Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Freire-Garabal y Núñez

Manuel Freire-Garabal y Núñez

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The whole article seems rather fishy. The "Society of the Knights of Elviña" has no google hits except for this article. The "Royal Dynastic House of Morris" in totally unknown to anyone except that it has a facebook page; it's probably some fictional country. Likewise nothing can be found at all about the "Royal Institute of Historical, Political and Art Studies Alfonso XIII" or the "Royal Institute of Fine Arts Narciso de Estenaga". The "International Journal of Doctrine and Jurisprudence" which is alleged to have published an article from this person does not seem to exist. The awards which he allegedly received seem made up (again, Knights of Elvina, "House of Morris", etc. --MF-W 13:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "House of Morris" is a royal Welsh family house, not a house from a country called "Morris". Also, keep in mind that not all sources on this person will necessarily be available via the Internet, and that other sources such as printed books not available electronically may cover him. The likely existence of such sources is often considered sufficient reason to retain such articles. But I am not !voting "Keep" here, and have not reviewed the existing sources nor made any effort to find new ones myself. Just pointing out a few things. KDS4444 ^(talk) 23:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The translation into English is clumsy to say the least, but the sources are credible and do corroborate much of this. It is necessary to search on the Spanish terms given in the sources – sure, there is no trace of an "International Journal of Doctrine and Jurisprudence", but Revista Internacional de Doctrina y Jurisprudencia is real enough, as are Instituto de Estudios Historicos Politicos de Ciencias y Artes Rey Alfonso XIII, Real Instituto Narciso de Estenaga and La Sociedad de Caballeros de Elviña. (Note: I see that sources were added after this deletion discussion was opened): Noyster (talk), 10:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I refuted the original argument, but let it go: Noyster (talk), 13:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still not enough to pass the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]