Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punta Carnero (Ecuador)

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 no consensus. Suggest a merger discussion be had on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punta Carnero (Ecuador)[edit]

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

No evidence that this is a notable beach, reads more like promotional material for a beach. Possibly some of it could be merged to Salinas,_Ecuador OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- nothing more than an advertisement. --CliffC (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commentes.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punta_Carnero_(Ecuador) no body touches the one in spanish that has been up for a long time! donde es posible con nana en english y mucho en espanoL! muchos gracious! CliffC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonsairolex (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Spanish Wikipedia is of not concern or relevance to English Wikipedia; they are entirely independent projects. I've already posted instructions on your talk page regarding how to participate in AfD discussions; please stop posting the text of the article in it's entirety here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe Spanish Wikipedia is of not concern or relevance to English Wikipedia; they are entirely independent projects. that makes about as much sense as ,, ahh ... Bonsairolex (talk • the google automatic translator is a new invention and takes a spanish article to an eglish in a second flat!
- Comment What I'm saying is what happens on other language Wikipedias has absolutely no bearing on English Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It does seem to have significant coverage from independent secondary sources, [1][2] thus passing WP:GNG. Reading more like an advert is a matter of editing, not deleting. --Oakshade (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Both of those are travel guides. It's not surprising that a beach would be listed in a book like that, but I don't think WP:GNG covers every single attraction commonly listed in a travel guide. I've already merged relevant material into Salinas, Ecuador; I'm not seeing why a beach needs it's own article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RS, travel guides are considered reliable sources for establishing WP:GNG as they are independent of the topic and there is editorial control over their content. You might not like certain types of topics being worthy of coverage, but that is not a basis of deleting articles.--Oakshade (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the word "travel" in WP:RS. I never said I didn't like the article. I originally tried to clean it up, before realizing there was little salvageable and moving what was salvageable to the Salinas article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS doens't have to say "travel." That's silly game playing. It stipulates that sources independant of the article topic and that has editorial control over its content are considered reliable sources. If you'd like WP:RS to make an exception for anything travel related, you need to make your case on the WP:RS, not invent your own meaning in an AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep -I don't know why you want to delete this page. It has reliable sources (according to the Wikipedia guidelines), it doesn't host content that is in violation of copyright and it's not an original research. As for its notability, I think in this case it's debatable. For me, for example, Sylvan Beach, New York it's also very small and probably not vey important, but I don't think that its page should be deleted. Putting all Punta Carnero's information in Salinas doesn't seem appropriate. It would be like saying that the Sylvan Beach article should be deleted and all the information should go in Verona Beach State Park. It seems to me that this is more a case of not thinking it's important because it's far away in Ecuador. I think that the article needs improvement, but should not be deleted. Aestrella (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonsairolex (talkThis is an awesome quote, thanks for the support (someone in the community!! deleted my nice beach photos four times,... thanks a million User :Oakshade who spoke on the 11th of August 2011

National Arbor Day Foundation could be added to the Arbor Day but its seperte because it is, just because Ecuador is in South America gives you no authority to take and move Punta Carnero Beach to another community miles and miles away....Bonsairolex (talk This beach is not in Salinas Ecuador and would be like taking the National Arbor Day Foundation page and moving into the Arbor Day page, but you cant , BECASUE THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS; just like Punta Carnero is different from Salinas..

*Keep Punta Carnero Ecuador South America!!!!!

This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources. (...this is what sould read on the top of the Punta Carnero Page......National Arbor Day Foundation, exactly what is on this page!...Bonsairolex (talk

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.