Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pico Agudo

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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 20:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pico Agudo

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

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

Fails WP:V as a list article.
Fails WP:DABMENTION as a dab.
Talk details the flawed creation logic of the creating block evading sock, so presumably this may be deleted as such too. - dabs/SIAs are not for translation purposes which seems the MO.

I've given this the benefit of some time, but the original deletion PROD was spot on, and I regret converting dab to SIA to preserve, as clearly this hasn't been validated at the articles I checked, so needs sources here which has also not been done. As the unsourced tag was removed, this is just an unverified mess with my name on, and returning to a dab with 0 valid entries and deletion is the obvious default. Widefox; talk 14:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nom - there are two valid entries (per dab). Not sure how I missed them. Widefox; talk 18:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just the same as last time. A totally pointless and counterproductive AfD for the sake of some old grudge. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a mistake to me. Andy Dingley - I actually helped preserve this by converting to SIA when deletion was initially discussed, as it seemed the best compromise. You may find dab editors revisting as normal cleanup, rather than score settling?! Widefox; talk 18:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguation-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous discussion on talk page. MB 16:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are currently two stubs that share the name, neither of which appears to be the primary sense of the title. In addition, based on pt:Pico Agudo and assuming that the contributors to the talk page are in earnest, three or four more articles may be created. Cnilep (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator converted this to a set index page. This should be returned to a dab page. If some of the entries are not in accordance with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages, they can be pruned or corrected. --Bejnar (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as there were no valid entries, I converted to SIA to give it a chance. It was (and when I checked yesterday still was) a dab with zero valid entries. Widefox; talk 18:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Turn this page into a DAB. It should be like the dab page at pt:Pico Agudo AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:57, 27 August 2018 (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.