Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanbara Tunnel

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. czar 03:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanbara Tunnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Searches in English and in Japanese do not find additional significant sources. Source assesment:

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Japan. Skynxnex (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: from the creator's user talk page:

🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak(ish) Keep Searching through archives there are a few sources, I can't fully read any of them as they are offline but the snippets provided in "土木施工 7(8)", "土木施工 9(4)", "道路建設 (404)", and the "Aerodynamics and Ventilation of Vehicle Tunnels" source in article by seem to give me some confidence enough SIGCOV exists to meet GNG. Only voting weekly because of the access issue. Jumpytoo Talk 03:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Additional sources added since nomination, especially this one [1]. There's also this [2] which I can't access. I think it's over the threshold. DCsansei (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Source 4 in the article as a peer-reviewed study about wind currents in the tunnel, which is good for GNG. I've tried using the Japanese name and found these [3] that talk about the illumination challenges at the time. I think we're good for notability now. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (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.