Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio Monterroso Culvert

Add links
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 no consensus. The discussion has been a bit of a mess, but trends towards keeping if anything. Sandstein 11:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Monterroso Culvert

[edit]

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

Rio Monterroso Culvert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, fails WP:GNG / WP:NBUILD. Per the creator's own admission, there are no references to be found, and at least some of the content is their own WP:OR. (There is, admittedly, one RS cited, but it relates only indirectly to the subject matter, and doesn't even mention the culvert in question.) Has been draftified and rejected at AfC multiple times, but the creator insists on publishing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is noted that the Monterroso river was recognised by its town as “the most important river in estepona” and did stand out hugely in Estepona’s town before being culverted however, due to its situation,lack of geological information and the culverts physical shape (tourists suspect a random tunnel in the middle of a beach is sewerage) most tourists do not recognise that it is a natural geological river. I am aware that the lack of encouragement to study and explore this rivers history results in a lack of citational information that exists, or official sources that have been destroyed by age due to the fact that the culvert is extremely old. There are very few youtube videos on this subject however one that may be a reliable source shows the culvert being measured on google maps. There was a info bar on the video where all google earth graphic visuals are credited, The bar notes Geogr. Nacional, Landsat / Copernicus, Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA and GEBCO. I have taken into note that the citations on the subject has basically become so old that they don’t exist anymore. The Wikipedia article was created to raise awareness about the subject so that it does not drive away tourism and that it is not a wastewater plant, it was a natural river course once. It was also created to educate people around the world about the large culvert system. I personally think that with corrections and many more changes to the article, which may eventually cause it to become fit for purpose, that the article should not be deleted currently. Thank you Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Most of the sources cited in this article are Google Maps or images (not all of which are working properly); the only textual source cited is a newspaper article which is only seven sentences long. For some reason, this article begins, "This article has been extremely hard to find citations for. Most citational materials or people involved with the subject of this article has either been destroyed by age or passed away." The culvert in question wasn't built in ancient times -- according to this article, it was built between 1965 and 1973. Or, in other words, it was completed during the adult lives of many people still living. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than semi working google links there is not much citations or information in the river or culvert. When I started studying the culvert 2 years I personally thought it was a storm drain, I did not know anything about the fact that it was/is a river. Once I found out that it was a river by tracking along the road and found the inlet of the culvert, Googling its name came up with absolutely nothing other than several websites about them attempting to troubleshoot its wastewater problem. There still is today almost no citations to look for on the web that are worthy for use on the article. I am now currently deflated of all citations and ideas other than adding a statement noting about the lack of citations, or to keep on searching for citations or adding the photos that was linked, directly into the Wikipedia article without needing to press on intermittent links May have a chance. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all published sources are online. Some might be available in printed newspapers or books that are not available online. But there have to be published sources to support the facts in an article; if there aren't published sources, the article isn't verifiable and shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The Burj Khalifa is also a general concrete structure yet it is noted as currently the largest building currently existing at 828 metres high. The monterroso culvert is measured at 1,160 metres long which is a 332 metre difference. It is certainly not the longest concrete structure ever built however it is certainly a candidate for longest and/or largest concrete box culvert ever created. It would be a lot easier if there is some type of database that people can compare concrete culverts to. The main goal here is to get some type of citation or data. Other than in person making a video with a measurement tape get there’s not much on the monterroso river culvert. What makes the situation worse is that I do not know Spanish.Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and recast as an article about Rio/Arroyo Monterroso generally. I imagine that sources about this river/culvert exist offline (e.g. Spanish newspaper archives), but I don't have access to them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recast the article to be about the river and am now !voting keep. I think there is enough information about the river generally, and if Ekec... can find enough reliable sources to write about the culvert, perhaps that could be be broken out eventually. But at this point I don't think it a separate culvert-specific article is appropriate, given that there isn't much reliably sourced information about the culvert specifically. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook is absolutely packed with citations about the river monterroso culvert and the river itself, but I don’t think that Wikipedia accepts Facebook cites. however, A portion of the posts are photos that may possess the correct cite worthy information. There is also a book called “Aqua Nostra” [1] That note water related things in Andalusia, Page 120-121 in that book notes about the river monterroso. There also is a website citing about the river monterroso’s history [2] It also notes something about when the river monterroso culvert was in its final construction (1972-1973) Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Calliopejen1. You may have saved the article from potential deletion. In the far future I may add small amounts of photos of the monterroso culvert but not claim anything except depicting the photo. Hopefully a administrator will close the AFD soon and potentially retract its deletion.


    • Keep The river itself is a lot less notable than about the culvert itself. My personal choice is to see what happens to the article. Due to the fact it’s my first article I have a extremely limited knowledge about how to make the article better however other people may vary. At this point I personally think that the delete notice should be removed because it is no longer in as much of serious state as it was. After all
—-> the main reason the delete notice was raised was due to the lack of citations which have been sorted out<—-

I still agree that the article is a mess but can’t find the solution to make it “look” better. Feel free to alter its layout but refrain from removing information. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have already voted. You only get one vote. Spiderone 20:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have tested the article out on the web and I agree that the article looks extremely messy. Edit: I have now fixed the photo positions for people who view the article on the web. Hopefully it doesn’t look as messy as it was before. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a anonymous user just browsing through Wikipedia and I don’t think the article should be deleted. A few days ago the article looked horrible but I am pleased to say it looks great now. I am on the side of the defendant. The article now looks too good to be drafted or deleted. My vote is now

  • keep

I heavily recommend people in charge of Wikipedia should retract the deletion leave the article standing. 2A02:C7F:7282:1100:5D48:1238:1CE:DC10 (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC) — 2A02:C7F:7282:1100:5D48:1238:1CE:DC10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • keep

The article deletion was raised due to the reasons noted in the first paragraph at the top of this aFd page. Currently the paragraphs have been met and I have included the main thing that the article needed, citations. The notability level now is at least decent. I now feel confident that the aFd now has authority to be ended. I am also confident that it now follows wikipedia guidelines. Thank you Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have already voted. You only get one vote. Spiderone 20:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Making the article about river itself will not be very intriguing and will probably fail the test for Wikipedia’s notability. This is why I kept on making the article centred around the culvert itself. However if there is a way to change the title of the article from “River Monterroso culvert” to —-> “River Monterroso” I’m sure that the article will look good with its existing content and with more content about the river made more prominent. As a first time Wikipedia article creator I do not have much experience on telling what part of the article needs to be improved however this is why feel free to improve the layout of the article but feel to refrain on removing existing information without my consultation Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 

  I have decided to abandon this article and copy the exact content to a New article solely because

Of the articles name was not very good. The new article is River Monterroso Anyone can change this article to redirect to the “new” article if wanted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is now about The river monterroso including its culvert,

it most likely passes a notability test, as possessing as many rights as an article about a river has.

I have seen articles on other rivers that aren’t famous and they all have things in common

. A river infobox<——

. Well separated paragraphs <——

. And well cited <——

These are the things that I will get to work on Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://issuu.com/aytomarbella/docs/exposicion_agua/120
  2. ^ http://vistasdeayeryhoy.blogspot.com/2011/09/avenida-de-espanario-monterroso.html
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is a bit of a mess, but the article has been changed substantially during the AfD, and so discussion of how it stands presently would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've already cast my ballot and, having read the article again, I stand by it; hence just a comment. I repeat my earlier view that this article should be about the river, with the culvert section bolted on, rather than the confusion it currently is. I also think the references are still weak, once you remove the Google Maps and blogs etc. That said, it is much better now than it was nine days ago when I first came across it. And the passion behind the advocacy is jaw-dropping. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Rio Monterroso. Geographic features are generally notable if verifiable and you can write something about them other than a statistic, and I think that's what we have here - the culvert itself isn't notable, but it's been discussed enough that the river that has been culverted, albeit short, passes I think it's WP:GEOFEAT. What a messy AfD! SportingFlyer T·C 01:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

searching the web for the “worlds largest culvert” results come up as all corrugated steels most likely because they weighs a lot less than concrete. All mostly 20 to 200 metres in length. in the river monterroso culvert, It has a span of a confirmed 1.16km long. 

Another result is of Alaskan highway culvert that was corrugated steel pipe that was installed in 1998. And collapsed just 2 years after its installation, the website is https://www.concretepipe.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ysk122.pdf and claims that it created “the mother of all potholes”. The sinkhole looks about 100 metres  smaller than the 700 square metre sinkhole of the monterroso. A peice of the pdf touts it to be “the largest construction project in the history of its kind”.

The fact that the river monterroso culvert predates the Alaskan culvert by 25 years, and that the length of the Alaskan culvert at 35 metres long compared to the river monterroso culvert at 1,160 metres long the monterroso culvert may have peaked as the largest culvert in the world for several years if it isn’t by the president day. That potential fact alone could be a reason for its notability. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify and move to Rio Monterroso - the topic as a river seems to meet notability guidelines at WP:GEOLANDS, though I'm still skeptical that the topic meets notability guidelines as a culvert. In either case, I agree with Robert McClenon that the article is still a mess. Much of it is unverifiable original research, which should be cleaned up before being published in mainspace. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Rio Monterroso. I second (or third) SportingFlyer and Coolabahapple above. The AfD is a big mess, and the article also needs some attention, but the author(s) have really given it a good shot to make serious and requested improvements. I would hate to simply dump the honest effort made.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I think There should be a Spanish version of this article when i am certain that it qualifies for Wikipedia but that is in the future, and if Rio Monterroso is thinking of being used then first there should open a debate wether the Monterroso is an “Arroyo” or “Rio”.

“Arroyo” means stream when translated to English and “Rio” means river when translated into English. In the summer it is an arroyo and just trickles out. and in the flood months it is a raging river.


However I have seen where the riverbed is dry in the inlet of the culvert, and where 1.16km south of the same culvert, the water is flooding out on the beach On the outfall of the culvert. An example is on google earth/maps where the inlet[1] Is completely dry and the outfall directly south [2] Is completed wet and flowing with water due to the shear amount of pipes and inlets that flow in. including the Juan Benítez culvert that has a pipe within it that always discharges freshwater. The pipe in their ramps on and off and the flow on the beach is seen changing speed with the pipe in the Juan Benítez culvert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk • contribs) 21:54, 4 December 2020 (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.
  1. ^ Dropped pin Near Estepona, 29680, Málaga https://goo.gl/maps/cLaeSMdR1rs3dJjJ7
  2. ^ Dropped pin Near Fin del túnel subterráneo del río Monterroso., Paseo Marítimo Pedro Manrique, 30, 29680 Estepona, Málaga https://goo.gl/maps/xSd8iKbRvwdTmB2c9
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rio_Monterroso_Culvert&oldid=992650137"