Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay Garden


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  03:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Bay Garden

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails GNG. Some of the citations are advertising, directories, or blogs by the owners. Much of the article is citation-less OR. Grorp (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Grorp (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Comment . While I'm not ready to make a !vote recommendation as yet, if this article is kept it will need significant work. To address the significant WP:VER and potential WP:REFBOMB issues. And to remove (or at the very least attribute) the currently uncited and unattributed opinions, unqualified commentary and (at best) quasi-promotional tone. Guliolopez (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I posted some extra notes at Talk:Bay Garden based on your edit summary questions/ponderings and other comments. Grorp (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak delete. The subject appears to be a private garden that was occasionally open to visitors. And is since closed. While there is some coverage of the subject in mostly specialist sources (irishgardenplantsociety.com), some limited local/property news (Gorey Guardian) and "directory style" entries in tourist publications (Georgina Campbell Guide), I'm not seeing how it rises to the level of SIGCOV. While, in marginal cases like this, I would tend err on the side of a "keep", and while I'm trying not to be, I find myself disquieted by the volume of PROMO, REFBOMBing, and the apparent misrepresentation of sources found in the original creation. While, as noted above, much of this uncited and promotional text could simply be removed, even if we did that, all we'd be left with is a (sub)stub. I therefore can't force myself to advocate a "keep".... Guliolopez (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - not a notable garden, fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The cited sources are either promitional or trivial mentions. Found no significant coverage that can be used to improve the article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.