Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suigō Prefectural Natural Park

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The result was Withdrawn. Sandstein 06:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suigō Prefectural Natural Park

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

~~Google search shows Wikipedia mirrors, a Government source confirming existence, and a few blog-like sources. Tube·of·Light 05:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Update - Seeing the newly added sources, I believe that the article's subject is notable enough (though these sources should've been added when the article was created to avoid giving the impression of it being a "non-notable subject"). I believe that the article can be kept. Can an uninvolved editor please close the discussion? Tube·of·Light 02:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tube·of·Light 05:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Tube·of·Light 05:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no opinion for now. This comment is just to make participants aware that per a previous AfD for a regional park (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bull Run Regional Park), there was no consensus surrounding whether the correct criteria for natural parks is WP:GEOLAND (which would lead this to be a keep) or WP:GEOFEAT (which would likely lead this to be a delete). It would be very good if we could establish a consensus here, as it would then be the basis for a formal criteria. Curbon7 (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This park has been established in accordance with Chapter III of the 1957 Natural Parks Law [ja] (translation here), enacted by the Japanese National Diet, which makes provision for National Parks, Quasi-National Parks, and Prefectural Natural Parks, and attempts to reconcile the competing demands of environmental protection and anthropocentric usufruct. That, for nigh on seventy years, over 60 square kilometres (23 sq mi) has been effectively taken out of circulation is no mean feat, not that size is everything - 100 sqm, if there are endemic biota, would presumably be enough; not sure about local green spaces with some swings and a park bench, but the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism has given it an English name here and it's mentioned by Encyclopaedia Britannica here; there's obviously a host of offline documentation (including presumably policy papers and newspaper coverage from the !950s; there is much less fixity with the Japanese internet - if we're establishing principles, good luck with similar attempts at protection in some countries), but immediately one can find online Mie Prefecture here, here, and here, the Ministry of the Environment here, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism here, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry here, the city of Kuwana here, the town of Kisosaki here, less RS stuff such as Kotobank here and Tsuritenki here, as well as more academic journal articles here, and here. In general if wiki policy means z-list hoofers of spherical objects, reality TV appearers, and cartoon voice-overers known to a couple of HuffPost media influencers are fit for inclusion but protected areas are not, good luck to us/presumably IAR would apply, as this is may be more worthy of inclusion and note, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny how you "expanded the article a little" by more than tripling the article's length. Seriously though, I believe that the article can be kept now (though you should've added those sources before itself to avoid giving the impression that there was no other source with information about the park). Tube·of·Light 02:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe the above discussion on a regional park or the distinction between Geoland and Geofeat is relevant here, and it would be hard to make a formal criterion due to the wide variation around the world of levels of administration and importance of types of parks; at the least there's no automatic notability. In that discussion I may have said to delete, but this park is over ten times larger, is designated and operated at the prefectural rather than local level, and has major natural features rather than a campsite and playground. User:Maculosae tegmine lyncis's expansion is very nice though I can't read the Japanese sources. Reywas92^Talk 16:12, 4 August 2021 (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.