Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gestrins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I see no support for deletion. I recommend that this nominator slow down their numerous AFD nominations as I'm closing a lot of them as Keep or No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gestrins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete All of these pages are minor hamlets in Povoa de Varzim that I am unable to find any sources for that satisfy WP:NGEO. As far as I know these are minor neighborhoods.

I am also nominating for deletion:

Fontaínhas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Têso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rio de Fornos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gresufes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Passô (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sejães, Póvoa de Varzim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gandra, Póvoa de Varzim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tooncool64 (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I have removed some stray syntax that appears to have been left behind when the nominator was fixing up the nomination. No opinion or further comment at this time on any of the articles involved. WCQuidditch 07:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Portugal. WCQuidditch 07:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is there a reason these can't be redirected to the parent entity? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If we compare to the numerous AFDs on locations in the USA, they are usually kept if there are sources stating that someone lived there or is from there (I am invoking WP:OUTCOMES, not WP:OTHERSTUFF here). After all, Portugal has a very long history, which could mean that the place had greater significance in the past. So while not being Portuguese, I tried to check Rio de Fornos (which is nowhere near Povoa de Varzim!). On the map, it's some 3 kilometres north of Vinhais, clearly separated geographically, and has a cemetary and two inns. This speaks about a film portraying "pilgrimage of 11 women from the village of Rio de Fornos". There is a book about a "morgadio" there, also mentioned on the municipality website. Now, This is of course not a WP:RS, but would there exist a blog "so that everyone who loves the village can show it here through comments and news. It is open to everyone, giving an account of events or simply portraying the history of the village and its (re)charms" if it was not a village? I'm not staunchly opposed to a merge to Vinhais either, though. I do however sense this AFD going the way of WP:TRAINWRECK. Geschichte (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I contested the proposed deletions as it didn't seem to me that these hamlets, which appear to have population census reports according to some corresponding articles on the Portuguese Wikipedia, would fail the WP:GEOLAND part of WP:NGEO, i.e. "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." However, without knowledge of the language or the country's administrative structure I'm not quite able to locate documents that clearly demonstrate the case. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose delete Procedural Keep, on all, in the hope that the potential closer grants a relist to allow more time to look into this bundled nomination, especially as sources are likely to be in Portuguese and not easily found. So far I've looked at Fontainhas which I'd !vote keep anyway based on verification of the place name on maps, mentions in connection with the railway-now-cyclepath and the presence of shops, schools, a bank and housing. Gresufes is a hamlet so populated and the article states at one time it was its own parish so it could be kept, or perhaps redirected to its current parish, which is presumably Balazar but I haven't found a definitive source stating it is, only an assumption based on it being a named settlement within a boundary on a map. Rupples (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Amended to emboldened recommendation. Rupples (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2011 populations found on citypopulation.de [1]. Fontainhas given as 641, Gandra is 219, Gestrins is 296, Passô is 425, Sejães is 349 and Têso is 569 (all in Póvoa de Varzim municipality). Rio de Fornos is 85 [2] in Vinhais municipality. No figure for Gresufes. Rupples (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would appear that these are recognised settlements and meet WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source. This book [3] in Portuguese on the parish of Balasar has 17 hits for Gandra, 12 for Gestrins, 51 for Gresufes, 8 for Fontaínhas. Not claiming all the hits are about the villages, could be people's names but it looks to be a good source if someone is able to translate. There's a glossary towards the end that looks to have definitions for the place names. Rupples (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all with prejudice, in light of how this discussion has developed. Geschichte (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2024 (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.