Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro José de Mendoça Rolim de Moura Barreto, 6th Duke of Loulé

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 08:22, 15 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro José de Mendoça Rolim de Moura Barreto, 6th Duke of Loulé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability per argument on Talk:Pedro José de Mendoça Rolim de Moura Barreto, 6th Duke of Loulé #Lack of notability The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If this person is actually claiming to be heir to the Portuguese throne then he might be notable, but the article claims he supports the Duke of Braganza, and the claim that some people regard him as the rightful heir is completely unsourced. PatGallacher (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I don't vote Pedro. He doesn't even have a page in Portuguese yet so why one in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregkaye (talkcontribs) 08:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2014 (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.