Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Andrés Coloma

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Andrés Coloma[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no information other then they were a noble Redsky89 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The grounds for nomination are worthless, seeing that, although neither of the references currently given really seems usable (one is a dead link, the other seems only to mention him in passing), there is an interwiki link to a distinctly more detailed Spanish Wikipedia article. But, while it would probably help if someone with better Spanish than mine looked at it, the Spanish Wikipedia article mostly seems to be saying that he was a noble who inherited a lot of property through various routes and got into disputes about it, and it has precisely the same references as this article. And the various Google searches seem to provide quite a number of passing mentions but nothing more. Basically, unless more sources turn up, I doubt that he meets WP:GNG though given his rank, he might meet some other guideline. PWilkinson (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 05:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable --Shorthate (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, with support for a merge if there's a suitable target. Most hits are very passing mentions, but this has a bit of useful content, and also this one, although it is a primary record. Other than that, the snippets suggest that these [1] [2] [3] could also hold more than a trivial mention. While it's true that we expect coverage to be more significant, given the large presence in historical literature I just don't feel comfortable dismissing the subject right away. Regarding a merge, there's an article on the Countship of Elda on es:WP, but no equivalent here. Actually, it would appear that it is customary on en:WP to redirect "Countship of" to the location's article, so the target could be a new History section at Elda. In any case, there's enough out there that we can be certain the title shouldn't be a red link — Frankie (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer The above relisting seems to have failed. I am listing the discussion in today's log. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The refs listed above don't show notability. Bruddersohn (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.