Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campuzano-Polanco family

Campuzano-Polanco family

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

The family seems notable but I'm unable to find significant coverage confirming the information in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Meatsgains (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still in the process of being created. The sources will be added asap. Please be patient. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enion Glas (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a case of WP:BITE. Though the creator is encouraged to use Template:Under construction, the next time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that this may have been nominated a bit prematurely. It is coming along, and seems to meet GNG as a family. Some of the individuals may be notable in and of themselves, as well. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user space and encourage article creator to read WP:RS and pay particular attention to the need to source assertions in-line.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:REALPROBLEM. New articles should not be created in article space. We have sandboxes and the draft namespace for this purpose. This isn't 2004 anymore. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea about the sandboxes and draft namespace. Will use these tools for sure in the future. Apologies for any inconvinience guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enion Glas (talk • contribs) 01:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 25 edits were reverted without any reason. I put a lot of time adding realible sources so I at least expect reasons why you make changes

Also it has been a while since I finished constructing what the final article would look like and nobody has said anything. You are very quick to add the article to deletion but not to remove the deletion notice now that its fairly completed and sources added? I might not as experienced as you in wikipedia but please respect my time and effort a bit more. If this is the way you treat the new editors it leaves a lot to be said about the people running wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enion Glas (talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My guess as to why your edits were reverted is because you tried removing the AfD template, which clearly states, "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed". I urge you to continue improving the page and adding reliable sources but do not remove the AfD notice. Again, had you drafted this article in your sandbox, you wouldn't have to worry about others reverting your edits. Next time though! Meatsgains (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the reason why I delete the AFD template was because I actually thought that the discussion about whether to keep the article up had actually finished since the majority of vote said to keep it and keep improving it. Does it get automatically removed after a while or should it remove it myself? I have no idea on how to proceed. However, the 25 edits cannot be reverted automatically and seems like I have to do all the manual work again. Really? Penalizing a novice in this matter for his mistakes is not the way to keep new editors motivated and again says a lot about the "democratization of knowledge" that wikipedia sells to the world