ministry of Transport even before the dam was officially opened. (True, it's not actually sourced yet, but we can get round to that.) Now, I expect that my own epitaph will read "Hoary, recycler of sludge", but not a single Ministry has ever given me an award for it; this dam got it even before it started. Here, [http://www.pref.hiroshima.lg.jp/www/contents/1171428291940/files/01_09p.pdf take a leaflet]. Après moi, le déluge! -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Dams are major public works projects. Rosiestep (talk) 18:22, 30 January 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.