- 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
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Vicente de la Fuente García ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mayor of a town of 12,000. Does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra ( talk) 09:23, 26 December 2021 (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 [1], 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- 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. snood 1205 15:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Snood1205
| ||||
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/coruna/betanzos/2021/12/22/fallece-excalcalde-betanzos-vicente-fuente-87-anos/00031640212659527538129.htm |  La Voz de Galicia is a widespread paper without a known affiliation to Vincent de la Fuente
|
It is the most read paper in Galicia and is widely regarded as reliable
|
The entire article is about de la Fuente
|
✔ Yes |
| https://www.laopinioncoruna.es/gran-coruna/2021/12/24/memoria-vicente-fuente-60998929.html | ~ The paper itself is independent from de la Fuente; however, the author works at a museum that was established by de la Fuente during his role in government. It is not published by the museum itself and seems to be subject to the editorial guidelines of the newspaper still. | Despite the implication of the name, la opinion is not an opinion paper but is a general interest newspaper in Galacia
|
The entire article is about de la Fuente
|
~ Partial |
| https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/coruna/betanzos/2021/12/27/sede-cultural-santo-domingo-betanzos-llevara-nombre-vicente-fuente/0003_202112H27C6998.htm | (See above)
|
(See above)
|
The article is about renaming a building after de la Fuente
|
✔ Yes |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. | ||||
- 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
Royal Autumn Crest. Per your comment, I have expanded the article a bit.
snood
1205 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)
- 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
Royal Autumn Crest. Per your comment, I have expanded the article a bit.
snood
1205 17:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
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)
- 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.
- 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
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Vicente de la Fuente García ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mayor of a town of 12,000. Does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra ( talk) 09:23, 26 December 2021 (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 [1], 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- 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. snood 1205 15:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:Snood1205
| ||||
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/coruna/betanzos/2021/12/22/fallece-excalcalde-betanzos-vicente-fuente-87-anos/00031640212659527538129.htm | La Voz de Galicia is a widespread paper without a known affiliation to Vincent de la Fuente
|
It is the most read paper in Galicia and is widely regarded as reliable
|
The entire article is about de la Fuente
|
✔ Yes |
| https://www.laopinioncoruna.es/gran-coruna/2021/12/24/memoria-vicente-fuente-60998929.html | ~ The paper itself is independent from de la Fuente; however, the author works at a museum that was established by de la Fuente during his role in government. It is not published by the museum itself and seems to be subject to the editorial guidelines of the newspaper still. | Despite the implication of the name, la opinion is not an opinion paper but is a general interest newspaper in Galacia
|
The entire article is about de la Fuente
|
~ Partial |
| https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/coruna/betanzos/2021/12/27/sede-cultural-santo-domingo-betanzos-llevara-nombre-vicente-fuente/0003_202112H27C6998.htm | (See above)
|
(See above)
|
The article is about renaming a building after de la Fuente
|
✔ Yes |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. | ||||
- 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
Royal Autumn Crest. Per your comment, I have expanded the article a bit.
snood
1205 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)
- 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
Royal Autumn Crest. Per your comment, I have expanded the article a bit.
snood
1205 17:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
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)
- 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.