Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hacienda Juanita


 * 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. Feel free to renominate in a few months. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 16:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hacienda Juanita

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominate for deletion No evidence of notability. Tagged for over 5 years as of doubtful notability. Seems to be just an advert for an average small hotel. Boleyn (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a notable place or building in itself (e.g., not in any historical register), would fail WP:CORP as a business, and apparently it's no longer in business. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 10:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 10:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

pretty sure this qualifies under WP:GEOFEAT as notable since this is considered a historic landmark in Puerto Rico (being an hacienda and a historic landmark of the coffee industry in Puerto Rico). I'm also like 90% sure that the hacienda is considered a historic site by the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture. Let me summon the guys from WP:PUR to see if they know more about this as I'm not an expert on these matters. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK I found something. There's an entry for Hacienda Juanita at the Puerto Rico National Library. Go to and do a search for Hacienda Juanita. Unfortunately, the library is not digitalized yet so someone from WP:PUR would have to physically go to a public library in Puerto Rico to obtain a copy of the record. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You can also contact the Puerto Rico National Library yourself by sending them a request for information through the form available at . &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment No prejudice to reversing my !vote if you guys can come up with something, but failing an appearance on a historical register, or some other place-related notability, I am treating this as a company, subject to WP:CORP. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 02:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  Delete it  Does not meet notability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrolord (talk • contribs) 09:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - more than sufficient content in Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 *  Strong Keep — A simple search in Google Books brings up loads of content in both English & Spanish. This one even states "it's importance as a coffee plantation". — DivaKnockouts (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps it asserts the importance of the location (and a single source wouldn't do anyway), but not of this particular building. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment There are 10 reliable sources on the first page of results for "Hacienda Juanita" on Google Books alone. I think that asserts that the building, now a museum is notable. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry, I'm not trying to fight you here. The best result of any AFD is a 'keep'. But let's be honest. The first one in your 10 book results is a Spanish textbook, 2, 3 and 4 are tourist guides, the fifth is about horses, the sixth has nothing to do with the subject, and the other four are also tourist guides. Those tourist guides mention the place in the context of it being a hotel, which as far as I understand no longer exists, and there is no evidence that it was notable to begin with. Thus the need to establish some kind of basic WP:GEO-related or historical notability for the place. Just having been there for many years is not enough. I see no such thing, just as I didn't see it when I first offered my delete !vote. So I ask again, where is the evidence that this place is notable beyond just existing and being a hotel listed in out-of-date travel guides? § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Added 2 sources - FreeRangeFrog, have you looked in Spanish sources? I immediately found 2 sources - admittedly 1 was Lonely Planet in English, which discuss the building itself, when it was built 1833/4, the name of the Spanish lady who built it, the fact that it was "one of the earliest" paradores in 1976. Hotels can be notable. This is. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about this? Or this? How do listings in guides among hundreds of other places establish notability? And yes, I can read Spanish perfectly fine, thanks. Do you have any Spanish-language sources I could look at? I searched for "hacienda Juanita Maricao Puerto Rico historia" and a bunch of other combinations and I couldn't find anything in Books or Web. § FreeRangeFrog  croak 00:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * FreeRangeFrog, mentions in tourist sources which go beyond simple listings and give additional information can and in this case do establish notability. Particularly in the case of a "parador" - which by definition is based in a historical building. In any case I have added further sources which go beyond that first run. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 06:40, 10 February 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.