Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Spain

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jexio (talk | contribs) at 13:52, 22 February 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisante Wind Farm.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Spain. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Spain|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Spain. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for Spain related AfDs


Spain

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. But deletion can be undone if other sources are brought forward. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sisante Wind Farm

Sisante Wind Farm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very short unsourced article with barely any information. This wind farm might exist, but i cannot to find any sources which would confirm that it actually does. Jexio (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've had a look at the sources you provided. Keeping in mind that the nominated article was written in 2007 and talks about a 196MW wind farm.
  1. The article is from 2021 and talks about 3 installations near Sisante with a combined capacity of 148 megawatt. This is much lower than the claimed 196MW.
  2. Is about a 49.5 MW wind farm in Sisante consisting of 33 wind turbines.
  3. The article is from 2018 and talks about a future 300MW wind farm. The location as described in the source matches with this one on OpenStreetMap: [1], which according to there was commissioned in 2022 and is not actually located in Sisante.
  4. This matches with a group of wind turbines here: [2] However, there is no mention of the installed capacity of the wind farm. Only that they use "a section of real wind farm located in Spain featuring 115 turbines." for their simulations.

None of the sources you gave seem to support the claim that there exists a 196MW wind farm located near Sisante. Only that there are various wind turbines and wind farms in that area of Spain. Together they might add up to 200MW, but none of the given sources actually confirm that. Jexio (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/merge if there is suitable target Why didn't this get a prod first? I don't see one in it's history. I think it's moot to argue it's existence or nonexistence. This is about the article, and the state of this nominated article is not encyclopedic #Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Based on what I saw, this one subject will not make an acceptable article. What should have happened was that somebody should have written an encyclopedic article about wind power in Spain, they could then list various wind farms in that article. But we don't need one line articles about individual wind farms on Wikipedia.James.folsom (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2024 (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.
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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Réseau Art Nouveau Network

Réseau Art Nouveau Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, mostly unsourced DrowssapSMM 02:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:54, 7 March 2024 (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.
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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Réseau Art Nouveau Network

Réseau Art Nouveau Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, mostly unsourced DrowssapSMM 02:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:54, 7 March 2024 (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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Spanish Quidditch Cup

2016 Spanish Quidditch Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. There's no Spanish Wikipedia article on this one. The article lists some references (no inlines), but they all just say "this event will happen on this date at this location" then explain what quidditch itself is, so no significant coverage provided. Really wasn't able to find anything else other than an article about who won that was behind a paywall. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2024 (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.
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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of Romay

House of Romay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is important to acknowledge that the sources listed on the page are dead and have nothing to do with the House of Romay, and therefore, they cannot provide any evidence or support for the information presented on the page. These sources do not validate or prove the claims made within the content. Furthermore, please see major news sources that discredit the information presented on the page and existence of the House of Romay.

Below are the sources discrediting the information on the page.

List

https://laexpresion.com.mx/2023/11/15/desacredita-la-existencia-de-la-casa-de-romay-y-el-conde-de-monterroso-por-la-real-academia-matritense-de-heraldica-y-genealogia-ricardo-de-romay/

https://galiciadiario.com/web/frontend_cargar_noticia.php?id_noticia=121300

https://nybreaking.com/the-rise-of-fabricated-aristocracy-house-of-romay-and-ricardo-de-romay/

https://ultimasnoticiasenred.com.mx/local/falsa-nobleza-desmentida-la-casa-de-romay-y-el-senor-de-cadro-por-la-real-academia-matritense-de-heraldica-y-genealogia-en-relacion-con-ricardo-de-romay/

https://www.terra.com.ve/2023/12/fraude-nobiliario-expuesto-la-verdad.html

https://www.http.uk.net/2023/12/falsos-aristocratas-desacreditando-la.html

https://www.imakinaria.com/2023/12/fraude-y-mentira-de-la-falsa.html

Even from WikiCommons:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diego_de_Romay_Basail-_Fraudsters_and_Obsession_with_Aristocracy.jpg

More official documents can be provided upon request. This page is spreading misinformation through irrelevant and unreliable sources. --Daliaxer (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC) (talk • contribs)[reply]


  • Comment Spanish WP [3] says "The Romay family ( Galician : Casa do Romay ) is a fictional Spanish house in northern Spain. According to an investigation carried out by the newspaper El Universal , it was created to carry out fraud and falsification of noble titles, where several families are committing fraud by making fraudulent use of said titles. 1 ​2" If that is correct, and the subject meets WP:N, some changes are needed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similar kind of socking and edit-warring is going on over there too. Someone who can Spanish will have to identify a couple of reliable sources on the topic and give our article a proper reboot. I suggest that such an editor, if short of time, should comment out the current article and add a good sentence or two to display for the readers in the meantime. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The very sources put forth to show this is a fraud also show that it meets the GNG. As my colleague Gråbergs Gråa Sång notes what's called for is not deletion but a rewrite reflecting the fact that the subject is fictional. Central and Adams (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page does not meet WP:N or WP:GNG. Below is the brief explanation of each source used in the page so far all of which have been unreliable.
source analysis

Source 1: is a blog that should be removed as it is unreliable and written by someone who advertises his services. It doesn't provide any evidence or mention of the House of Romay or their nobility.

Source 2: dead link. Unable to verify any information regarding the House of Romay or their nobility.

Source 3: A book written in 2006 that briefly mentions Vasco de Romay, who was the husband of Doña Ginebra de Araujo. However, it doesn't provide any evidence of the House of Romay being noble or prominent.

Source 4: Only states that Diego de Romay constructed the body of ships and façade of a church in 1670. No evidence or mention of the House of Romay being noble.

Sources 5: A book written in 1997 where no information regarding the House of Romay or their nobility was found.

Sources 6: A book written in 1984 that doesn't mention anything about the House of Romay or their nobility.

Sources 7: A book written in 2003 that doesn't mention anything about the House of Romay or their nobility.

Source 8: A dictionary-like book that describes Romay as a field of red, gold, and silver, with its paws holding two fig tree leaves. However, it doesn't provide any evidence of the House of Romay being noble or prominent.

--Daliaxer (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Striking duplicate !vote -- your nom already registered your preference for deletion. You don't get to weigh in twice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Central and Adams (talk • contribs)
  • Delete This article has been written by Diego de Romay, who is a known scammer according to major news outlets. The article proves nothing and has no sources that can substantiate and validate the information present in it.

Following are the sources that do not validate the content present in this article:

--Elene13 (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Major Mexican newspaper does six page investigation discrediting them and calling them frauds:[4]

More sources discrediting the Romay Family as fake:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.141.129 (talk)
  • Delete Other than being a source of misinformation, this article compounded with that of its Spanish counterpart doesn't just invoke WP:N and WP:GNG as already highlighted but also goes as far as to encourage original research at this point. This cat-and-mouse chase only ends when this article gets recreated by someone at some point and passes through current regulatory standards. Besides, the majority of the refs at this point, refer to the lack of credibility regarding their own existence. Virtualmistik (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability isn't based on the sources in the article, it's based on the sources in the world. Encouraging original research isn't a deletion criterion. It's perfectly fine if the sources say that the subject is fictional. We have plenty of articles on fictional subjects. Central and Adams (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have modified comments from multiple editors, changing spacing and indenting in a few comments and collapsing the lists of external links to make this more readable. I have unstruct the !votes from Elene and the IP. Participations in this AFD are suspicious but they need to be blocked before the votes are struck if the votes are to be disqualified. Signed a few unsigned posts. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The entire article contains incorrect information and cites unreliable or dead sources. Many articles have exposed them as liars. Including the Ministry of Justice and Spanish Nobility have discredited them.

There is a whole book on them being fake:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/204252845-fake-aristocrats

Letters from Ministry of Justice in Spain and Spanish Nobility discrediting them:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diego_de_Romay-Basail_-_The_Fake_Aristocrat_and_the_Nonexistent_House_of_Romay.jpg

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diego_de_Romay-Basail_-_debunked_by_Spanish_Nobility_and_Ministry_of_Justice_in_Spain.jpg

And other sources:

https://laexpresion.com.mx/2023/11/15/desacredita-la-existencia-de-la-casa-de-romay-y-el-conde-de-monterroso-por-la-real-academia-matritense-de-heraldica-y-genealogia-ricardo-de-romay/

https://galiciadiario.com/web/frontend_cargar_noticia.php?id_noticia=121300

https://www.ukinsider.co.uk/education/discrediting-the-existence-of-the-house-of-romay-and-its-false-noble-titles-ricardo-de-romay/

https://nybreaking.com/the-rise-of-fabricated-aristocracy-house-of-romay-and-ricardo-de-romay/

https://ultimasnoticiasenred.com.mx/local/falsa-nobleza-desmentida-la-casa-de-romay-y-el-senor-de-cadro-por-la-real-academia-matritense-de-heraldica-y-genealogia-en-relacion-con-ricardo-de-romay/ Mopertcasocp (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • TNT delete - my assessment of the available sources is that we currently have no credible citations that discuss the House of Romay as a real noble house. Unfortunately, the available sources calling it a hoax are also weak: a collection of articles in tabloid and local papers which are far from high quality RS for history. The one (relatively) higher quality source cited would be the article in El Universal. Unfortunately, the article appears to have been unpublished, as despite having been put online only this month (see internal search results) it is currently inaccessible. Without a single solid secondary source on either side of the hoax debate, deletion seems to be our only option. If El Universal ever republishes a relevant piece, or if this draws the attention of other high-circulation newspapers and/or academic publications, we may be able to write an article then. signed, Rosguill talk 14:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe hang it on the wall too depending on outcome of this AFD.

Nevermind (see immediately below) ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete solely based on lack of notoriety, but disagree on hoax. These articles, as pointed above, are all very disreputable publications, without sources and an evident personal tone. The only reputable one, El Universal, took it down less than a week after being published. Besides that I invite people to look at the Talk page, where I originally posted the findings of a light research based on some vandalisms by user @Giganoto48. The page was then protected to allow discussion, and user @Mopertcasocp began attacking me for posting my findings, accusing me of being the subject and other very personal remarks -- I naturally walked away. I now see that every user here pushing for this family to be presented as a fraud in this debate have apparently been blocked as sock puppets of @Mopertcasocp, see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elene13. Do review the research in the Talk Page a while back, before I stopped helping this page, which includes National Archive of Spain and National Nobility Archive information on the Romay family, including two family trees etc. So, it is most certainly not a hoax, and I get the feeling this notion is a personal attack to make them look as such? Who knows. That said, it is however perhaps not meeting WP:GNG, so deletion is a possibility. Benzeneshamus (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will paste the info I had gathered before, for easier reference:
    Spain's National Archive grants digital access to its database. I did a quick search and found the following documents held in Spain's National Archive:
    1) "Genealogical Tree of the Romay family: from Juan de Romay down to Antonia de Romay (married to Lorenzo de Puga)" (http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas20/catalogo/description/12670510?nm, Government of Spain, Historical Archive of the Nobility)
    2) "Genealogical Tree of the Romay family: from Basco de Romay to Catalina Sarmiento de Valladares, II Marchioness of Valladares (married to García Ozores López de Lemos Noguerol, IV Count of Amarante).(http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas20/catalogo/description/12671470?nm Government of Spain, Historical Archive of the Nobility)
    Clearly not an invention and distinguished enough to have two family trees in the Historical Archive of the Nobility. I don't see any claims of a living person on this current page claiming any titles, which confuses me as that seems to be the main issue. I do agree that they perhaps are not relevant enough for inclusion in wikipedia, which is why I voted "delete".
    The two emails, one from the National Archive in the Ministry of Justice and the other from Diputación de la Grandeza (which from what I read is not the "Spanish Nobility", that is a group of nobles, but an official regulatory body that catalogues titles and their holders), are simply replying to a query asking if the Romay family holds certain titles in Spain. The answer is a clear no from both, but it doesn't make any reference, let alone comment on anyone pretending, nor does it discredit the family's relevance or history. Perhaps some of you don't speak Spanish, but please review. What confuses me, is that several users here, @Daliaxer@Mopertcasocp @Virtualmistik @Elene13, (all now blocked sock puppets) appear to push that the letters discredit the family and call it a fraud.
    @Jpgordon has now protected the page in an edit that I believe to be quite unethical and potentially defamatory, stating that the family "was created for the purpose of fraud and forgery" in the introduction. Surely a non potentially defamatory version should be protected instead, until the evidence is reviews by all?
    Benzeneshamus (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:THEWRONGVERSION. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, that is why I did not edit it to allow for the arguments I presented above. I believe they are ample and sufficient to indicate this version should not be protected. Benzeneshamus (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies about the revert, I am always concerned when an editor takes a sledgehammer and erases a large part of the article, and in this case missed out on potentially defamatory content that @Benzeneshamus removed when I analysed his edits. I was concerned about erasure of sources, and it was definitely not my intention to back up a WP:NOTHERE user welding a sockpuppet network. Also, excellent work, that is one of the best efforts I've seen from any editor to verify a hoax is true or not. I applaud you 👏 ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not a hoax, but not notable either way. DrowssapSMM 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently working on Netflix series titled 'Lord Swindler'. The sheer creativity displayed in concocting numerous names, titles, ancestors, palaces, and narratives is truly commendable and deserving to watch. To claim oneself as the 47th Count or 44th Lord, despite the fact that Spain's oldest title only dates back to the 22nd, is a testament to the vivid imagination at play here. As I delve into some of the earlier versions of this page from 2019, I stumbled upon edits by user @DiegodeRomay that said:
    “The Romay family is recognized by their ancestors, who were kings of Spain and France, and who are currently one of the most important and powerful families in Spain.”
    “Don Ricardo de Romay y Hernandez-Chazaro, 44th Count of Monterroso, 47th Señor de Cadro and Monterroso, who succeeded the head of the family in 2018 and is one of the most influential people in Spain. He lives with his family at the Palace of Cadro. Its construction dates from the 13th century, its tower from the 15th century and the rest of the palace from the 18th century. The name "Don Juan de Romay, Count of Monterroso and Señor de Cadro" is inscribed on the main entrance.”
    This whole hoax is insane and twisted. Who in their right mind would claim that Ricardo lives in the Palace and belongs to one of the most current influential Spanish families? There was a whole investigation done on this family and every sentence they have ever said was not true. The sheer audacity to come up with so many made-up names and outrageous stories is mind-blowing. This whole fabricated saga is so wild that it definitely deserves its own movie. I'm writing this up into a script just waiting on more testimonies from witnesses. So please don’t delete this page! @HouseofRomayhoax should be made or merged.
    @ASmallMapleLeaf@Benzeneshamus@Central and Adams@Cyberbot I@Gråbergs Gråa Sång@DrowssapSMM Mariechristineh (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This major academy in Spain calls the House of Romay “nonsense”, the “Real Academia Matritense de Heráldica y Genealogía en España” (https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Academia_Matritense_de_Heráldica_y_Genealogía) referring to them as "disparate," which means "nonsense" on page 25: http://www.ramhg.es/images/stories/pdf/boletin/boletin-126-127.pdf
    The House of Romay claims to be from Galicia, Spain and the local newspaper in Galicia debunks them:
    https://galiciadiario.com/web/frontend_cargar_noticia.php?id_noticia=121300
    Yes, I agree that the sources supporting the hoax of House of Romay's claims are weak. However, it is important to note that this family is considered irrelevant to major newspapers, which makes finding larger sources challenging. The Romay name is not a known name in Mexico or Spain, and newspapers like El Universal have shown little interest in preserving articles related to this matter. For example, this topic only made it to a weekly "tendencias" section in El Universal. This was the article: https://web.archive.org/web/20240209193517/https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/tendencias/mexicanos-que-utilizan-titulos-espanoles-nobiliarios-falsos-casa-de-romay/?outputType=amp
    I believe we should create a page discussing the “House of Romay hoax”. Here’s why: Please review all the topics on the talk page to see how every single sentence was a lie designed to deceive others into believing they had noble and royal origins. Additionally, take a look at the old versions of this page going back to a few years to see how it was excessively exaggerated and fabricated, even going so far as to claim fictional characters ran the Royal Habsburg-Romay House and that the Romay family owns the Magdalena Palace inherited in 1995 (palace owned by Spanish royal family) and Palace of the Kings of Navarre of Olite since 1937 (a national monument).
    There is a whole book on this Romay hoax on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Fake-Aristocrats-Investigation-Nonexistent-Ancestors-ebook/dp/B0CQT9TN2S?dplnkId=b153d89e-0b97-4557-8c42-31053d5f4c66&nodl=1
    @Benzeneshamus, Regarding the two letters mentioned, one of them is indeed from the official Spanish nobility website’s email and the other is from the Ministry of Justice of Spain. If you visit the contact pages of both official websites and submit a message, you will receive a reply from these two emails. Official Spanish nobility website: https://www.diputaciondelagrandezaytitulosdelreino.es/contacto/. And Ministry of Justice in Spain: https://www.mjusticia.gob.es/BUSCADIR/ServletControlador?apartado=buscadorGeneral&tipo=RC&lang=en_gb
    Both of them claimed the Romay family did not have noble titles or any noble origins:
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diego_de_Romay-Basail_-_The_Fake_Aristocrat_and_the_Nonexistent_House_of_Romay.jpg
    https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diego_de_Romay-Basail_-_debunked_by_Spanish_Nobility_and_Ministry_of_Justice_in_Spain.jpg
    An example of falsehoods still remaining on the page is:
    “Jose Sarmiento Valladares Arines de Romay” (1643-1708), 1st Duke of Atrisco, 40th Viceroy of New Spain
    “Romay” is not the Duke of Atrisco's second last name. This has been said in many news articles. Don José Sarmiento Valladares was the son of Gregorio Sarmiento de Valladares and Juana Sarmiento y Niño de Castro. He was the grandson of Luis Sarmiento de Valladares and Inés de Arines Troncoso y Romay, and the great-grandson of Juan de Arines Troncoso and Ginebra Núñez de Romay. Don José Sarmiento Valladares, who was a viceroy and knight of the Order of Santiago, never used the surname Romay of his great-grandmother, which would be his sixth last name. Additionally, there is no evidence that the great grandmother belonged to a house called House of Romay.
    Also this individual was not a “Romay” who also still remains on the page:
    José Alfonso Correa Cortés de Mendoza Ozores de Sotomayor y Romay, Count. He was the son of Don Alonso Correa Ozores de Sotomayor Alemparte Oya y Silva, Lord of Casa do Pegullal, and Dona Leonor Cortés de Mendoza y Sotomayor. He was also the maternal grandson of Don Juan Cortés de Mendoza and Dona Aldonza de Romay y Varela. His sixth last name was Romay.
    There are no known nobles with the surname Romay. While the Duke of Atrisco and José Alfonso Correa Cortés de Mendoza did have the name Romay through the female line, their connection to the Romay lineage was separated by six degrees. It is also worth noting that the military rank of Captain, held by Ramon Romay, does not confer noble status. Additionally, given that Romay is a fairly common surname, it is uncertain whether these three individuals were even distantly related. There is no historical evidence to support their affiliation to a noble house called Romay.
    Local sources:
    https://laexpresion.com.mx/2023/11/15/desacredita-la-existencia-de-la-casa-de-romay-y-el-conde-de-monterroso-por-la-real-academia-matritense-de-heraldica-y-genealogia-ricardo-de-romay/
    https://nybreaking.com/the-rise-of-fabricated-aristocracy-house-of-romay-and-ricardo-de-romay/
    https://ultimasnoticiasenred.com.mx/local/falsa-nobleza-desmentida-la-casa-de-romay-y-el-senor-de-cadro-por-la-real-academia-matritense-de-heraldica-y-genealogia-en-relacion-con-ricardo-de-romay/
    https://www.ukinsider.co.uk/education/discrediting-the-existence-of-the-house-of-romay-and-its-false-noble-titles-ricardo-de-romay/
    @ASmallMapleLeaf@Benzeneshamus@Central and Adams@Cyberbot I@Gråbergs Gråa Sång@DrowssapSMM @Mariechristineh Limbonesao (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it concerning that the archived El Universal article was published with a collective Redacción byline, whereas all other articles in the same Tendencias section of the paper, even exceedingly trivial ones like horoscopes ([5]), have clearly-identified authors. I think this further emphasizes that there is something out of the ordinary with this article and it should not be considered a reliable source until El Universal decides to republish it. The other links are all sources previously considered and described as tabloids. signed, Rosguill talk 14:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer to that question is simple. The horoscopes article won't get you killed in Mexico. Over the past few years, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) documented the tragic killings of at least 52 journalists in Mexico. Therefore, there are strict laws protecting the rights of journalists and freedom of speech. In cases where articles are deemed controversial, they are usually published anonymously or under the name "redacción". To delve deeper into this matter, I contacted El Universal today and conducted an interview with an editor who has been in touch with the Romay family (who will now be featured in my Netflix series). According to the editor, the Romay family has allegedly sent dozens of threatening emails and claims of "defamation". It is worth mentioning that Mexico does not have any defamation laws. So their threats to no where. Furthermore, the aforementioned article did not contain any insults or defamatory remarks directed towards the Romay family. Instead, it was an academic and genealogical investigation supported by dates, facts, and credible sources, aimed at debunking the noble titles and existence of the House of Romay. It seems that the Romay family has gone to great lengths to conceal their falsehoods. Even hiring a reputation company in London, who has no idea about Mexican laws and rights. Moreover, the article also did not constitute invasion of privacy, as the Romay family willingly made their lives public by creating Wikipedia pages in an attempt to deceive others into thinking they had noble and royal origins and lived in palaces. So they put themselves in this whole hoax. Mariechristineh (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2024 (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.
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 merge‎ to Lostwave. Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone Knows That (Ulterior Motives)

Everyone Knows That (Ulterior Motives) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only good source is Rolling Stone article. Other than that, all others sources are not notable or constitute as original research Pyraminxsolver (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seconding Pyramin that Rolling Stone is the only reliable source here, and I found no others. Would consider supporting a merge/redirect to an appropriate target if anyone else has one; I had thought about lost media but that page doesn't have any examples listed or substantial mention of music, so it's probably not a good fit, at least in its current state. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Id recommend a merge to the Lostwave article Pyraminxsolver (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was not aware of that article, but it makes perfect sense and already has a section on this song. I support this merge target as well. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft, I think with the French TV Station and time this article can be brought to standards, similar to the most mysterious song on the internet. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lostwave, It's significant enough to be worthwhile to be as a particle but not significant enough to be an article at it's own. 78.190.59.94 (talk) 07:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are two sources mentioned above (Rolling Stone article and TF1 broadcast). I also found a newser article referencing it. I didn't look into the reliability of the newser article, but it's also an original article, and not just an aggregation; and we're talking about notability, not citations. I'd say 3 sources is enough for WP:GNG. Crystalholm (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per @Crystalholm's point, it has gained two mentions in two generally notable perennial sources, and will continue to grow in its search to be found while gaining more traction on TikTok and Reddit. More so to my other point, if The Most Mysterious Song on the Internet can have a listing in the same set of circumstances (not being fully found but of enough interest), this should be able to also. --Mechanical Elephant (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify &/or merge with Lostwave. While I personally have an interest with the search, I feel the notability as of now is not quite enough to constitute an article. I will say that the subreddit & interest in the subject is growing pretty rapidly, which means it’s likely to gain more coverage. It could just be too soon. Not0nshoree (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2024 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Loranger

Julie Loranger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Google news comes up with a person in New Zealand. and google books comes up with 1 line mentions. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The sources added by User:Bridget are substantial and reliable. Lamona (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Many of the sources are largely interviews but there's enough independent coverage within them and others to at least meet WP:NBASIC. S0091 (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @S0091: Just curious, could you explain how you came to the conclusion that they are "largely interviews"? They seem like intellectually independent news articles that reasonably paraphrase or quote an interview that was done with the subject, routine for this kind of publication. Bridget (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC) (edited 11:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    @Bridget Sure! When I look at sources I discount statements by the subject, so quotes or statements attributed to the subject, like "she says", "according to her", "she explains", etc. Using the first three as examples, the first one the majority of it is quotes or statements attributed to her but contains a good chunk of independent content. The 3rd source is mostly her statements. The 2nd source, the book, is tricky because I don't have access to all the content but a portion is an interview with some extensive quotes and other statements by her. I could also see there's some independent content but I could not tell exactly how much yet thought based on what I could see it's enough to contribute to notability. I then spot checked some other sources but I don't recall which ones. That's how I got to a solid keep with it meeting "at least" NBASIC. S0091 (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2024 (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.


Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Spain&oldid=1209558433"