Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cala Agulla

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cala Agulla

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

Fails notability standards for geographical places and features. No indication as to why the beach is important and doesn't meet any of the quick-keep criteria such as being permanently inhabited. DrStrauss talk 09:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as the CatalanWiki has information and sources for WP:V, which equally shows we can accept it in English. SwisterTwister talk 15:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a populated place, from what I can see. It's a beach in Majorca and therefore needs to meet the higher criteria for natural features in WP:GEOLAND -- not simply WP:V. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, WP:GEOLAND also states "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." this beach is a named natural feature, the 1st ref from the Catalonia WP lists stats about the beach (drat:)) but also lists various features of/facilities at the beach so beyond stats (yay:)), the 3red ref (same website) describes in detail the beach, there also appears to be plenty of news about the beach at gnews, eg. "The tourists visiting Capdepera approve environmental management They perceive a massification and propose the return of the drinks containers where they are bought, to avoid being left on the beaches" from AraBalears, regional newspaper of Ara, it is also a Àrea natural d'especial interès, so this looks like a keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to its conservationism relevance.--Pampuco (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The status as an Àrea natural d'especial interès is significant. The length of the German article is well beyond that of a stub and demonstrates that the English article could be as well. Furius (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

agree, the GermanWP article here looks like a great little article, a wikitranslator could turn the english article into one also:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obvious Agathoclea (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating rationale, would you care to explain any further? DrStrauss talk 20:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep per above♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Coolabahapple Chetsford (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2017 (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.