Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia


 * 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   G7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No evidence of notability, written entirely from primary sources, appears to have been created solely to push an extreme POV Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday, the article states well known facts, documented in the sources provided. Like in the case of the Battle of Lemos, being an event part of Spain's history, it has been published mostly in Spanish. (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)).
 * Had you used any encyclopedias, that would be one thing. However, this article is cited exclusively to Parish records and similar, except for one reference in a background section of dubious connection. You can write an article on pretty much anyone who lived in the last five centuries with such sources. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems to be in the same realm of fantasy as Vitus Barbaro and The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I quite don't understand. You have just marked for deletion all of my articles, which are perfectly noted and referenced. It looks pretty arbitrary to me to just label them for deletion, when most encyclopedias in Spanish language include them (Gran Enciclpedia Gallega, Enciclopedia Garcia Carraffa, Enciclopedia Espasa, etc.). (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Try citing one of those encyclopedias. Bart133 t c @ 06:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral. I'd lean toward deleting it, but if the article exists in Spanish encyclopedias, it might be worth inclusion in a more NPOV form. Let's at least see if there are more sources in Spanish. Bart133 t c @ 06:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The actual sources used are baptismal rgisters, parish registers, and other governmental and chuch registers. No encyclopedias are cited. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

None of these articles show up in the Spanish Wikipedia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as pure hoax, there are no Barons of Lemavia and no reliable sources for any of this author's balderdash. This is a total waste of time and deserves a block. Drawn Some (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

'''I have answered all your questions for hours. You have made very offensive accusations based on:
 * 1) Your inability to read Spanish.
 * 2) Your lack of interest for sources published in paper. You only accept websites as sources.
 * 3) You are not interested to search the websites of the Spanish Goverment I have provided (search "lopez de prado", between quotes, at http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas/servlets/Control_servlet?accion=0).
 * 4) The fact that my area of expertise (War crimes commited in Galicia during the Peninsular Wars) has offended a group of French Wikipedians (Equendil, Frania W., etc.).
 * 5) Ridiculous suppositions (do I live in Chicago? Are these 5 users in the same Continent? Why are they interested in similar topics?)
 * 6) Discrimination based on being a new contributor.

Anyone with access to this Encyclopedia (http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/geneal/index_gc.html), available at the Library of Congress and everywhere in the Spanish Speaking World, please go to Volume 72, pages 101-120. Or go to the http://www.granenciclopediagalega.com/, also available in the Library of Congress, and search the article dedicated to Lopez de Prado. These are but a few more proves that these individuals are making false accusations. I do not doubt your intention is right, but the conclusion here is that a very small number of Wikipedians ignorant of well published research actually have the power to remove legitimate content. Fine, if this is how flawed Wikipedia is, please go ahead and remove these articles. They belong to the paper encyclopedias available in the Library of Congress. End of discussion.''' (Qqtacpn (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Author just tagged it for speedy deletion, claiming they wanted to revoke GFDL. I think they want a G7.  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 12:24, 17 May 2009 (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.