Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camaya Coast (2nd nomination)

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camaya Coast

AfDs for this article:
Camaya Coast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First submitted as a speedy deletion but was advised to submit it here because the page is a hoax. There is a 'Camaya Coast' development, but it is not a suburb, and the rest of the article are fictional elaborate stories with deceptive references made to look real using made-up sources. I already tagged the references and sections as disputed or unreliable. Thanks Briarfallen (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What evidence do you have to support the contention that all of the references you removed are "made-up sources"? If this is a hoax, it is pretty amazingly elaborate. I'm a bit stumped on this one, and at the moment very inclined to vote keep. I can't quite swallow the idea that the Official Website for the Provincial Government of Bataan is a "made-up source." Indeed, that seems patently absurd, but I submit that I have almost zero familiarity with the region and as such may be missing something huge. If so, please explain. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Okay, this is indeed a weird one. I suggest anyone looking at this also read the nominator's post at the article's talk page for context, as it's a very helpful post. I definitely agree with the nominator that the article is written in a misleading fashion. It inaccurately portrays what is apparently a residential development community as a place with substantial history, when it is more likely accurate to say that the physical space it occupies has seen some history. The community itself is brand new as of 2009 or so. Now, that said, the community does exist, and the article's lede properly identifies it as such. I think, unless there are notability concerns, that this can be fixed via editing -- deleting the offending pieces of the article which tend to mislead. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the nominator, for notability. Construction only started in 2009. If you look at the Camaya's facebook page, it is still very much under construction. The author lied to gain notability. The External links are all about promoting Camaya Coast. Do you think it is fair to use Wikipedia (and how it was used) to promote this development? Briarfallen (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking out the word "delete" from your comment. As nominator your "delete" !vote is already registered, and you only get one !vote. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Changed to Keep see comment below)as advertisement, sources are either not focused about the place or a promo material.--Lenticel (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check again. SilverserenC 04:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| speak _ 21:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks okay. I've checked the other news items written by the authors cited in the article and it seems that they're focused on writing other noteworthy stuff as well.--Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete If this were an actual community (town/city/village/hamlet etc.) this might have been notable. But no, it's a real-estate development in Bataan. Reliable sources could have saved the article, but all I was able to find were promotions and advertisements. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please check again. SilverserenC 04:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've completely redone the article. The sources now are not promotions and advertisements. SilverserenC 06:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep - per coverage in Manila Bulletin and Philippine Star, including but not limited to: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing !vote to weak keep thanks to the addition of reliable coverage. However, more should be found, and the article could be weeded out of anything resembling promotion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've completely rewritten the article and used reliable sources this time that extensively discuss the subject. SilverserenC 16:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even after the recent edits, it still sounds like a biased promo of a new development that is still under construction. I just deleted two pictures from the article: the fake 'Wain Cove in the 1950s' that is nominated for deletion and the misleading 'Camaya Coast', which shows the eastern side of the tip of Bataan Peninsula, as Camaya Coast is on the western side (coordinates are on the article) - two pictures posted by the original author to mislead people. 'The Little Boracay of Bataan' IMO should be removed per WP:NPOV. Briarfallen (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator already counts as a delete vote, so please stop double-voting. Also, your opinion of it is nice, but you haven't addressed the reliable sources used in the article, as that's what we base notability on, per the WP:GNG. SilverserenC 17:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are recent changes in the article, so I have to present my opinion about it. It is not my intention to double vote, that is why I added 'still' on the previous entry, thanks for changing it to 'Comment'. I was just updating my vote and this is something new to me. On the April 6 vote. I checked other Afds and followed another nominator, the reason I added 'as the nominator' immediately after 'Delete', to distinguish immediately. Again, it it not my intention to double vote. I apologize for my mistakes. About Camaya Coast, there is not much information about the place like how far is it from Mariveles. Where is it really located. I made a personal research so I cannot put it in the article - it is 17 km of rough road to Camaya Coast from the town. Why is there are so many quotation marks on the article? The 'little Boracay of Bataan' is a personal opinion, not neutral, and should be removed. Some of the references (from Philstar) are promos written like articles. Check the bottom of the article. I am not sure about the Manila Bulletin articles archived on High Beam as it is not accessible, only the top paragraph. The Manila Bulletin sounds like a promotion, as everything are positive views nothing negative, so I judged it as one. These are just my perception of the article. Sorry. Briarfallen (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of quotes because that's what you do when writing an article, so as not to plagiarize the references. And the reference specifically stated that Little Boracay of Bataan is the nickname for the place. Several of the references state this. And, sure, a nickname is personal opinion, but it is one stated by the sources, so we use it. The one PhilStar reference looks like a promo, yes, but the other does not, neither do the Manila Bulletin references. A positive article does not mean it's a promotion. I don't see any reason why they would write negative article anyways. What is there to be negative about? SilverserenC 19:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is an overused of quotation marks. When you write an article, you put references but you do not enclose them on quotation marks unless it is a quotation. Please read WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:Plagiarism. What is negative? It's written above. My assessment is still for the Deletion of the article. Thanks. Briarfallen (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything I have in quotes is a quotation from the relevant reference. And what I meant by negative is, what is there about the resort that newspaper writers would have to say negative things about? It doesn't seem like there is anything, so it's not surprising that the articles are positive. That's why they're not promotions. SilverserenC 21:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:QUOTEFARM again. This is not about Camaya Coast anymore, so I am stopping this talk about quotation marks. Briarfallen (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Camaya_Coast_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137669674"