Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Las Araucarias

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. Sandstein 17:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Las Araucarias

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

As said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Navegantes (that deleted part of the "neighborhoods of Pichilemu" articles): Fails WP:GEOLAND. The neighborhoods are not "legally" recognized by Chilean Law as territorial units (they are not part of administrative, electoral or census divisions). Juntas de vecinos are not a legal recognition of a place, because they are not government bodies, they are voluntary NGOs based in a territory chosen by their founders. In fact, it could be possible to find more than one junta de vecinos in the same neighborhood, or a junta that is composed by neighbors of two or more different neighborhoods. Villa Los navegantes is a little neighborhood (of 200 inhabitants) with no non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Sfs90 (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate the following related pages because the same reasons; the only reference of this articles is a list of representatives of local organizations on the Municipality of Pichilemu, that is not a legal recognition of the neighborhoods:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and question: I don't see why not to believe that they are neighborhoods in fact, but I agree that just a single sentence like "X is a neighborhood in Pichilemu" is not helpful enough to exist as a separate article. Each gives no information about position relative to adjacent neighborhoods, for example. Information about neighborhoods can be far better conveyed by a list-article including a map showing all their locations. I suppose List of neighborhoods in Pichilemu could be created; these could all be redirected to that. But unless someone is interested in creating that now, I suggest instead redirecting all to the Geography section in the Pichilemu article, which could be revised to mention them. It is curious that there has been no need to mention its neighborhoods, so far, in the well-developed Pichilemu article. Question: has the creator of the neighborhoods' stubs been contacted and encouraged to develop something more? --do ncr am 08:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's impossible because the creator (User:Diego Grez-Cañete) has been banned indefinitely, precisely because of their disruptive editing and making a lot of Pichilemu-related stubs without the neccesary relevance, or giving to them more relevance than the real one (sometimes falling under WP:COI and continuing to do that, after it was advised that he should stop with their editing). Also, as I said before, there was a deletion request some months ago that deleted only a part of the neigborhood-related articles (in that time, Warko asked for all the rest of articles to also be deleted, and the administrator in charge deleted only the mentioned in the list of that DR; that's why I'm asking this time for full deletion (without redirects or something else) of these articles, because of the incomplete deletion of that time. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Okay now I have looked enough through stuff about the ban of that user. And the city is small, just 13,000 population. And if its neighborhoods are important, they can/should be listed first in the city article. --do ncr am 03:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can the closer please move Nueva Vida (disambiguation) over the vacated slot. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playa Hermosa, Pichilemu: Meets WP:GNG.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "El Marino" reports that User:Northamerica1000 put on their message are invalid, since there's a clear WP:COI because the author of that articles (Diego Grez, owner of "El Marino" website) and the user "Diego Grez Cañete" (who was also the creator of most Pichilemu-related articles here on Wikipedia) are the same person, who was banned for their disruptive editing and violating guidelines about COI. Keeping apart the El Marino reports, and according to El Tipógrafo reports, there's insufficient evidence about the notability of a neigborhood. --Sfs90 (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfs90: I'm not seeing that. It states on the El Marino pages that the website's director is Mario Grez Lorca, but the page's creator was Diego Grez-Cañete. Mario and Diego seem like two different people, because the names are different. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Mario Grez Lorca is probably the father of Diego Grez Cañete (the user blocked here because of WP:COI). And also, since February 2016, Mario Grez Lorca it's only the interim director. You could also see in that page that "Carmen Cañete Sotelo" is the "subdirector", and with the Cañete surname I could assume that this woman is probably her mother (Grez and Cañete are the two surnames of a person here in Chile, and "coincidentally" are the same two surnames of Diego Grez Cañete). And in the same page it states clearly that the owner of the "digital newspaper" is Diego Grez Cañete. A true family business, isn't it? All this thing gives only more evidence to the WP:COI. But let's focus on content, please. All pages or reports published on "El Marino" are invalid to these cases because of the COI mentioned from some time ago. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what about the two El Tipógrafo articles? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All: This is a WP:WALLEDGARDEN. The creator of these articles cites content written by himself, on a website published by himself, as a source. A small neighborhood having a neighbors association doesn't establish notability. Vrac (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC) (P.S.: a reminder that the entire population of Pichilemu is about 14,000. The detail of coverage is massively WP:UNDUE) Vrac (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all instead as there's nothing particularly suggestive of their own actually independently notable articles. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 27 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.