Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sancho de Londoño

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. Just a note to the nominator, User:Freedoxm, please review the comments here directed to you before considering nominating another article for a deletion discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sancho de Londoño (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Has no sources and is a new page. Not only that, its a stub and therefore should be deleted. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 22:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nominator did not follow WP:BEFORE. See es:Sancho_de_Londoño, which is sourced to a 72 page historical monograph on the subject, and web sources like [1]. We don't delete articles because they are new or stubs. Jfire (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Military, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep The nomination advances no valid deletion rationale. First, notability depends on whether sources exist, not whether they happen to be included in the article currently. Second, being a new page just means that the page is new. If being a new page were valid grounds for deletion, we'd never get anywhere, would we? Third, likewise, being a stub just means that it's a stub. Finally, very trivial checks (the Spanish-language version, Google Scholar) find what appear to be plenty of viable sources; in such cases, the burden is on the nominator to show why those sources aren't usable. XOR'easter (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Viable stub and disappointing that the editor didn't expand it. Also, January 2015 is "new" now? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject appears to pass WP:NBIO through Spanish-language sources. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Nominator does not articulate any valid reasons for deletion (relevant ATAs: WP:ITSUNREFERENCED, WP:IMPATIENT, WP:TOOLITTLE) and deserves a trout for failing WP:BEFORE. Any problems are surmountable as well-demonstrated above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as rule now, before nominating an article please search Google news and books as well as clicking on other languages' articles. I just created my 200th article, which technically is still a stub, but there's many more than two sources available. Almost everything here is a work in progress. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2025 (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.