Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro José Folque de Mendoça


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Pedro José Folque de Mendoça

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

All but one of the footnotes point to https://www.notiziarioaraldico.info/2017111412598/on-line-studio-sulla-real-casa-di-portogallo/, which is a self-published blog that itself cites wikipedia and other wikis and self-published forums and blogs for all of its claims. DrKay (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Portugal. DrKay (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * delete all refs are to Societas Internationalis Studiorum Dynasticorum - a weird source. - Altenmann >talk 23:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. Keivan.f  Talk 06:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. If an impostor with a reputation as a true member of royalty, such as Duarte Pio de Bragança, has an article with a fantasy story on Wikipedia, why would the real Duke of Loulé have his article deleted? Wikipedia's impartiality is really at stake! Propaganda articles in favor of Duarte Pio's Family should be eliminated as they are just a repetition of lies with the aim of proselytizing to legitimize impostors. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * I have no interest in the topic (nothing seems more boring to me than people claiming on other people's behalf that they should be monarch of a country that ceased to be a monarchy many generations ago) so I will do no more than point out that the sole "keep" opinion above has no basis in policy, being pure WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS with no sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2024 (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.