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 keep. Sources have been added so the nomination is moot. A reminder that Wikipedia has no deadline and AfD is not for cleanup. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lang Suir

[edit]

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

Completely unsourced despite being flagged for three years. Once again, completely unsourced for three years, and could have been quietly prodded. But mass-deprodder insisted all these unsourced articles should stay up. Source it or cut it. I have no problem with it being kept if it can be sourced and improved, but someone needs to see if that is really possible and then do so. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CorbieVreccan: As I stated in my deprod comment, "Unsourced is not a valid WP:DEL-REASON." Is there some other delete justification you'd like us to consider? WP:NOT? WP:N? WP:V? ~Kvng (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is clearly notable as OED, for example, cites the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society back in 1881. When checking this out, please note the alternative spellings of langsuir and langsuyar. Andrew D. (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The onus is on you, CorbieVreccan to improve articles WP:BEFORE nominating them for deletion. It is not good form to demand under threat of WP:PROD or WP:AFD that others do the work you want to see done. Many articles on Wikipedia develop very slowly these days. An article that has not seen significant improvement in three years is not hopeless. ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Draft if someone actually needs it because I have found some links at Books but this is still questionable for the current improvements and we all know what's happened if we simply wait for articles to be improved.... SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a fresh example of the process. I started the article Hermione Hobhouse back in 2014. Today, two years later, I noticed two editors chatting about the category:Hobhouse family. I recalled the subject, added her into the category and so the related topics develop. Deletion is not our policy in such cases because it is disruptive. Andrew D. (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer – See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the other that this AFD is against WP guidelines. However, I have also added multiple inline citations to reliable sources, so the article should certainly stay. --Iamozy (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is not Cleanup, and at any rate the original concerns of the nominator appear to have been addressed. I don't see that anyone has come up with any valid reasons to delete. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid reason given for delete. ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2016 (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.