Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diego Díaz Island

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. Missvain (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Díaz Island

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. A web search, using both the English and Spanish names, returns only the Wikipedia page. This location cannot be found on Google Maps. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google maps brings it up no problem. I’ve found and added one further source. Passes WP:GEOLAND Mccapra (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The island's existence isn't really the problem here, NOTABILITY is. And, since the island is apparently unpopulated and has no notability about it, it does, indeed, fail GEOLAND. GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The island exist. It is sizable. It is historically relevant (events mentioned by Claude Gay) and relevant enought to be included in the book Diccionario Geográfico de la República de Chile. It would be far-fetched to claim reputed scholars like Claude Gay and Francisco Astaburuaga write about non-existent or an "irrelevant" island. Sietecolores (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It still does not pass GNG: two mentions of an unpopulated place does not qualify as Significant Coverage; and, again, the mere existence of a place does not indicate any notability whatsoever. Do you have a policy-based reason to ivote keep? —or do you just not like the deletion nomination? GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A web search, using both the English and Spanish names still only returns this Wikipedia page. A search of Google maps today asks me to Add a missing place to Google maps. I don't doubt the island exists, it's just that when I search for it using Google maps it is not found. The inclusion of the island in a Gazetteer (published in 1899) does not confer notability, however notable the author. The Arauco War, according to Wikipedia, lasted from 1598 to 1753. Not every action and location in this protracted conflict is worthy of mention. The fact that Claude Gay mentions the island does not confer notabiliy. Whatever Gay said or wrote about the island might be worty of a mention in his Wikipedia article, though I doubt it. The island might be worth mentioning in the Biobío River article, perhaps. As the island is apparently unpopulated it is unlikely that this orphan article will be expanded beyond a few sentences.2A00:23C6:3B82:8500:B873:6A79:37E:C6AC (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The valiant efforts of Mccapra still leave me thinking we haven't achieved WP:GEOLAND here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.