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 deleted the AFD template was because I actually thought that the discussion about whether to keep the article up had finished since the majority of vote said to keep it and keep improving it. Does the notice 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

Keep working at it. AfD is rough, and I'm sorry about that. I've restored the work that was reverted - leaving the AfD and under construction tags, hopefully that was the right thing to do (even I'm not always sure). There are no promises that your work on this page will ultimately be kept, you must always live with the unbearable lightness of being on a web page anyone can edit. But I am enjoying reading your work, and others are too. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Enion glas has mentioned on their talk page that they have pretty much finished editing the article and the under-construction tag has been removed from the article, so if you were waiting to discuss the page until it that point, it seems that it is now in a more stable state. I still think the article is suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is the family but this article is really a mishmash of biographies about 10 different people. Note how in House of Tudor most (but not all) the content is about the family, not just individual members. The fact that all members of the Tudors are notable themselves means that article could be a list. This article has no notable members so there's no claim of notability. The sources are almost exclusively in Spanish so it's not something I feel comfortable AGF'ing on. From the looks of it most of the sources are also primary sources and WP:GNG doesn't actually allow for primary sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The biographies are not of 10 different people. They are all the same family, with each generation producing a notable member. Some family pages have a more short style section based format to its presentation and some of them just include the links of their members. Ex.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essen_family. "This article has no notable members? Are you serious? It contains one of the two most famous/notable privateers of the Spanish colonies (along with Miguel Enriquez from Puerto Rico) and a heroe of the Battle of Cartagena de Indias, a very important battle, perhaps the most important in the history of Spanish colonial Latin America. It contains one of the few rectors of the University of Salmanca that were born in the Americas (criollo) and a distinguished politician in the metropolis of Spain named Procer del Reino by Isabel II, a very uncommon thing at that time for an american criollo not born in Spain. Out of this family comes Jose Maria Heredia, compared by some to be the Walt Whitman of Latin America. The sources are all legitimate and they can be translated for verification. --Enion Glas (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the article could be spun out into articles about many of the constituent individuals. If this were done, then an article, List of members of the Campuzano-Polanco family would be appropriate, even if this one were not. However, I could see an argument for interest and inclusion in this article some individuals that might not quite meed GNG (such as Francisco Gregorio Campuzano Polanco (1682-1750)); whose inclusion in this article would be appropriate; and whose inclusion in a list might not be appropriate. Can you list the sources which talk about the family as a group, rather than focusing on the individuals? I guess that Agudo 2007, Rodriguez Demorizi 1959, and Cassa 2013 (the first one of his cited, currently citation 17) do, is that right? What about the other sources? Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My intention from the beginning was to create an article about this family in more of a timeline format highlighting their main political, military or ecclessiastical merits. I could create perhaps an article in the House of Tudor fashion that Christroutman brought up, however it was not my intention to elaborate endlessly about the lives of each of them. If you would like to do so, some of the sources go over important epidoses of some of the character's lives.

Some families are quite extensive and it would make sense that cousins, distant cousins, half brothers, etc would have do be described on different links. However what distinguishes this family and makes it unique perhaps is that it is quite a small family, an each generation (not spread out branches, etc), which kept itself quite small if you notice, achieved notable merits. It is quite rare to find a family with so many merits generation after generation in the archives of the council of indies that you can access through archivesportaleurope.net. No other family from colonial Latin America has a hero in the Battle of Cartagena de Indias, where all of the naval captains where pure Spaniards and Europeans (not criollos from America), a politician that achieved so many merits in the metropolis of Spain AND one of the best and most famous poets of Latin America considered to be the first Romantic poet of America, for which of course I only highlighted his name since he already had an article. If you can find a family with members such as this please point it out to me since I would love to read about them. Most colonial families from Latin America just achieve a noble title for killing a bunch of defenseless indigenous people or finding a gold or silver mine. In fact I left out a bunch of small achievements and positions from the family members just to keep this article easy to read.

Rarelly will you find a sources where they talk about just one family member. Usually the case is that you find all the members mentioned together in an article or a book. Other sources where they mention all the family members or the family as a whole are

Utrera, Fray Cipriano de. "Dominicanos Insignes en el exterior. Pag 11". CLIO Vol. 33.

Utrera, Fray Cipriano de. "Heredia: Centenario de Jose Maria Heredia, Pag. 139". Editorial Franciscana, Ciudad Trujillo 1939.

Machado Baéz, Manuel. Santiagueses ilustres de la colonia. 2nd Edition, Santo Domingo, Ediciones Centurión, 1972

Francisco Gregorio Campuzano was a PRIOR PROVINCIAL for a big region of South America (all the West Indies and Venezuela). You dont think that is quite a merit FOR A CRIOLLO? Please understand that this is a criollo family and most of the positions/achievements that they obtained where usually reserved for peninsulars (Spaniards born in Spain) For this reason I do not think he should be left out at all.--Enion Glas (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you go to Google Books and type Campuzano Polanco you will find perhaps more than a hundred sources that talk about them and that I didnt include in the article. Sources in English and from different countries (Spain, Cuba, Venezuela, Santo Domingo)

https://www.google.se/search?biw=1366&bih=657&tbm=bks&q=campuzano+polanco&oq=campuzano+polanco&gs_l=serp.12...0.0.0.4028.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.serp..0.0.0.tE4LLJyhO-4--Enion Glas (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My intention wasn't to discuss the inclusion or exclusion of any individual in this article, merely to ask, as I said, if you could list the sources which talk about the family as a group, rather than focusing on the individuals? You are, I think, suggesting that for my answer I should check google books, which is not very specific, but ok. Thanks. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google books gives you lots of sources for them as a family yes along with the 3 sources I pointed out above being the most elaborated perhaps--Enion Glas (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was flagged by article creator to return to this discussion. Notice that none of the individual family members are bluelinked. And that many of the claims seem excessive (Private burial chapel of the Campuzano-Polanco: This interesting and unique chapel is the only one of its kind in America and one of the four vaults with astrological representations that exist today in the world, along with the Celestial Vault or "Sky of Salamanca" in the Univerisity of Salamanca, Chapel of the Benaventes in Rioseco and the Chapel of Osiris in the Hathor Temple of Dandera). given the present condition of the article and its sourcing, I cannot ivote to keep. Nothing that I see gives me condfidence that this meets our standards with respect to sourcing or notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I chose not to bluelink them for reasons stated above. No, the claims are not excessive. It is an interesting chapel and it IS unique. There are plenty of experts and sources talking about this chapel

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3047296?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00043079.1950.11407932?needAccess=true&journalCode=rcab20

https://books.google.se/books?id=ZaoSAAAAIAAJ&q=chapel+of+the+zodiac+santo+domingo&dq=chapel+of+the+zodiac+santo+domingo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLgbLapubRAhXnYpoKHTO8Cwc4ChDoAQgeMAE

What exactly is that does not give you confidence? Everything that is said has its citations.

Either you are flaming me because I am new here, which in that case I can only say that dealing with all of you has been a disgusting experience to say the least. Not only do you embarrass yourselves by denying the obvious, which makes you sad negationists, but also you are giving a terrible image to this project and if I were running it, I would have taken away your administrator status for bullying a new editor that has put a lot of work on bringing interest to the colonial past of the Caribbean, which is a field that has not been studied much. Lot of information out there about the colonial past of Mexico and Peru perhaps, but not so much of the Caribbean

The article has had the deletion notice for 15 days now and nobody has given a fuck, which shows laziness and dictatorial disdain from your part. The only reason why you chose to write your lame ass comment was because I asked you to. I can also sense jealousy perhaps because this is a Spanish/Latin family with notable individuals as opposed to Anglo Saxon or northern European perhaps.

As I said the sources are there, these are not my words. Literately I have copy pasted the words of other historians here. Not my opinions, not my wishes. Only facts that are verifiable.