Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munuza

: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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

=[[Munuza]]=

:{{la|Munuza}} ([{{fullurl:Munuza|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munuza}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Unreferenced for over two years, fails verifiability policy. Also has very questionable notability as a historical figure even if verified. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I added a reference in good faith, based upon the Reference in Pelagius of Asturias. 8th century moorish history is not a terribly common topic of discussion on the web, so proper research should be done in a well stocked university library. I see no reason to doubt this content. The Spanish Wikipedia entry goes into greator detail, but is also woefully unreferenced. -Verdatum (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Verifiability is not the major issue. Yes, someone needs to do the hard work, but most of the material given is verifiable, if carefully expressed. As to notoriety, his historical role is as foil/inspiration to the uprising of Pelayo with significant geo-political implications. The events themselves are notable, but whether Munuza himself merits a page of his own on this basis is more of a judgment call. Agricolae (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- The complaint is that it is unverified, not that it is unverifiable (i.e. rubbish). I have no idea whether the subject was or was not notable, but the article reads as if it is based on reliable sources. It needs some one who is familiar with early medieval Spanish history (which I am not) to improve it and supply the necessary references. By all measn tag for attention by an expert, but there are no grounds for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no time limit for cleanup and the article asserts notability and has an independant reference. Edward321 (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Has Spanish, Italian and French versions as well strongly suggesting notability. French version is independent and will be linked soon. Tom (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

: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.