Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribunal de Cassació

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The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn, no other recommendation to delete. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tribunal de Cassació[edit]

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

There have been no improvements of sources given in over 2 years. I have no idea if anything about this article is fact or fantasy but two plus years seems enough time to fix this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading several comments I have re-evaluated my AFD. Perhaps I should have used {{notability}}, {{original research}}, {{unencyclopedic}}.... except on BLP. I formally withdraw this AFD nomination. Please close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the numerous Catalonia AFD's My gut feel is that they could all meet wp:notability individually, have content which should be retained, and that they would be best consolidated into to a new article, possibly Political history of Catalonia. Between being topics that are somewhat obscure in the English speaking world, and that sources are more likely to be in Spanish explains why these articles lack editors and are hard to work on. (I.E. not due to unsuitability of the topic.) I have also posted the following at the Catalonia article:

There are about 12 Catalonia articles up for deletion (todays AFD's). Most are on obscure political historical topics, have no editors, and no sources, but good content. One suggestion would be to create a "Political History of Catalonia" article and put all of those orphans into it and bring them out of obscurity so that they can get a bit of attention. Or else give the individual article some attention.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ^^ BlueBirdo (talk) 17:00, 4 March 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.