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. This has been open a while and no decent sourcing has emerged. A library has been consulted and noting has come up. I',m not seeing a policy based keep argument and the atd arguments lack consensus or fail to stand up against the thoroughness of the source searching. This then fails and any merged material should be removed at this time. I would be willing to draft to allow time for sources to emerge but only if editors agreed that the draft should go through drv before any restoration Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Felicilandia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Non-notable amusement park. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• You just need to look up Felicilandia Puerto Rico...keep. Antonio Locoman Martin ( ah pues?) 19:45, 21 September, 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 20:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete (with no prejudice to draftification, as was initially tried). The article creator said: "You just need to look up ...", but the onus is really on you, not us, to demonstrate notability with a new article. That said, I did take a basic look, but couldn't really find anything. One listicle that gives it a single sentence, and a brief financial statement from '76 don't really cut it. Even the barest-of-bones list of rides is unsourced, which I'd expect to be straightforward for a notable amusement park. Then again, there may very well be more out there, but difficult to find due to the age and lack of English sources. So I'd be willing to revisit this if anyone is able to turn up more, but as is, this can't really be kept. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 12:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree with User:Deacon Vorbis about our being forced to delete something out of dissatisfaction with the current article or its explicit sourcing. To close an AFD with Keep or Speedy Keep, it absolutely suffices to establish that sources do exist, or really very probably will exist and would be found by someone going to the local library or performing literature search in appropriate sources in their language. If you don't like the current state of an article, post about that at its Talk page and/or tag the article for more sources or whatever. Note that no sources at all are required, for articles to be created in Wikipedia, in fact, and there are literally hundreds of thousands of topics which have been created that way and developed more later. -- Doncram ( talk) 22:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep or Merge with San Patricio Plaza Merge to list of attractions in Puerto Rico new article - udpated my vote Remember PR is a very small island and Felicilandia was Puerto Rico's Walt Disney World. Anyway, Felicilandia is in mayor PR and other newspapers Primera Hora 2 times, Miami News 1 time, NY Times 1 time, El Nuevo Dia 1 time and probably more, it's just that no internet back then. -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 13:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Another way to put it is that PR is a _huge_ island (about 3,500 sq mi in area, in fact the 3rd largest island in the U.S. (behind big island of Hawaii and Kodiak Island), and has population 3,193,694 est. per Wikipedia). I am pretty sure that there have been lots of Puerto Ricans who never came north to its capital, say, some of whom might have made the pilgrimage to this amusement park, though. And this was PR's main amusement park for some period (if that is what The Eloquent Peasant is asserting). It is located in Guaynabo, a Puerto Rican municipality which is located adjacent to the capital and biggest city, San Juan, so serving a large population. I !voted Keep below. -- Doncram ( talk) 22:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Yes. Thank you. For 20 years, it was the amusement park of the island that people visited with their children and families. Guaynabo is a big city, you can say it's almost like a suburb of the capital, San Juan, which is right next to it. People from the mountain areas visiting the amusement park must have felt pretty happy then! The only other rides they had were the temporary ones that were set up for a few days for the patron saint festivals, but the smaller festival rides never included a montaña rusa and don't ask me why they call the roller coaster a Russian mountain! Thanks for your vote (of confidence). I think the article should stay. -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 22:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ Doncram: Pinging, after the fact (I never do this right!). -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 22:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  That's not much, but please at least give the refs here (with at least some indication of what they talk about if they're not easily available). – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 23:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ Deacon Vorbis: On this source, there is an explanation and image. So, this is the story: In 2014, the San Patricio Mall where Felicilandia was wanted to have an exhibit and timeline of the history of the location (including when Felicilandia was there). However, the problem was there was no documented history, as stated on this page "First challenge, they had not properly documented their history. Although there were various photos, none were of the quality needed to be used. We digitalized the materials they had in order to create a visual library to work with. Second challenge, the history of the mall only existed verbally." So the photographer went about using the images she could find to put together an exhibit, she interviewed people who had worked at Felicilandia and patrons. On the bottom image of this source, it says "What do you remember most about San Patricio mall?" ¿Qué es lo que más recuerdas de San Patricio?" and Felicilandia is one of the choices and displayed as one of the things to remember about this mall and location. So yes, maybe it's not much, but documentation may be hard to come by in English resources and on internet since newspapers having the information are not easily availble because they are from long ago (before internet). But this exhibit is from 2014 and aims to document the history of Feliciliandia along with San Patricio Mall in Guaynabo. -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 15:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Pretty much any amusement park, especially if it has a rollercoaster (don't know if this one did), is basically notable for coverage in Wikipedia, because there will exist news and other coverage about it. See essay wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION (truly an excellent essay if I do say so myself!). Sounds like there is enough documentation for this to have a separate article, rather than being covered as an item in a list-article, and no list-article to serve as a merger target has been suggested. And assertion of importance for this one that "it was PR's Walt Disney World" by User:The Eloquent Peasant who I recognize from elsewhere as being knowledgeable about PR also carries weight for me. -- Doncram ( talk) 22:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Uh, citing an essay that you wrote yourself and not disclosing that is pretty scummy. You've given no substantive reason to keep other than "it's an amusement park so it's probably notable". Notable means that there's enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to write an article about it. If the sources aren't there, then we can't write an article. When the notability of the topic of an article with no sources is challenged, AfD is what happens. Platitudes are no substitute for sources. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 23:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Umm, no, you da scummy one, for lowering the quality of discussion here. I pretty much think that authorship of an essay is not important but have encountered editors trying to say "gotcha" about that in AFDs, so I make a point to disclose it. Too bad you can't understand the disclosure "truly excellent if I do say so myself". Perhaps English may not be your first language or you have other problems I don't know about, in which case i would retract my return of personal insult back in your direction. But otherwise the above is jerkish behavior IMO. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• P.S. Sure it would be good if the article had photos, and I don't immediately find any available at Commons. Searching for "Felicilandia photos" brings me to this photo of a roller coaster apparently at Felicilandia, and other photos. There always exists huge coverage about roller coasters, from my experience. -- Doncram ( talk) 22:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Amusement park fails guidelines established by WP:NBUILD (Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability). No such sources support the notability of this park. KidAd talk 00:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment. When the article was nominated for deletion (21 Sept 2020, 08:33AM) it had 2 references. Today, almost 3 days latyer (24 Sept 2020, 00:55AM) it has 7 - a 350% increase. However, I am not seeing that any of its current 7 references are about the subject of the article itself:

1. Talks about 10 sites (4 of them amusement/safari parks) that no longer exist in PR; the article dedicates 2 statements to Felicilandia, about the same it dedicates to the 3 other amusements/safari parks it mentions.
2. An article about a park in Florida called Seminoland Park, not about Felicilandia.
3. A bankruptcy notice. This is standard legal procedure, not an article about Felicilandia as an amusement park or about the Felicilandia business itself, just mandatory legal bankruptcy protocol.
4. This article is talking about stores built partly on a lot behind Felicilandia, not about Felicilandia itself. However, imo, it should get some credit because it uses Felicilandia as a landmark, thus making it obvious that at least some readers were familiar with where Felicilandia once stood.
5. A personal reflection by the author about safety in amusement parks in PR. The article mentions Felicilandia once, but only in passing.
   

References 6 and 7 - (Both are cites to the same reference.) An article about "Mofongolandia", not about Felicilandia.

BTW, the article, as it stands at the time of this writing (24 Sept 2020, 00:55AM) lists 6 rides that were present at Felicilandia, but gives no cite for that fact; I presumme the WP editor who contributed that info had personal (-uhum-) experience regarding the rides at Felicilandia.

BTW, BTW, a personal observation: In reference to cite #1 ( https://www.primerahora.com/noticias/puerto-rico/notas/10-lugares-que-ya-no-existen-en-puerto-rico/), I had heard about Plaza Acuática, Monoloro, and Safari Park before, but this is the first I heard of Felicilandia.

Personally, I would had preferred if the article had at least 3 references that discussing/reviewing Felicilandia, and nothing else.

Mercy11 ( talk) 01:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep for now - I have a very hard time imagining that an amusement park that was around for 2 decades would not have substantial coverage in local Puerto Rican media. Unfortunately, it seems that very few Puerto Rican newspapers and magazines have digitized archives online. Let's give this article another years or two and see if folks can dig up more sources. Kaldari ( talk) 01:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to San Patricio Plaza - Some of the Keep !votes are fairly unconvincing, and despite its long life, it does not have much relevant coverage. Regarding the "we might find sources in the next year" argument, if we just redirect the article, we can just revert the redirect if we find the sources. Foxnpichu ( talk) 11:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  One issue is that there's currently no information at the suggested target about this. Whether or not being located next to would make it appropriate to add a blurb about a park next to the place...I dunno. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 12:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  As stated below, The Eloquent Peasant has now added the text into the article. Foxnpichu ( talk) 15:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment I copied the text from Felicilandia to San Patricio Plaza and it may need to be trimmed down a bit. -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 13:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I disagree that "redirect to San Patricio Plaza" is appropriate. I appreciate that User:The Eloquent Peasant added material to San Patricio Plaza article which would in effect be implementing a "merge to San Patricio Plaza" decision (and merge is different than redirect), and that they were trying to make that work. But San Patricio Plaza is a 3-story mall, not a successor amusement park for which a merger would have worked better. In the mall article, the inclusion of all of the material about Felicilandia is too much (and The Eloquent Peasant's comment/tone seems to agree with that), and it would be natural for all or almost all of that to be deleted by normal editing processes.

The current article is fine as a short article in Wikipedia, waiting for more development and especially photos, on a type of thing that is always significant (combo about amusement park and its roller coaster). There simply will exist troves of photos and materials which have not emerged yet, but do always exist for this kind of thing. "Keep" is right decision, but if some are so bent on eliminating articles in Wikipedia, then it should be merged to a list-article about amusement parks in Puerto Rico or in a larger area, not shoehorned into an article about a mall (completely unrelated except for location). "Merge" decision to such a list-article would be okay as a decision, and the list-article does not need to exist yet, the merger decision can leave requirement that such a list-article be created. Or someone could create it now. Note there does exist List of defunct amusement parks in the United States which currently lacks any coverage of Puerto Rico, but i think that one list-article about current and former/defunct amusement parks and roller coasters in Puerto Rico would be an appropriate scope. Note by the way that Puerto Rico simply does not fit into structure of Category:Amusement parks in the United States by state as PR is not a state. Take care of all of PR by one comprehensive list-article. I no longer recall where I saw it, but I understand from some source reviewed by me during this AFD that there have been a number of amusement parks in PR, like with five to ten being list-item-notable. The way forward is to build, not to to delete/eliminate part of the building. I prefer 1) "Keep" or 2) merge to PR list which must be created. -- Doncram ( talk) 20:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I trimmed out some of the Felicilandia from the San Patricia article because it was too much in there. @ Doncram: Would it make sense to just add it to the List of closed rides and attractions even that list seems to mostly be of the 'big' name parks, or create like you said, make a List of former parks and attractions of Puerto Rico - I have a picture of another attraction called Noah's Ark, a zoo that used to exist, in Quebradillas, ^[1] near the Arecibo Observatory. -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 22:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks, The Eloquent Peasant. I personally think a broad list of attractions in Puerto Rico, allowing for current attractions and past attractions, would be good/better than covering just the closed ones and creating no place for any current or future attractions. (Or would you mean to create 2 list-articles, but if there are not too many of each type why not merge them? I am used to lists of historic buildings and other types of things including both surviving/current ones and also demolished/former ones.) Divide into 2 big sections if you want, but leave a split to the future if ever necessary. I think the general topic "attractions in PR" or "amusement parks in PR" is a natural one, where readers would appreciate seeing the historical sequence of all of the major ones in PR which have existed since Europeans arrived. It would be interesting and worth mentioning if the first attraction created after 1493 might be known, perhaps some business or government or office or plantation opening a collection of curiosities or whatever. User:Mercy11 above, characterizing a recent version of this article, mentions "Talks about 10 sites (4 of them amusement/safari parks) that no longer exist in PR; the article dedicates 2 statements to Felicilandia, about the same it dedicates to the 3 other amusements/safari parks it mentions." So maybe there are 4 amusement parks alone and perhaps 6 other attractions that seem worth covering as list items, to start with, or 11 if Noah's Ark is not already included in the 10. This list would be a good thing, allowing for growth of coverage about the items, heading off creation of separate articles about them which would likely be PRODed or AFDd for not immediately having sufficient coverage for a standalone article.

That List of closed rides and attractions is indeed a different kind of thing, although its title would seem broad enough. So actually it should probably be renamed (perhaps a wp:RM process could be opened there?) or set up with an introduction to better describe it, but it is about historic rides etc. within a select few truly major parks like Disney World. It clearly does not include or want to include closed small amusement parks around the world; if Felicilandia were added to it I would personally agree with an editor there deleting the addition. -- Doncram ( talk) 03:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply

OKay. I think merging it to a List of attractions in Puerto Rico is good and the article could be developed and include (as you say) prior and current ... I'll add it to the PR template for wanted articles. I received an email back from the Library of Puerto Rico telling me there isn't a book on Felicilandia and she shared with me some links (most to what we already have) and one to a FB, and one to a blog, which we can't use for sources. Still here, I'll share one so you all can see the historic Felicilandia in pics, and pic # 2 is the Russian Mountain (literal translation for Montaña Rusa = rollercoaster). Except on the comments to picture #2, a post says that the pic #2 doesn't look like it's at Feliciliandia... looks like another place in Puerto Rico.-- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 03:15, 10 October 2020 (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.