Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Belize Museum and Cucumber Beach

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]

Old Belize Museum and Cucumber Beach[edit]

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

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. --do ncr am 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 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]
Delete GNG L3X1 (distant write) 21:30, 16 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.