Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andres Velaz de Medrano


 * 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 wasdelete per WP:SNOW. —C.Fred (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Andres Velaz de Medrano

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)



Velaz may well be a notable son of Al-Hakam II, or he may not. Given that this biography is almost entirely unsourced, we'd have no way of knowing. I believe that WP:TNT applies here -- if we were to remove all of the unsourced bits, we'd have literally nothing left. What sources I find online are either mirrors of Wikipedia or are history texts written before 1900 whose reliability is questionable. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research or hoax. There's nothing at Google Scholar for "Andres Velaz de Medrano". Google Books only turns up a few passing mentions, one of which says that he is the father of Don Andrés Félix Velaz de Medrano, husband of María Felipa de Fonseca, who in 1646 became the second marquise of la Lapilla, Spain. The second source also mentions him in the context of the Marquess of la Lapilla, established in 1643 (see also es-wiki).He seems to have been an obscure 17th-century noble man, and there appears to be no connection whatsoever with Abd al-Rahman, the firstborn son of the Umayyad caliph of Cordoba al-Hakam II (915–976), who in fact died as a young boy: this source, p. 23 says that "meager references to Abd al-Rahman in the sources mention his birth and premature death", giving as dates of birth and death 962 and 970 respectively; the Encyclopaedia of Islam entry on al-Hakam II calls Hisham II (966–1013) "his only son" at the time of succession in 976.Now there is a slight possibility that this is not a hoax, but rather based on old Spanish legends about the firstborn of the Caliph becoming a Christian prince and spawning a line of nobles called 'de Medrano'. In that case, however, we need reliably published research (secondary sources) about these legends to base an article on, and nothing of that sort has been brought forward yet. The names and biographies of Julio Altadill, Don Pedro Emiliano Zorrilla, Mr. Francisco Mosqeura Barnuevo and Peter Pineda given above (now moved to the talk page) are meaningless: we need to know the precise publications, including the publishing houses and bibliographic info like ISBN, OCLC, etc., and then we also require page numbers and preferably some quotes from these publications at the article talk page. If it can't be brought back to that, it doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 01:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Read my succession crisis of Al-Hakam II. Geronimo Virula Medrano El (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Vote Against Deletion: With all of the true sources, publishers and secondary research provided with page numbers under my "Full Objection of Deletion" and "Succession Crisis of Al-Hakam II" listed in the talk tab, I am hereby objecting this deletion for the page of Don Andres Velaz de Medrano. - Geronimo Virula Medrano El — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geronimo Virula Medrano El (talk • contribs)
 * Administrator's note: Geronimo Virula Medrano El's extensive discussion on sourcing has been moved to the talk page for the AfD to preserve the flow of this page. —C.Fred (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research, based on the article creator's own analysis of questionable sources, and as an unencyclopedic rambling genealogy, rather than a biography of an individual. I should note that even if it were to be established that the individual named in the article title met Wikipedia notability standards, 90% of the article as it stands would have to be deleted as entirely off-topic, even if sourced. Notability is not inherited... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Vélaz de Medrano noble family itself is likely to be wiki-notable (if perhaps just marginally so), and an article on them would probably include a small section on the narratives about their origins from the "legendary Moorish prince" mentioned by Emiliano Zorrilla & Altadill 1923 as having entered Navarre in 979 (perhaps other sources do also name this legendary prince Abd al-Rahman, firstborn son of the Umayyad caliph al-Hakam II and his Basque concubine Subh, which would fit both the chronology and the narrative). But the legend itself is probably not notable, and especially given the fact that we have no source whatsoever linking the "legendary Moorish prince" with Andres (who to all appearances was a 17th-century nobleman), what we have right now is obvious WP:TNT material. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I've moved substantial additional discussion to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Andres Velaz de Medrano. Please keep comments in this discussion relatively brief and on point. I take no position on the merits. Mackensen (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Due to the fact that there are editors removing my defense, sources, citations, page numbers and ISBN'S on the main page here I urge all true scholars to read my full objection found in the talk tab called "succession of Al-Hakam, Heir Presumptive vs Heir Apparent". All the information is there. These editors have the audacity to declare my work "unorganized" and "unencyclopedic" when in fact it is readily sourced. It seems no one actually took the time to look at my work, because if they did they would know the true authenticity of it. These biased editors tried to remove my page the day I created it, before I could even finish my work and sources. therefore it is clear they have a personal issue against my information and not actual rebuttals. I may file a report as this is becoming more of an attack against me rather than a proper review. It is VERY clear that their opinions are CLOUDING their editing and sourcing skills. I have provided a true, authentic, unbiased and sourced description of Andres Velaz de Medrano. Now please read. -Geronimo Virula Medrano El — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geronimo Virula Medrano El (talk • contribs) 13:02, 8 Jul 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: The page appears to be a synthesis of original research trying to lead the reader in the direction of a conclusion and is not suitable to remain published. If there is anything salvageable then it should be started from scratch and sent through the AfC process. Gusfriend (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As an example of the WP:OR is the statement which means the Encyclopaedia of Islam entry on al-Hakam II and the book of the Circular Visions of Fertility and Punishment: Caliphal Ivory Caskets from al-Andalus is incorrect due to the sources published by The The Red List of Hispania Nostra, and the well known laws and system of the heir presumptive and heir apparent. Gusfriend (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if the topic were to be found extant and wp:notable, the first step would be to delete all of the material currently in the article because of the immense amount of wiki-problems that it has. If the editor want's to assert that the topic is wp:notable, the first step is to find two independent sources that cover the topic of the article in depth, separate them out, and identify and point them out separately. Trying to say that that giant rambling treatise is a substitute for this is twice-over ridiculous. One is that it is un-readably long for a Wikipedian.  Second, saying that "it is in there somewhere" defines their claim that is near-impossible to test other than spending many hours on it to prove a negative.North8000 (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify: Let the creator, and others if they wish, work on it as a draft. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note that the creator was indefinitely blocked. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is a blatant hoax (though not one of the page creator's own devising). It represents the outright invention of a completely unattested ancestor for the Medrano family, supposedly giving rise to their surname yet placed in time a century and a half before Iberians even began to use surnames. Iberian historiography is rife with such ridiculous fake-ancestors that qualify neither as authentic historical figures nor notable fictional characters, as they are virtually unknown outside of the individual deluded families claiming them and are not even given the time of day by modern scholarly historians. There may be a place for the 'claim' in an article about the family, but only if it is appropriately couched as an origin legend and not as authentic history, and none of the existing credulous content could possibly be used for that. Agricolae (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.