Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punga People

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Punga People

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A low-content page that seems to exist only to promote a minor tourist attraction. Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate sourcing to establish notability. Not sure how this remained hidden from other editors for 15 years.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page had been orphaned until a few hours ago. That's why nobody noticed it before. Ross Finlayson (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks to have been started as a self-promotional page. No indication of notability. Fails GNG and SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability, does not pass criteria for reliable sources. Article history also seems to have COI issues.Netherzone (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. the best available sourcing are simply mentions of them in reviews of the lodge on tripadvisor. -- Whpq (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in agreement with above Mujinga (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is significant that these sculptures don't even merit a mention in the Marlborough Sounds page. The reason could be that there are no reliable sources and after an extensive search I can't find any. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2019 (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.