Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantref Arfon

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 speedy keep‎. Per WP:Speedy keep#1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no new delete rationale has been put forward in the deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cantref Arfon

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)

This is pure unreferenced

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Wales. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:TNT and a lack of a better destination. Though I do wonder, if there should just be an Arfon article which may be easier to justify and source hopefully. DankJae 18:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: this is notable as a historical district. Its existence and approximate borders are confirmed by the
  RCAHMW.[1] Even though the sourcing is minimal at present, it is very probable that reliable sources do exist, possibly some of the sources cited in Cantref. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion includes Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed - have such attempts been made? For the most part, the article does not appear to present original research, and presents material that is supported the the geography and history of the area, and are often (possibly always) supported by other articles. While citations should be given in the article where the statements are made, this requirement is widely unmet and this is not an adequate reason for an article to be deleted. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Moreover, the Find sources links at the top of this discussion for 'books', 'news' and 'scholar' all give potential sources. These should have been investigated before the article was nominated for deletion, see
    WP:BEFORE. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES is not a very strong argument for keeping unreferenced piece of OR... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• Keep. I've added some sources; I think the topic is notable and the article could be expanded further. There are a couple of bits of information that I wasn't able to verify but we're far from needing TNT. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per above.---Ehrenkater (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep following newer responses above and an article in a better state, although still open to the original re-direct if this AfD leads elsewhere. DankJae 17:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw. Article has been improved, addressing my concerns. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]