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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parkietenbos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

PROD declined for reasons I can't possibly fathom. This is a dumpsite of no particular notability, therefore the article should be deleted. There is no reason to maintain it under WP:GEO. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I removed the PROD because the original concern (that it incorrectly labeled the subject as a village) was addressed. I did not check for notability. Maybe sources exist in the local languages? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the stub as it stands isn't good, but a search did come up with a few sources in three different languages. I'm not saying it's notable or not notable - would this be infrastructure under WP:GEOFEAT? There's a chance it's notable and could be expanded. SportingFlyer talk 18:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, do you mind linking to some of those sources to allow everyone to evaluate them? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of these establish notability, but could help build out the article if notable. I've starred the ones I think are best on notability grounds. [1] [2] [3] [4]* [5]* [6]* [7]* [8] [9]* (among others) SportingFlyer talk 21:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or at worst merge to Aruba. There is some decent coverage in sources [10][11] which would allow some expansion. SpinningSpark 23:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, I'd support a merge, but I don't think there's enough substantial coverage (on what you've posted anyway) to support a keep. That book result you posted is a single paragraph in a tour guide type book, it's not that substantive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This page originally described Parkietenbos as a village. There is some evidence in sources that this is a populated place as several businesses give it as their address: Rodoco Shipping and Trading SA[12], Aruba All Cargo Co., Demo Aruba MV, Ecury Motors, Ltd. This book description of the dump says the dump is "located in Parkietenbos", not that the dump is called Parkietenbos. As a populated place this should be kept per WP:GEOLAND. At the very least we can say that there is more going on there than just a dump. Also Historia di Aruba: 1499-1824 mentions Parkietenbos but I can't make any sense of the google machine translation of "Nan a establece nan mes na diferente lugar, entre otro na Daimari, Santa Marta, Buena Vista y Parkietenbos principalmente. Asina e teranan cerca yama "cunuco" a bin den existencia. Cada colonizador a desaroya nan pida tereno..." At least we can say from that that the place existed historically. SpinningSpark 22:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a named place, not just a landfill. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:16, 12 June 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.