Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colón Insular Region
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
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 delete. kurykh 00:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Colón Insular Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Nominated for speedy deletion as a hoax; I've declined as hoaxes aren't speediable but am nominating here for investigation. No opinion from me. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This poorly-written article is apparently about a former Dominican province called Provincia de Colón and made up of the three islands mentioned. I had an extremely hard time finding any references to back this up. Does anyone have access to a good history book on the Dominican Republic? LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The population figure in the article is clearly made up or erroneous, since according to our articles on the islands, one has a population of 300 and the other two are uninhabited. Deor (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not finding any mentions of a Dominican province of Colón or of a Colón Insular Region through Google Web, News, Books, or Scholar. If sources can be found, I'll reconsider, but for now I have to recommend deletion per WP:V. Deor (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. On my talk page, the author of the article asserted that the province did exist, but that the fact wasn't 'accepted' (User talk:SamEV#MRDU08). When asked to provide sources, s/he simply ignored the request. But then, it seems that in saying it wasn't accepted as a province, MRDU08 pretty much admitted that there really was no such province.
I too tried all over Google. And I looked at offline works, albeit general ones. Also, I have in this decade read articles about the D.R. in encyclopedias and yearbooks of the 1950s (and 1960s and 1970s). Some of those articles, such as Britannica's, listed the provinces, but never one named Colón or even (translated) Columbus. Nor have I read about it in any book about D.R., on any subject.
And yes, the population number appears to be entirely made up by the article's author ([1]).
And again, the article is about an alleged current Region occupying the same territory as the alleged former province, but I've found no evidence about the existence, current or former, of either. SamEV (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. The article's author also introduced entries for contestants from the supposed province of Colón into Miss Dominican Republic 1952 and the corresponding articles for the years through 1957. (Actually he seems to have been responsible for essentially all the content of these articles, which appear to lack supporting sources.) If this article is deleted, a closer look should probably be taken at the editor's other contributions as well. Deor (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. User MRDU08 is giving many others a lot of trouble, as s/he has made a ton of bad changes and created bad articles. I only found out fairly recently and began to delve into it, so I do find myself surprised that s/he went so far as to apparently invent contestants for a pageant.
- Also, I should note that among the users who have challenged MUDU08 to source the Colón Insular Region article is a Dominican geographer, User:Pepemar2. SamEV (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. The article's author also introduced entries for contestants from the supposed province of Colón into Miss Dominican Republic 1952 and the corresponding articles for the years through 1957. (Actually he seems to have been responsible for essentially all the content of these articles, which appear to lack supporting sources.) If this article is deleted, a closer look should probably be taken at the editor's other contributions as well. Deor (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2009 (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.