Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Count of Paço de Arcos

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. Sandstein 19:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Count of Paço de Arcos

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

Unsourced stub about a Portuguese title of nobility. I was unable to find public sources to verify the information in this article. Additionally I have concerns that it may fail the notability guidelines. Mww113 (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wish to side on keeping the article on the counts of Paço de Arcos. First, the article's references state the source of the content (including page number). Owing to the subject matter they are in Portuguese, as would be expected, including the [this] from which this general article was based. Furthermore, in terms of notability the Counts of Paço de Arcos have appeared referenced in other online resources, this general article only uses the "Count" variant of the Portuguese. Regardless, a search on the subject matter will discover other references to "Conde de Paço de Arcos" or "Conde de Paço d'Arcos", including examples of genealogical records, thesis and online research. As much as they may be skewed to the first count, the countship is discussed, noting the importance in the diplomatic, military and economic spectrum in the formative efforts in Brazil. I can also cite that there are online references to Henrique Belford Corrêa da Silva, 2nd Count, indicating the counts importance as well. I hope that this will justify the Countship of Paço dos Arcos/d'Arcos. I suggest that this content be considered a "stub", but that there are important reasons for keeping it.^{ruben jc}ZEORYMER (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep from what User:Zeorymer says, this is clearly not a hoax, but a genuine hereditary title of nobility. We have articles on every such British title; and I see no reason for not having them for other countries. The only exception for British titles is where the first holder was also the last, when we redirect to his bio-article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:07, 7 October 2015 (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.