Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Vicente de Paul

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 the villages, delete the neighbourhoods. Primefac (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Vicente de Paul

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

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. San Vicente de Paul is a little neighborhood with no non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. It's almost exactly the same situation that happened with a lot of Pichilemu-related articles that were deleted some time ago for the same reasons (coincidentally, these Santa Cruz neighbourhoods articles were created by the same author who created the deleted Pichilemu ones). Sfs90 (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the related pages (mentioned under the first article nominated [San Vicente de Paul]) because the same reasons above; the only reference of these articles is a list of representatives and local organisations on the Municipality of Santa Cruz, that is not a legal recognition of the neighbourhoods:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added the other pages that were nominated in the same timeframe. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sfs90, you have not marked Mi Futuro, Nueva Esperanza, Nueva Extremadura, or Pablo Neruda as being nominated for deletion. If you wish to nominated them as well, please add the AFD notice.~~ Also, I have reversed your creation-then-nomination of the various redirects. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, Done. Thanks for the message! --Sfs90 (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are several places listed which are actually villages or little towns ("pueblos"). These include El Tambo, La Puerta, Isla del Guindo, Quinahue, Chomedahue, La Finca, Las Cortaderas, Panamá, La Patagua, San José de Apalta, Los Maitenes and Villa Alegre. They are all notable as per the notability guidelines for geographic features. The remainder should be deleted because they are only neighborhoods and do not comply with Wikipedia's aforementioned guidelines. 201.215.141.30 (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting fact in the previous message given by an IP address is that, according to their contributions history, it looks that the person behind that IP is nothing else than Diego Grez, a user who was blocked some time ago because of their continuous disruptive editing and WP:COI (mainly because he is the "owner" of a "newspaper" in their little city). In this time, he is editing and reverting without any reason some articles in which I have edited in the last days (for example Mayor of Pichilemu, insisting to add their second surname and reverting every edit I made there). --Sfs90 (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if that was true (which it isn't) there is no need to use such a derogatory language against the individual you mention. Nor there is need to be rude, you have removed my comments from your talk page because I edit as an IP. Seems to me that your own behaviour is an interesting fact. But, I advise you Sfs90, keep your head cool. I hope we can work out things in a civil, respectful way. --201.215.141.30 (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very interesting that you're looking (maybe like a WP:HOUND) on other languages Wikis to create a discussion here that has absolutely nothing related with the discussion here (the deletion of some articles). That's exactly the attitude Diego Grez had, and makes me think again that you're under the IP address editing in such an arbitrary way. --Sfs90 (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pure fallacious ad hominem reasoning. This is utter non sense. 201.215.141.30 (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep, at a minimum, El Tambo, as "El Tambo, Santa Cruz, Chile" into Google Earth pulls up a populated place, listed as a "village" in the stub article. I am tempted to say that all should be kept on procedural grounds, since there is at least this one sheep being lead to the slaughter. One line stubs listed as a "neighborhood" I have less problem with, but I don't think it is fair to have to pick through a massive laundry list to clean up bad nominations caused by the nominator not following WP:BEFORE. Carrite (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - El Tambo, La Puerta, Isla del Guindo, Quinahue, Chomedahue, La Finca, Las Cortaderas, Panamá, La Patagua, San José de Apalta, Los Maitenes and Villa Alegre — all are legitimate villages, populated places, and thus auto-keeps. I trust IP 201 above has picked through the list to figure out the sheep from the goats. TROUT to the nominator for a really terrible, potentially very destructive, mass nomination. Carrite (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep legitimate villages, delete mere neighborhoods (unless they can pass WP:GNG), be very careful not to confuse which placenames are which kind of place. And let's please remember that IP editors are people too, and owed WP:AGF just as much as registered users. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 02:50, 20 August 2017 (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.