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 delete. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 03:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
fails WP:GNG. applying WP:BEFORE a thorough search for sources found no significant coverage. Those arguing for keep must demonstrate existence of significant coverage
LibStar (
talk) 23:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. It can be developed in some form, perhaps with development of coverage at a corresponding list-article then merger/redirect for a while. I removed PROD at article and tried to open discussion at
Talk:Old Belize Museum and Cucumber Beach#notability and development, but the deletion nominator opens this AFD instead. This AFD and some others like it rub me the wrong way, it feels like AFD being used for coercion, and I am not really happy about trying to actually find usable sources and develop. I guess
wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP doesn't describe the issue; the goal is just to tear down, while coercing unfortunate other editors to go along? Seems like there is no shared value of developing Wikipedia coverage of notable topics anyhow. --
doncram 05:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
this is not a clean up. it is not notable for lack of coverage and fails WP:GNG. I am not really happy about trying to actually find usable sources . the onus is on keep voters to find sources. this is how AfD works. if you're not happy with that...then please read
WP:AFD carefully.
LibStar (
talk) 06:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
In fact the only source you've actually found is the lonely planet guide . If that's the best you can found than the case for notability is very weak.
LibStar (
talk) 15:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Lacks notability. Strange and confusing title.
Fatty wawa (
talk) 04:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The only sources I could find through a variety of gSearches were the website of the facility and one Lonely Planet website review in passing. These do not quality as
reliable sources. Therefore, the article fails
general notability guidelines.
Geoff | Who, me? 18:25, 13 April 2017 (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.