Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Maravilla


 * 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   Speedy Delete, per CSD G4. Nakon 04:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

La Maravilla

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Seems to be a copy of content previously deleted at Maravilla, the version before the disambiguation page I created. La Maravilla had itself been a disambiguation page, but this edit by an IP readded deleted content. See also Articles for deletion/Maravilla (4th nomination). Since the disambiguation page is now at Maravilla, and there is now only one article called "La Maravilla" (the novel; the album has been deleted), there seems no point in having La Maravilla revert to being a disambiguation page.  Pur ple  back pack 89    06:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regretful delete. It is interesting, but really it is Unsourced. Other sites are picking up this content, and we have no way of telling whether the facts are accurate or not. Certainly the author seems to know what he or she is talking about, but we must have Verifiability, as it says at the bottom of each editing screen. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Comment: Not exactly sure why this was re-listed, as no one has voted to keep and it relates to several other past deletion discussions. If I had prodded, it would be gone by now  Pur ple  back pack 89    04:45, 21 October 2010 (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.