Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Joaquin de la Vega


 * 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

San Joaquin de la Vega

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly written, unsourced article about a non-notable place. United States Man (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Looks like a real town to me. I've just reduced it to a stub and removed the bad translation from the Spanish WP article.--Oakshade (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can find and add sources I would consider withdrawing. United States Man (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Verified settlements, cities, towns, etc., are generally considered inherently notable as it's impossible for them to exist without sources (see WP:OUTCOMES). This being an isolated village in a Spanish speaking nation in what many people would consider a "developing" region makes finding online sources for English speakers difficult.  Whether on paper and/or in Spanish, they certainly exist.--Oakshade (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I really don't see how we can keep an article with no sources, regardless of notability. United States Man (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As WP:AFD states, barring serious BLP issues, if sources exist but are simply not in the article, that's not a proper basis for deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per reasons outlined in the generally-accepted (not current) version of WP:NPLACE. Ansh666 11:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - article has been moved to San Joaquín de la Vega; current title redirects there. Ansh666 11:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I did that. This article could very possibly be saved; but, as a starter, it should be saved from the monopoly of Manolito, at least until 18:09 hours local time, to give them some time to develop their English. (I cannot write more openly, because I would not like to breach any policy or guideline. :-) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't follow. Ansh666 17:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved the article to the correct name of the place, that is all. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is about a permanently populated town, so it should be presumed to be notable. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "inherent notability", I assume you mean "presumed notable". Ansh666 10:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Its a legitimate concept. I'm essentially arguing that towns with permanent populations automatically meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ansh666 01:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine, I give. I've edited my comment, although this doesn't change my belief that towns with permanent populations are deserving of articles. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:34, 20 June 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.