Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan de Lucena


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  06:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Juan de Lucena
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seemingly random figure, no sources and I cannot find anything that would warrant an article for somebody of this name. 00aa0 (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The page doesn't exist, and I can't find any logs that say it existed and then was deleted... --DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was a mistake on my part. The page is by the title Juan_de_Lucena
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  Ruyaba   (talk)  00:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per, , , etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Draftify . No referencing whatsoever.  There is clearly evidence that his was a notable charachter, and a full article on Spanish Wikipedia.  However, pasting in one line in English and relying on a link to Spanish Wikipedia as the only reference does not seem appropriate.  Do we need (or already have) a policy on this? Good job by ! Britishfinance (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT is the guideline that applies if you are unhappy with the current state of the article. I can't do everything myself, and I've done the work of finding sources, so how about a bit of constructive collaborative editing? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither can I. Therefore, I do rely on other editors to bring their articles to a basic standard that can exist on the Mainspace; otherwise they should be in Draftspace.Britishfinance (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And if it was in Draft space then who would improve it, as I see, after I visited the article with the intention of adding a couple of sentences, User:SkyGazer 512 has done? Just because you don't have the time to expand an article, or prefer to spend your time on marking other people's work rather than doing any yourself, it doesn't mean that articles should be hidden away from where more constructive editors can work on them. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping; I have tried to expand it a little bit. For completely unfamiliar topics, especially when most of the sources are in another languages, expansion can be a bit hard, and the article did previously contain virtually no information, so I do understand Britishfinance's point. However, I definitely have noticed that once articles are moved into draftspace they often have no progress made there, and after a few months they are G13d. I'll try to do more expansion, but the fact that the two sources I use (which both seem reliable) have about a 30-year date difference for information, that makes things a bit difficult... -- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's quite normal for historical subjects, particularly those that date from before movable-type printing was in widespread use where they were active, to have secondary sources that differ about the facts. You have done an excellent job of summarising the English-language sources. I understand Spanish a little, but am by no means fluent in it, but I'm sure that we have many editors who understand it better than I do so they will be able to develop this further based on the majority of sources that are in Spanish. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am confident that this nomination was made in good faith, but I'm afraid a thorough WP:BEFORE search wasn't performed. I do believe that this meets WP:GNG; it is just not shown in the current state of the article.


 * Although the majority of sources I can find are in Spanish (those are still acceptable as sources, but it means I can't really evaluate their reliability), I was able to find several English sources. We have this and this, which seem quite reliable and although Lucena isn't necessarily the main subject, his works are and I think they have enough information about him to be considered significant coverage. This book definitely provides significant coverage, and appears to have a good author and publisher. This source is certainly significant, although I'm a bit less sure about it's reliability; the author appears to be an expert in the subject but Lulu.com is a self-publishing company. There's also this book, which seems reliable and significant enough.


 * As may be expected, there's a lot more than this in Spanish. There's this book, which has a good author and publisher, this book which I'm not able to preview but it seems reliable and it looks to be the same Juan de Lucena based on what I can see. There's a lot more in Spanish that I can see, but again, I can't really evaluate the reliability and just how significant the coverage is for non-English sources; my Spanish is very poor!


 * I think it's clear that this meets the general notability guideline and I could probably provide stronger sources if I spoke better Spanish. I could understand why this was nominated for deletion, as it literately contained a single sentence with no sources before, as well as why onbe may argue that it should have been draftified; but I have expanded this to a few short paragraphs, added two references, and and as time permits I will probably do more for this article. Thanks, -- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:43, 14 February 2019 (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.