Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicente de la Fuente García


 * 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. czar 08:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Vicente de la Fuente García

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

Mayor of a town of 12,000. Does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete for mayors of places this small we need extremely good coverage, which is not at all what we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per, the subject was also a provincial deputy (Provincial deputation (Spain)) in A Coruña Province; however, I don't know if Spain's provincial councils meet the WP:NPOL requirement. Curbon7 (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Spanish provinces are like French départements, English counties or Italian provinces. If he had been a member of the Galician parliament it would be a different matter. Mccapra (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak Keep This is an odd one. By only being in Deputación da Coruña as opposed to the Xunta de Galicia, he does not qualify for WP:NPOL. However, I think that he might meet WP:GNG. Here's a sources table. snood1205 15:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Further comment on new sources would be worthwhile. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per snood's table. If there's more out there to help establish NPOL/GNG, I'm okay with giving it a chance. The article definitely needs to be expanded though, like so many other articles on Wikipedia, it's on the borderline of being worth keeping. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I know I'm guilty of voting to keep based on sources I find then I forget to incorporate them into the article. I had yet to set a 2022 resolution, but that seems like a good one, so thank you . Per your comment, I have expanded the article a bit. snood1205 17:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries! My bad, I thought you had added them. My opinion remains the same though. Good work. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - I am satisfied the new sources demonstrate sufficient sigcov for the subject Such-change47 (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per the sources indicated in the table. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, although borderline I think it just gets by WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 18:54, 15 January 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.