Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jalan Pengkalan Utama (2nd nomination)

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. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan Pengkalan Utama[edit]

[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)

The first AFD was keep in 2013 with the reason being "Appears to be a state-level route". 8 years later and the article is still unreferenced. We can't keep an article for an unverified reason per the policy WP:V. The same editor said, "Sources will need to be found to pass WP:V, but these need not be online sources." True, but we can't just assume that it's a state-level route and that there are offline sources that say such a thing. I don't even think that it's notable if it's a state-level route. WP:5P was mentioned as a reason not deleting the article, but there is Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) which says "International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable." Typically does not mean always and verifiability can not be superseded. SL93 (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was keep.

Previous discussions: 2013-09 (closed as ✓ keep)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft so if the creator can improve it then it can be published again. I did not find anything about this route. Berantral (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berantral The only issue is that the creator was last active in 2016. SL93 (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm seeing an alternative proposed; is there any additional discussion on the appropriateness to the alternatives to deletion relative to deleting the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lack of any kind of verification pierces the presumption of notability. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2021 (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.