Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 25

25 June 2014

New River, Nanjing – Endorse, but restore. This got complicated. I almost hit the "No Consensus" button several times, but in the end, I'm going to go with the original closer's sentiment that, had the sources presented here, been presented at the AfD, it might have gone the other way. So, endorse, in the sense that, "given the information that was available at the time, the close was correct", but restore anyway, since there are new sources available now. Despite my decision to restore, I should stress that I don't see anything in the arguments presented here which establishes a clear "keep" consensus. There is still doubt over the quality of the sources, both the existing ones, and the new ones presented here. If, after the new sources are worked into the article, there is still a feeling that this doesn't pass muster, my restore action should not be taken as a bar to bringing it back to AfD for another look. – -- RoySmith (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The article was poorly sourced before deleted.In AFD debate, JohnBlackburne regarded its topic as not-notable while Philg88 thought its content couldn't be verified.(see en:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_River,_Nanjing)However,I've already found that there are serveral books describing the topic.For example [1][2][3][4][5]So it may meet WP:GNG.Actually,the town mentioned in the article used to be a populated, legally-recognized place,according to the first source.It can remain notable according to WP:NTEMP and WP:GEOLAND .So I don't think the deletion is appropriate. 180.155.69.97 (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note from closer: The editor here, 180.155.69.97, hadn't discussed the close before bringing it here. I don't read Chinese, simplified or otherwise, but my inclination is to restore based on those sources, automated translation, our inclination toward geographic places, and good faith. Still, we are here, and if someone with some literacy in Chinese wants to take a look, a second opinion wouldn't hurt. The AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New River, Nanjing. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame these references weren't presented during the discussion, as they do seem to support keeping the article better than the sources used in it (visible in CaroleHenson's user space at User:CaroleHenson/New_River). They still don't seem enough for notability: the best source seems to be the first but it has very little information which would better support a paragraph in another article, say, than a whole article. But others with better Chinese facility than me would probably be better able to evaluate them. I would suggest userfying it, or recreating it as a draft, so the new sources can be added and used to improve it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close, with the caveat that I'm not familiar with Chinese municipal administrative structure. Looking at the sources (machine translated English and Traditional Chinese) I don't believe this can be considered legally recognized, as Phil outlined at the AfD, and the sources in all honesty seem to be passing mentions, not meeting WP:SIGCOV. Besides, the existing draft is not that great for an article about a place anyways. If someone could review the above sources and those at Wang Hanzhou residence just to be sure, though, that would be great. Ansh666 15:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first source and the third source describe the town's location and history in detail.And this book[6],written by a commissioner of Chinese Academy of Sciences,discusses the relationship between the town's geography and the style of the residents' life in almost four pages.--180.155.69.97 (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close As I recall, the article had no verifiable content beyond it's purported location and settlement status - the rest was based on an unreliable source (Baidu). In the original AfD, I commented that it wasn't verifiable as an official subdivision of the Jianye District (which it isn't), while both Google Maps and Open Street Map have no mention of it. It also doesn't appear in the official Chinese settlement statistics. However, this was one of four closely related articles put up for AfD, of which only one was kept (Wang Hanzhou, now Wang Hanzhou residence). In the case of the latter, I was able to confirm that Wang lived in the New River District. The new sources now indicate that this was a town, not an area outside of Nanjing's old West River Gate. Whether it was then a town rather than an area is a moot point and it may have been invented later for the convenience of pidgeonholing it as a type of settlement. So in my view there was nothing out of place with the original delete close.

Moving forward, based on reading these new Chinese sources, it seems that there is enough material to create a new article with the title "Shangxinhe, Nanjing" (上新河镇) per the Chinese naming convention guidelines about the historic district. It wouldn't be much more than a stub but it will be verifiable and notable based on the coverage across five sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 17:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'history temporarily restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Decision contrary to established guidelines. There is no reason to think Baidu unreliable for Chinese geography, and, unlike WP, its articles are reviewed professionally before publication (perhaps the reviews are primarily for political purposes, but it is indeed edited) .(see Baidu Baike). We do include articles on all verified populated places, and the map references are verification. It is the role of a closing administrator to ignore irrelevant arguments. I would apply this to the other similarly deleted articles also. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information regarding Baidu's reviewing, which is contrary to the easily-found guidance at RSN, e.g., Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_159#Are_these_reliable_sources_for_Cantonese_NDA.3F. I will look into that question further. As you know, I'm sure, WP:GEOLAND is limited to legally-recognized places, and Philg88's opinion appeared to me to address that specific question of fact. (As for restoration, I think I've indicated my opinion above, once something like this is verified, there is a strong and appropriate presumption toward inclusion, and I think it is likely, as weak as my translation skills are, that the sources above meet it, so no opposition to restoration.) --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Reviewed professionally"? Baidu is crowd sourced, just like Wikipedia. The only review mechanism is the removal of material deemed detrimental to the great and good of a certain monolithic party. As for the geography, as I've said previously, neither Google maps or OpenStreetMap have any mention of such a town. It's historic as now confirmed by new sources. The article needs to be moved to the correct title if it is to be restored, and the history that isn't in the new sources will somehow need to be referenced. Philg88 ^♦talk 20:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Baidu is a tertiary, rather than secondary source. Even if its articles are reviewed, which I too think probably happens primarily for political reasons, i.e. to censor it as much media is censored in China, it's still a user-written encyclopaedia. And it's no longer a legally recognised place; this was raised and checked in the deletion discussion, but it's been legally and literally removed from the map. If you search now at maps.baidu.com (this might work: [7]) you find only a few businesses, a school, etc. in that area which still use the name but 上新河 seems to have been replaced by tower blocks and a highway leading up to a bridge.

It clearly is notable if at all only as a historic location, per Philg88, which the sources at the top of the page also indicate (being fairly old themselves). It could really do with some more contemporary sources, both to verify its historic nature and put it in a modern context.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the old article is restored, 'New River', as a literal translation (or 'Upper New River' for 上新河), is not an appropriate title. You don't see 'southern capital', the literal translation of Nanjing/南京, prevail in colloquial, published, or official usage, period. Better is 'Xinhe' or 'Shangxinhe'. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 05:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment:"Shangxinhe, Nanjing" might be the appropriate title.By the way,the title was once "On New River",which was roughly translated from Chinese.--180.155.69.97 (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, which shows that trying to translate Chinese place names is a bad idea and is why we stick to pinyin. The "shang" (上) here does not mean upper, it means "on" as in Shanghai (on the sea). The "new" refers to the canalized side channel of the Yangtze created sometime in the Ming dynasty. A remarkable achievement that allowed the timber merchants to prosper through the construction of wharves in less turbulent water, it is still visible on maps today. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.