Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fazenda da Bica

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 no consensus. Technical close as non-consenssus, to permit rapid renomination of those articles which,after an adequate search in appropriate sources, cannot be shown to have adequate sourcing for notability. Perhaps a combination article is the solution here? DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fazenda da Bica

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

I am just not seeing notability for this "not officially recognized" region of Rio de Janeiro. This article is completely unsourced. It has a companion article in the Portugese Wikipedia, but only Portuguese. The Portuguese article is not much more extensive than the English article, and all of the links it relies on for references give me 404 errors. There are some external links in the Portuguese version that lead to news articles about a flood in 2009, and these articles do reference this region by way of letting people know where the flood occurred, but are not really useful for describing, discussing, or demonstrating notability of the region. My own searches have turned up another article about someone dying after a farm collapsed in the area, an ad for a farm by that name which sells eggs and poultry, and not a whole lot else.

Template:Rio de Janeiro city neighbourhoods lists a great many "not officially recognized" neighborhoods, many of which (but not all of which) are in similar condition. However, the article on Rio de Janeiro does not discuss these areas or their importance to the life and culture of the city at all. If someone had sources and wanted to craft a section in the article on Rio about unoffical neighborhoods, their history and importance, I think the best idea would be to redirect all of these to that section. But right now there is nothing in the article on Rio about these neighborhoods.

I am also nominating the following "not officially recognized" neighborhoods in Rio for similar reasons (most of these even lack Portuguese articles):

:Castelo, Rio de Janeiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (this one may have more promise; there's a mention in both en and pt of it being something of a hub for art deco architecture, and when I google it there is some discussion of its architecture, but nothing that I would consider a WP:RS - though I did find at least one book in Portuguese on Google books that someone with familiarity with that language should probably look at before this nom is closed.)

Fazenda Botafogo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the reference in the Portuguese article is a 404 error) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rethink the nomination. There is no way that we can have a reasonable discussion about all of these together. They do not all necessarily stand or fall together, so the only thing that can happen with such a single discussion is for different editors to give "keep" or "delete" opinions about different combinations of these districts. I would urge the nominator to close this discussion and nominate a few of these articles separately, and after those discussions are finished to nominate a few more and so on. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that I only nominated 32 out of 37 of these neighborhoods. I found enough indications of notability for the remaining 5 that I did not include them in this group nom. Also, as I noted above, Castelo, Rio de Janeiro maybe actually should be considered separately. Again, as I noted in my nomination, the ideal solution is for someone to craft a section in the article on Rio discussing the concept of unofficial neighborhoods kind of generally, and redirect these there. But someone has to be able to craft that section first and I'm not even finding sufficient sources for that. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Perhaps someone can make some sense of this. The translated version is sort of gobbledygook, but it looks like it's talking about the creation of the official administrative divisions of Rio in the 80s, and may discuss what neighborhoods were in place before that. However, it doesn't really appear to discuss any(?) of these neighborhoods as such (though a couple of them appear to take the names given in WP from streets that are mentioned in that document:Rio das Pedras, Rio Grande, and Mato Alto). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But you can't expect editors commenting here to do the necessary work of checking each of those 32 for notability. If you persist with this approach then this is bound to end in a trainwreck with no consensus. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MULTIAFD indicates AFDs should be bundled when they are, "A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles." All 32 of these, with the exception of Castelo, Rio de Janeiro (which I'm going to strike from this multi AFD simply because it doesn't fit the pattern), consist solely of "X is a region of Rio de Janeiro, but not officially recognized as a neighborhood." (ok - 2 have an additional sentence; Bairro Peixoto also notes that it's officially part of Copacabana, "but has distinct characteristics", and Buraco do Padre has 2 pictures and notes that "Next big city is Ponta Grossa.") All but 4 of them were created by Ivens Portugal on October 19, 2013. That user has not been active since November, 2013. This is a group of articles with identical content but different titles, identical sourcing issues, and it makes sense to discuss them as a group - at least to start. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. I've looked at the first four of these and with trivial effort have found sources for them. I'm buggered if I'm going to look at all 32 of them when it's clear that the nominator has made no effort to check whether these articles meet WP:GEOLAND. If any of them don't then they can be nominated separately on their own merits. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're caught up on how many of them there are, and I'm sorry about that. WP:GEOLAND has the following to say about unofficial neighborhoods:

Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include . . . unofficial neighborhoods – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it.

(underlining mine)

In order to demonstrate notability, sources have to be non-trivial coverage, and there have to be multiple sources. Taking Fonte da Saudade, for example, I mentioned in the nomination statement that I was able to locate news articles about a flood and a building collapse that mentioned they occurred in Fonte da Saudade, but were not about Fonte da Saudade. They demonstrate that the place exists and is known by that name, but not that it is notable and they provide no materials for us to build an article about it. Now you come along and say that with "trivial effort" you have been able to find "sources" for them. You made no addition to the article, which still read exactly as it did when I nominated it, but you did plunk down a news article discussing some buildings which were at risk of being demolished, and residents being afraid that new buildings would replace them that would ruin the view of a building by renowned Brazilian architect Oscar Niemeyer. The article notes that said building is not on the National Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage. This article did allow me to get a better idea of where exactly Fonte da Saudade is, meaning I now have a better idea of where it should be redirected, should this AFD close that way, but it doesn't consist of non-trivial coverage sufficient to build an article about Fonte da Saudade. The article isn't about Fonte da Saudade. Even if it was, it's still only one article, not the multiple articles required by WP:GEOLAND (although if it is considered non-trivial coverage - which it isn't, the ones I found before about the flood and the building collapse would make for multiple).

Moving on to the one you plopped down for Fazenda da Bica, it is even less useful and significant than the one for Fonte da Saudade. It's about people returning to their homes after a mudslide to pick up their buildings. It doesn't even indicate what part of Rio this neighborhood is in.

Horto is an interesting case. The source you found actually described some of the history of the community, and because of the eviction dispute I was able to find quite a few more sources. This should definitely not be deleted, but comparing what we've now found with the state of the article on Jardim Botânico, Rio de Janeiro, the officially recognized neighborhood to which it belongs, I can't help but think that both articles would be improved by placing this information in that article, as WP:GEOLAND indicates should be done.

Unfortunately, I need to leave now, and probably won't be able to look at this much until sometime late tomorrow. I haven't been able to look at the source you found for the fourth article you looked for sources for. I'll revisit this when I get a chance. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are still missing the point here, which is that these articles don't stand or fall together. Some may have loads of coverage in reliable sources and some may have little, as you have found, so they certainly do not have identical sourcing issues as you claim, because notability depends on the existence of sources rather than their citation in the current articles. And the "legal recognition" issue needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. The articles that I have looked at appear to be mostly about favelas, which, pretty much by definition, are not legally recognised but also not part of the legally recognised areas around them. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2016 (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.