Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pais de los Maynas


 * 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. Article passes WP:GNG and is supported by WP:RS (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp  💬  14:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Pais de los Maynas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It isn't notable and doesn't make much sense to read. CupcakePerson13 (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Move: to "Mainas missions" or similar. "Maynas" is not the usual spelling in English, but "Mainas Missions" turns up a decent number of hits at Google Books. The reference to Samuel Fritz in the article checks out. The main source for the spelling "Pais de los maynas" appears to be this Spanish-language chronicle. Agree that in its current state the article needs lots of work, but given the number of sources I'd say it's notable -- see also this section of History of Ecuador, where the Jesuit missions are discussed in some detail – the section describes "Jesuit missions in Mainas or Maynas", and it would seem reasonable, given the sources on Google Books, to turn that reference into an article in its own right. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: How does it look now? (There's still more to do: Taylor's piece in this highly reputable source is rich with further info.) After taking a look at the sources while overhauling, I suggest a move to 'Mainas missions' with a redirect from 'Maynas missions', since 'Mainas' appears to be the more common spelling in English, at least in recent years. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep article makes sense in its present iteration, well referenced--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY by ; well written and referenced compared to the original version submitted to AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep there are reliable sources Devokewater @  15:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved since nomination with the addition of well referenced content supported by multiple reliable book sources that show that the subject passes WP:GNG and should be included, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2020 (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.