- 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. Daniel ( talk) 19:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Ganghwa Maehwamarum Habitat
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ganghwa Maehwamarum Habitat ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article Ganghwa Maehwamarum Habitat is not notable enough to be considered for a WIki article. Although there are events tied to the location, they do not read as significant enough to constitute the necessity for a Wiki page. Secondly, there is not enough information on the notability of the location nor resources to credibly attest to its notoriety. There is also no public coverage on the location to properly deduce its sociocultural impact. The page fails to meet the guidelines as per WP:GNG. There is not enough coverage and the sources used presume its own notoriety.
You provide only three sources within the entire articles. The first does not attest to its notoriety and simply denotes its existence. The second is an inoperable website and does nothing for the site. The third is a dead link and holds no intellectual or thematic value. See WP:PLOT, as Wikipedia is not a website to dump information about places which hold little to no global value.Gongfong2021 ( talk) 22:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - this seems to be a named geographic feature with protected status as a Ramsar Wetland. I found substantial coverage to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article, beyond basic statistics and coordinates (per WP:GEOLAND). Due to the language barrier I'm not comfortable making a definite judgement though. Aranya (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
|
Please note that the translations of Korean-language article titles are rough machine translations.
|
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural close. I do not believe this was a good-faith AfD nomination. On July 14 the nominator went on a spree of inappropriate deletion tagging, e.g. [1] [2] [3]. pburka ( talk) 21:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per references found by Aranya and my own research. While there are language barriers, it does appear there are sufficient references to meet WP:GNG. Jeepday ( talk) 13:39, 27 July 2021 (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.