Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cala Tarida


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Cala Tarida

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising. No reliable sources added The Banner talk 13:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Named place of verified existence, keep per longstanding consensus. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Per WP:NGEO. This is not an article about a business that fails to assert notability, it's about a named geographical location or natural feature. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep – This is an article about named geographical location or natural feature. It Has both sources, and indication of significance. keep per longstanding consensus.Dennisbluie (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to be a legitimate geographical place, geological feature, and possibly a populated place. Under all our guidelines and essays regarding these subjects, I see no grounds for deletion. Any POV issues are stylistic and editorial and largely surmountable problems. Mkdw talk 05:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

So, when it is a geographical location it is impossible to delete it, even when it is highly promotional and not reliable sourced? The Banner talk 11:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The short answer, yes. WP:OUTCOMES is what is the most easy to immediate cite. Particularly WP:NPLACE and WP:MAPOUTCOMES. These say that major geological features and places such as attractions often survive AFD. The other regularly cited is WP:NGEO. We technically have no official guideline or policy when it comes to legitimate geographic places especially those that are populated. Wikipedia notes WP:SPAM as, "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." The beaches are public and do not fall directly in line with this definition. While the article reads promotional in style and lacks reliable sources, it's been show that A) it's a legitimate place (as in it exists) and B) that the article contains useful information and would likely need to be re-worded/trimmed/promotional content removed, not deleted because it's "unsalvageable". For example, you could wipe out most of the article except the lead and call it a stub -- this is a non-time consuming edit that would easily make most of them neutral and accurate. Obviously edits would need to be done on a case by case basis but you can see how it's a problem easily solved. These are defined as surmountable problems and are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Mkdw talk 02:29, 3 April 2013 (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.