Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisnave

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 no consensus. I'd like to close this as Keep given the later comments that came after the article was improved but I have to acknowledge the valid advocates stating they believed the article should be Deleted so this is No Consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisnave[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)

Clearly an in-progress work that's not ready for mainspace. Was draftified twice but subsequently reverted by the author with no explanation provided. Thus AFDing it is the only action that can be taken to prevent move warring (skipping PROD here as the author will likely just de-PROD it without improvements) Taking Out The Trash (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company might be notable, but what's here is entirely unsourced and so promotionally written as to merit the application of TNT. Since the article's author will not allow it to be anywhere besides mainspace, the only alternative is to delete it entirely. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amending to weak keep per the improvements made, and per the results I found upon doing a search for the topic. The original deletion nomination was proper, but now that an editor has improved the article and it appears to meet GNG, I am going to err towards keeping. I am not persuaded by the pearl-clutching on display below, however. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would've said draftify, but that has happened twice already, with no results, so delete. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources in the article, that reads like a brochure. I find some sources in PR websites, mostly in Portuguese. If it's been draftified twice already, I don't think it can be improved. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Unsourced text, may be better that goes back to draft and work on it again. Alex-h (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete I hate to discourage anybody translating from Portuguese, especially in the business TA, but if they keep undraftifying it without improving it, that tells me they think it's fine when, clearly it's not. Has anyone tried talking to them? In any event, I guess they can get their work refunded, and it might get their attention if they aren't answering at their talk page. The company does seem somewhat important in its niche, and the Portuguese article is much longer, if that matters to anyone, and also, I definitely am not volunteering to fix it. Elinruby (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found some good sources and completely reincarnated the article as a stub. There is plenty of information in the sources to make a long article. BruceThomson (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The original editor had omitted to link the article to the and pages. These are poorly sourced but there is enough material to make a notable English language article if even part of the history can be properly sourced. Good job to @BruceThomson sorting this mess out. Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to BruceThomson there are now sufficient references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Topic therefore meets the criteria and the sources can be used to considerably expand the article. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When there is no case for deletion, or the case is unclear, an article should NEVER be prodded! As pointed out above, the notability of the topic has been established. Not taking away anything from BruceThomson's excellent work (KUDOS and THANK YOU!!!), per WP:NEXIST topics are notable if the sources exist. Not after they are referenced! gidonb (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage by reliable independent sources to establish notability. Serratra (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the closer: this is the first and only edit of a new user. gidonb (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So my vote should be discounted? Is that what you’re saying? Serratra (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that the closer should weigh this information with all the other information, as they see fit. Nothing personal. Welcome to Wikipedia! gidonb (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not buying that a new editor comes along and !votes at an AfD as their first edit. Heard all the excuses before - long-time lurker, alt account, forgot original account, etc, but at the end of the day with no other information, this isn't normal above-board behaviour. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a full chapter in a shipbuilding book on the company, and entire book on the company in Portuguese, so it's notable. BruceThomson (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2023 (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.