Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paleorrota


 * 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   delete. With no prejudice to a new article being created at the same title that honestly represents the sources provided by User:Capmo. I will be happy to userify this article on request for anyone who would like to work on such a project. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Paleorrota

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'd like to bring to your attention Portuguese AFD which conclude this subject is a miscellany of original research, use of wikipedia to promote a very (I'd like to stress very) obscure subject. I'm sorry to post a link to a portuguese page as my reason and I'm willing to clarify any point if necessary. sorry for bad english. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't speak Portuguese but it is highly likely that there are some differences between the English and Portuguese WIkipedias. Also, just because something happens in one of them does not mean that it should happen everywhere. Stewart of Appin  ~  Follow the Bonnie Prince!   15:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: OTAVIO1981, I think you do have to clarify your points, because basically you just linked us to another discussion, in Portuguese, which few people are able to fully understand. What would be your arguments for the deletion of that page? Basically, the AFD discussion at the PT Wikipedia concluded that most of the article was original research supported by highly questionable sources, that such geopark does not exist, and that the user who created it was closely related to the subject. However, some users admitted that a small part of the article was relevant, and they decided to create a page called "Paleontology of Rio Grande do Sul" with material coming off that page. Victão Lopes  Fala! 19:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete partly on the WP:BLOWITUP principle and, particularly, because I can't see much (or any) evidence that a recognised Geopark exists of this name. I got momentarily excited when I saw a UK Daily Mail article but, unfortunately, Paleorrota isn't mentioned anywhere in it. The non-English language Wikipedias normally have a much lower inclusion criteria than the English one and I'm inclined to believe a large number of Portuguese speaking Wikipedia editors when they say there's no evidence this Geopark exists. It is quite probably a piece of original synthesis by the 'Paleorrota Group' and their web forum. The UNESCO list of Geoparks only includes Geopark Araripe for Brazil, for example. To be honest, if someone could point to one example of a reliable source which establishes the existence of this place, I would probably recommend a 'keep and clean up'. But it looks to me like this article has been a plaything for a single editor for plenty long enough and something major needs to be done. Sionk (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. , I agree that you guys can reach a different conclusion about this article. I didn't analyze how different portuguese and english article were but since I looked for reliable sources and pt and couldn't find any, I opened this AFD without check if they were different. , my only argumment is that are no reliable source about "paleorrota" or "paleoroute". All hits at google are related to this forum group that try to create this geopark or mirrors from wikipedia. google books or google scholar don't return anything about such geopark. (to be very fair, "this paper" mentioned paleorrota but is a copyvio of this version of karamuru vorax's article). Yes, you are correct that some editors mentioned that exists a relevant activity in paleontology in Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil) and decided to create pt:Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sul (check google translation) which I believe is somehow similar to a clean up mentioned by. However, pay attention that "Paleontologia do Rio Grande do Sul"'s article don't mention paleorrota since there's no reliable source to point this as an area or even as an informal name for an area in Rio Grande do Sul. Regards, OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That said, I vote for delete per the above reasons. In addition, the article seems to gather too much loosely related information, it could benefit from a major cleanup, to say the least. Victão Lopes  Fala! 00:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree with what Victor Lopes said above, that the article needs a cleanup. However, I have found various citations to Paleorrota in official documents from all levels of government:
 * Federal:
 * Ministry of Mines and Energy (page 376)
 * State:
 * Secretary of Tourism of Rio Grande do Sul
 * Secretary of Tourism of Rio Grande do Sul, "Santos Caminhos da Fé"
 * Local:
 * Municipality of Santa Maria and 9 other cities of the region: "Santos Caminhos da Fé" (page 2)
 * Municipality of Candelária (page 19)
 * Even though there is no such thing as an official geopark, the concept of Paleorrota seems to be widely spread in the region, as these documents attest. The article could be kept if this point is made very clear in the lead. Alternatively, the article could be renamed to Paleontology in Rio Grande do Sul, with the required adaptations to the text. —capmo (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice to recreation of an article that properly represents the sourcing. This article, under this title, fails WP:V. I see this as more than a cleanup issue - we essentially are creating a new article. Since it would be a new article, there's no need to preserve this edit history. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  15:36, 4 July 2014 (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.