- 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. Kurykh ( talk) 00:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Catálogo alfabético de apellidos
- Catálogo alfabético de apellidos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet Notablity guideline for Books.
Does not even come close to meeting any of the five criteria of notability for a book. The article consists mostly of lengthy excerpts or examples from the book. Mathglot ( talk) 05:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mathglot ( talk) 06:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Its an WP:OLDBOOK whose value as a historical source in the Philippines is indisputable. It's part of the teachings in Philippine history.-- RioHondo ( talk) 06:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I agree with RioHondo. There is proof of notability, regarding the historical significance of the book, as it molded the contemporary Filipino name, by introducing surnames to many Filipinos, which in the pre-Spanish era, had varying naming practices for persons, usually names with no surname, multiple names with no surname, or names plus the surname (the clan name).
- Strong Keep due to the book's historical significance as a mentioned by other users. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 12:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Although the article could use some cleanup, the book has been mentioned in various history books due to its historical significance (the fact that during the Spanish colonial period, natives were required to adopt Spanish surnames, apparently for tax-collection purposes). Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as meeting general notability guidelines now that lots of cites show that the book was well studied. I've also removed the unsourced parts of the article. -- Lenticel ( talk) 00:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep As an object of great historical impact, it seems to me that one can no more judge it solely by WP:BKCRIT than one can the Domesday Book and the Yellow Pages. Largoplazo ( talk) 21:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:OLDBOOK, the criteria in WP:BOOKCRIT is intended solely for contemporary books (~1945+). This book is old (which in itself is usually enough to establish notability) and it is widely cited in academic works on Philippine colonial history. -- OBSIDIAN† SOUL 11:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as per nomination. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:32, 17 February 2017 (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.