Deletion of Piña, Darién

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPLACE)

Comment: lack of significant coverage, and more importantly lack of a reasoned argument as to why |overlooking this deficiency is in the best interests of Wikipedia. An encyclopaedia is not an atlas, so is under no burden to provide information on every geographical locality, no matter how obscure and ill-documented (a function that even an atlas doesn't attempt, I would note
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Article is now referenced, per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPLACE)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPLACE)

Comment: WP:NPLACE is neither policy, guideline nor even an essay, it is merely a section in rticles for deletion/Common outcomes. Thus "Keep per WP:NPLACE" is in fact nothing more than 'keep because we've kept similar articles in the past', and thus comes dangerously close to a  argument. Precedent ''alone'' is a a very bad guide for future action
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: as it does not meet the |general notability guideline that all articles must pass, having ''"significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"''.  To re-iterate Hrafn above, determinations of outcomes are determined not by wiktionary:consensus but by Wikipedia:Consensus, and guideline Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators is relevent here, and in particular it's advice on determining Wikipedia:ROUGH_CONSENSUS#Rough_consensus|rough consensus: ''"Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)."'' It's also worth noting that the header on the top of this very page directs all contributors to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD, says to make recomendations "sustained by arguments," and another linnked from that bar Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates says clearly that "''if an essay is used to support deletion or to keep an article proposed for deletion, a good explanation should be given as to why one believes it supports his/her case''.  Thus, to those who'd like to keep this article, please provide multiple instances of signifigant coverage in |reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)