Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightlife in Ponce, Puerto Rico


 * 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. No consensus to Delete, and while the unanimous view was towards Keep, there is also a strong view that the content, structure, and positioning of the article needs to be improved (e.g. "tourism in Ponce" proposal). (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Nightlife in Ponce, Puerto Rico

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A personal reflection / tourist guide article. Sources are non-reliable sources. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. I did WP:BEFORE and found only tourist web sites. To put this in context, the only other "Nightlife in ..." article that I can find is Nightlife in Bangkok, which also looks like it's on shaky ground; Ponce only had a population of 166,000 in 2010! A New York Times article from 2008 says "But you don't go to Ponce for thriving night life. The city is best for those who admire art and architecture and can enjoy soaking in its ambience." Indeed, all of the included photos of Ponce nightlife are of a city strangely devoid of people. Lopifalko (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 *  Delete  Merge to Ponce, Puerto Rico, with intent to edit for concision and tone. This is more fitting for WikiTravel. Even if there was some substantial content in this article (boiling this one down to an encyclopedic tone would remove a substantial amount of length), it would be more appropriate as a heading in Ponce, Puerto Rico until it proves important enough for its own article. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I realized my vote didn't reflect what I actually think here. The content has merit— I just don't see justification for a separate article. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per discussion below and edits by Mercy11 Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The arguments in the nomination lack merit:
 * "Sources are non-reliable".........The "Faulty generalization" fallacy --- "Because the article had 1 unreliable source, all other 7 sources must also be unreliable."
 * "I found only tourist sites".........The "Blind men and an elephant" fallacy --- "Because this is all I saw, this must be all that exists."
 * "The only other article is Nightlife in Bangkok"......... An example of WP:OTHERSTUFF --- "Because there aren't articles like this in WP, this article should be deleted."
 * "Ponce only (Weasel word) has a population of 166,000".........The "Appeal to probability" fallacy --- "Because the city has x # of inhabitants, it couldn't possibly have nightlife."
 * "In 2008 NYT said don't go there for nightlife".........The "Historian's fallacy" --- "If it was so before, it's got to be so now."
 * ''"Photos are devoid of people".........The "Fallacy of composition" --- "Because there weren't crowds of people the nights of the pics, there are never crowds of people."
 * In any event, the article isn't missing sources or notability, what it might be missing is some additional work: it could, for example, be improved with more relevant photos, although photos aren't required for an article to exist, and it could have more cites than the 7 government, sociology and cultural sources currently there, so it can do full justice to its current "Level C" assessment. Mercy11 (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Any argument as to why this is better as a standalone article than an expansion of the main article on Ponce? I'm with you that it doesn't need to be purged from the encyclopedia altogether, just not seeing the benefit to it being a standalone. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I expanded the article to address what I perceived are issues of concern. Let's hope I was on target; if not, no loss, I can still invest a bit more time in that article. Since your update above and my recent update of the article a few minutes ago seem to have crossed, please advise if you have standing concerns. Ditto for . Mercy11 (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, upon re-reading your statements above, my thought was that this would be too much weight in the Ponce, PR, article. I could make a summary in the Ponce, PR article and head it with a Main hatnote. Will that work? Mercy11 (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen your edit, thanks for pointing it out. My idea with merging was to trim down unsourced content so that it wouldn't be so much weight in the main article, but I think after your changes, you're absolutely right that it's too much to add there. I agree with you on the hatnote and summary. I'm changing my vote above in light of these changes. I think there's still a few small issues with tone in the article, but you've resolved a large part of those. I'll watch the article too and might do some minor edits for POV once I clear up some other things I'm working on. Thanks! Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. As nom notes, it is weird that "all of the included photos of Ponce nightlife are of a city strangely devoid of people."  If no user-supplied Commons pics of actual nightlife in Ponce are available, how about:
 * add pics of life in daytime in Ponce?
 * add pics of nightlife elsewhere?
 * get some stock footage / Getty images? (Please make sure these suggest racial diversity.)
 * --Doncram (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what's all the focus on pictures:
 *  Lack of pictures isn't a reason to delete articles. 
 * Still, if someone wants to see relevant pics, here are some:
 * HERE   HERE    HERE    HERE    HERE    HERE    HERE    HERE    HERE
 * Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Well my "suggestion" wasn't really serious. Hey thanks for those links.  I see the last one is video about the Carnaval in Ponce, and I would think that should be mentioned.  Hmm, it _is_ mentioned by a link to a separate Carnaval de Ponce article, but that link is buried in second paragraph of a section titled "Family-oriented events".  Maybe there was intended to be an end to the "Family" section; perhaps a new section title is needed, and/or there could be different organization and more coverage about Carnaval, say.


 * But also BTW i think
 * Carnaval de Ponce has no pic of Carnaval (and i am not sure but might not include any link to that video; it would be a better first "external link" than what is there imho)
 * Ponce Jazz Festival has no pic of jazz
 * Fiesta Nacional de la Danza has no pic of danza
 * Día Mundial de Ponce has no pic of Monday (?)
 * Feria de Artesanías de Ponce has no pic of artesanias
 * Festival Nacional de la Quenepa does have pic of quenepa, but not of the festival :(
 * I think these are okay as articles, but someone oughta get out there and snap some pics! :) --Doncram (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Tell me about it. I was in P.R. snapping pics while I was driving. I've tried to recruit people in P.R. to take pics and post them but so far, no cigar-I mean luck. I even sent my cousin a camera, a good, expensive camera and asked him to post to Flicker. I think he's too busy surviving to help me with what he feels is my little hobby. Not fair! When I went to P.R. in May, my sister suspected that maybe I'd gone just / only to take pics for Wikipedia.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You know, like the bulk of the millions of articles in WP, this isn't like the NRHP articles for which, the second a place has been nominated and published, you know we can immediately go and choose from a wide assortment of FREE PD pics made available to us courtesy of the US Govt and immediately available for download. Let me see what I can come up with -- perhaps I can abstract a frame from one of the events in the "HERE" list above. I know pics are important but also know this sort of pics can be considerably more difficult to come by because it's not your everyday Joe who will be out the streets, with a good nighttime camera, deep into the late night (aka, past 11PM), and most likely in the weekends, shooting flash photography into the crowds. As far as the Carnaval de Ponce, Las Mañanitas, Fiestas patronales, and even theatrical presentations at Teatro La Perla, etc., all are part of the nightlife of a place, but for some reason some seem to think that unless there's a pic of a huge billboard of Bacardi or a huge super-sized (i.e., 20 ft high) bottle of Don Q, or pics showing crowds of people chin-to-chin and elbow-to-elbow drinking and dancing salsa or rock-and-roll, then, it's doesn't qualify as nightlife...a very narrow view, imo. Anyway, I took down the pics that were there and will try to post better ones. IAE, if anything, this exercise may be helping leapfrog the article to into GA level! (a blessing in disguise!) BTW, yes, external video was my thought too. take care, Mercy11 (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * jealous, much? :)  However most of the 78,629(!) illustrated NRHP places (83%!) have non-PD pics, and only in very few cases (when Federal employees took the pics or when the PR SHPO contracted out pic-taking for a series of churches that i think u might be thinking of) are the pics submitted in NRHP applications PD.  Except rarely there are HABS pics, which are pd.  And someone is telling me that pre-1978 pics are PD.  But extremely few nrhp articles or list-articles have been promoted, so if u do that then i will concede Ponce > nrhp . :( --Doncram (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Haha, you make a few great points. Thanks for the facts! Mercy11 (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep While some authors refer to Ponce's nightlife as "destructive malevolence" (while analyzing a famous folk, Plena song about a woman named "Elena" who was slashed and rushed to the hospital...) I thought Ponce's nightlife was amazing and will never forget it.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination makes a claim but lacks merit because none of the 6 arguments used to support the claim are based on WP:PG, or any other WP guide (MOS, etc.) -- at least not once their inherent fallacies are removed. Frankly, the 6 arguments just seem "thrown at the wall to see if anything sticks". This is not how we operate.  Mercy11 (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that Mercy11 is the original author of the article in question. The only notability policy I put this AfD forward on was whether or not it passes WP:GNG. I also state sources do not pass WP:V and that I did WP:BEFORE. The other points mentioned in the nomination merely fall under "To put this in context..." My point about WP:GNG still stands, even against the article as it now looks having been exentsively worked on during this AFD: do any of the sources pass WP:GNG? Are they independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject (nightlife in Ponce), or is the notability of Ponce's nightlife a made-up construct from lots of little pieces that do not in themselves focus on the whole subject? The article reads like an advert for nightlife establishmentnts in Ponce. The first half of the sources are travel sites, generic sources to support basic claims (e.g. "Puerto Rico Laws governing the sale and purchase of alcohol"), and a directory. The latter half of the sources regard some specific festivals that take place, rather than ongoing nightlife, not enough to base an article on the notability of its nightlife on; and from sources such as Primera Hora (Puerto Rico) which isn't reliable; and La Perla del Sur which is a local newspaper. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is the sort of topic our core readership -- students -- will look for. The sourcing and text are not great, but do not throw out the baby with the bath water. There's many, many reliable sources online. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you able to list some of those reliable sources here? -Lopifalko (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep in accordance with many of the above comments and on the grounds of recent improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards keep, but not necessarily as it is now: The main article on Ponce, Puerto Rico is already big, it does not need this to be merged in, but an article on tourism in Ponce would be a good home for this, and could be expanded a lot, probably with adequate verifiable and sufficiently notable sources. My suggestion is to consider moving to a general tourism article for Ponce, and expanding to meet that scope. Some of the current tourism related content in Ponce could be split out to the new article, with short summaries left in the original, which will help with the size problem., would this remedy your concerns? , would you consider this a reasonable compromise?
 * Some of the information could also possible find a home on Wikivoyage (they do not require references there, and original research is welcome, so it could also be expanded a bit based on personal experience for that article). Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 10:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this sounds sensible. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I will try make some additional adjustments to address new concerns from the nominator regarding the article reading like an ad. The intent here, however, isn't readying it for WP:GA status. Mercy11 (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:WIAFA, Main article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long and has been shrinked by using daughter page as per Summary style. However, The Article needs Major Improvement.  Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 12:49, 27 November 2019 (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.