Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piña, Darién


 * 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. There is a consensus that habited locations are inherantly notable. Spartaz Humbug! 03:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Piña, Darién

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Very short, unreferenced stub. Google search does not show how this place might be notable. EdwardZhao (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and possibly rename - In the Darién, there are two different names frequently given to the same place, "Puerto Piña" and "Bahia Piña."   It even has an airport where Air Panama has scheduled flights to.   I don't know which is the proper name, but given long standing convention of population places, this is a definite keep.  "Very short" is not a deletion criteria.   --Oakshade (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for clearing that up. A link from the Air Panama site claims the place is an extremely popular tourism destination, but it is promotional in nature (like a travel guide). Google News results are mostly non-English, so I am unable to find a reliable source, but someone fluent in Spanish would probably have better luck. Mere existence does not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.--EdwardZhao (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per long standing convention in Wikipedia, all population centers are inherently notable regardless of size. A clearly verified town even with its own airport is warranted for inclusion.  Reliable sources in an non-English language doesn't make then non-reliable. --Oakshade (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Can you point me to a discussion (or guideline page) where this convention was established? I am still new to AFD and I would like to gain a better understanding of criteria for AFDs. Also, I did not say that non-English sources are unreliable, but the language barrier makes it much harder for me to find reliable sources in Spanish.--EdwardZhao (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Every AfD on a verified town/city/village. See the WP:NPLACE section of WP:OUTCOMES.--Oakshade (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--EdwardZhao (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have tagged the page for rescue because articles about populated places aren't supposed to be deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment&mdash;I agree with the suggested rename to "Puerto Piña" (Pineapple Port). "Bahia Piña" is likely the name of the port's bay. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason not to list every populated area in the world. And it even has its own airport.   D r e a m Focus  04:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is now referenced, per WP:NPLACE. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NPLACE jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 22:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NPLACE --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:NPLACE is neither policy, guideline nor even an essay, it is merely a section in WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Thus "Keep per WP:NPLACE" is in fact nothing more than 'keep because we've kept similar articles in the past', and thus comes dangerously close to a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Precedent alone is a a very bad guide for future action. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree it is not a policy or guideline, it shows a general consensus. I do not think it is at all like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS because the rationale for keeping it is based on the general consensus that such places are notable.  Unless someone contests that the place does not exist, I am unaware of any AfD for a populated town/city/village being deleted.  To me, that is consensus and not just "other crap."  At any rate, I think "per WP:NPLACE is still a valid and legitimate argument to keep this article.  jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 21:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It offers no insight whatsoever as to the reasoning behind why previous consensuses formed, and thus no assurance that such reasoning either (i) continues to be accepted or (ii) applies to the specific instance under consideration. "Per WP:NPLACE" is the worst sort of mindless groupthink, that should not be considered an adequate replacement for an actual reasoned argument. It simply leads to consensus-by-inertia. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's thing about opinions. None are right or wrong.   jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 21:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as referenced article regarding populated place, and it seems likely that an individual seeking information on this subject would come here to learn.  78.26  (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as it does not meet the general notability guideline that all articles must pass, having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". To re-iterate Hrafn above, determinations of outcomes are determined not by consensus but by Consensus, and guideline Deletion guidelines for administrators is relevent here, and in particular it's advice on determining rough consensus: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." It's also worth noting that the header on the top of this very page directs all contributors to Articles_for_deletion, says to make recomendations "sustained by arguments," and another linnked from that bar List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates says clearly that "if [an essay]] is used to support deletion or to keep an article proposed for deletion, a good explanation should be given as to why one believes it supports his/her case.  Thus, to those who'd like to keep this article, please provide multiple instances of signifigant coverage in reliable sources. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: lack of significant coverage, and more importantly lack of a reasoned argument as to why overlooking this deficiency is in the best interests of Wikipedia. An encyclopaedia is not an atlas, so is under no burden to provide information on every geographical locality, no matter how obscure and ill-documented (a function that even an atlas doesn't attempt, I would note). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:25, 13 July 2011 (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.