Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanah Runcuk

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tanah Runcuk

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

Not notable. Article creator is WP:SPA. Citobun (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be notable, but it being this editor's first contribution to Wikipedia is not a reason for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The artwork isn't independently notable. I have a left a welcome template on the author's talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Barely any input, hopefully another week will help build a more obvious consensus. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin I suggest either a relist or a WP:SOFTDELETE if there is no input. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's now sufficient consensus, the information itself is bare and nothing lends actual substance, apart from the few bits of information which still amount to no needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like an interesting topic, so I put some effort into searching for sources. Alas, could not find any. There's a version of this on id, where it may be more appropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:57, 26 December 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.