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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

El Ojo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article cites seven sources. They are a combination of blogs and novelty sites with no evidence of editorial oversight or fact-checking. Some of them give credence to conspiracy theories about the nature of the island. Since it's not a populated area, it's not covered by WP:GEOLAND, and a BEFORE search turns up no reliable sources. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Argentina and Islands. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I made a source analysis here, on request :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added some sources to the article, waiting for theleekycauldron's review. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Crum375: some of these are marginally reliable – I don't really like that they're all just near copy/pasting the same content, but were I to assume that the less reliable sources are bottom-feeders, this might pass notability. I'll take a bit more time to re-review, and then we can rebuild the article with the RSes. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Theleekycauldron: I have added a few more sources, all of which have a good editorial vetting mechanism and reputation, afaict. Clearly there are too many sources at the moment, so we should definitely cull them after basic notability is established. I'll wait for your review, and would be happy to discard the non-RSes. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Theleekycauldron: As an update, I have added more sources and started culling the lower quality ones. I think the remaining sources (18 currently) are definitely acceptable WP:RS-wise and WP:N-wise. When you have a chance, take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of passing SIGCOV. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable natural artifact, but should be expanded. UpEpSilon (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you want to Keep this article, please state this in your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article needs some cleanup, but some of the sources pass WP:GNG and I don't see which WP:NOT applies. SportingFlyer T·C 08:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article is a notable geographic feature but definitely needs much work and clean up. W.G.J. (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: With the spanish-language sources this seems to pass WP:GNG ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 18 September 2023 (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.