Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulau Saigon

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The result was withdrawn by nominator with no opposition.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pulau Saigon

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

Prod removed. Per WP:Geoland: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river." Nothing of relevance here to merge with Singapore River. Author notes on talk page there are no additional sources available.--Moon King (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not going to AGF any longer. This seems like a WP:POINTy nomination as I disagreed over an edit and warned the editor for edit warring. I see this is the nominator's second AfD after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzuka Naval Arsenal and I would like to remind the nominator that WP:BEFORE needs to be done. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user brought herself to my attention, I examined her edits, came upon this particular article and determined it was not notable. It's not personal.--Moon King (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there was not an edit war. It was a misunderstanding over a non controversial edit. --Moon King (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have not done WP:BEFORE here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Disclosure: I am the article creator) Seriously, the reason for deletion is Author notes on talk page there are no additional sources available? This is notable per WP:GEOLAND. This is a former island which used to exist in the Singapore river. There is one whole book entirely about the Island - Pulau Saigon: A Post-eighteenth Century Archaeological Assemblage Recovered from a Former Island in the Singapore River as well as mentions here and here. A search for Pulau Saigon in the Singapore Newspaper Archives shows that it has been referenced multiple times. The island was the subject of an exhibition at NUS Museum. There is enough information available on this island to write a detailed article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not enough for a standalone article. It can all easily be added to Singapore River.--Moon King (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the book Pulau Saigon: A Post-eighteenth Century Archaeological Assemblage Recovered from a Former Island in the Singapore River? One whole book entirely about the island. Putting it in Singapore river is WP:UNDUE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Have you? It looks to be about an archeological dig in the river. --Moon King (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read the entire book and it was after reading it that I created the article - I'm not sure if an online copy is available. There is enough information about the island. The archaeological dig was on the site of the island. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the book is about a dig on the Singapore River, not the island since it didn't exist at the time? How would this be undue on Singapore River? --Moon King (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to include Pulau Seletar and Lazarus Island in this AFD as well. They also are non notable islands on the Singapore River. All information available is about location and name only.--Moon King (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should see WP:BEFORE, which recommends doing Google, News, Books, searches before nominating for Afd. While Pulau Seletar technically did not meet WP:GEOLAND at the time of nomination it was trivially easy to find sources that provide more than name, location, statistics on the island and add that information to the article. Lazarus Island already had a cited section on the island's etymology, so GEOLAND wouldn't apply there either. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I've used the sources provided by Lemongirl942 to expand the article a bit more. Sources there before my edit clearly established the economic and archaeological history of the site, beyond the requirements of WP:GEOLAND. and my changes only reinforce it. Given this, there is little reason this should be open for a full week. My suggestion to the nominator is to avoid AfDs and work on their own content for the time being.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Great work from Patar knight satisfies all my concerns. --Moon King (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.