- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 05:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Boricua ¡Ahora Es!
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Boricua ¡Ahora Es! ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of the article fails the notability policy. None of its 9 cites given in the article provide any notability. In addition, 2 of those 9 cites (#2 & #8) are dead links. The first one (#2) was a link to an anonymous IP site, and the second one (#8) lead to a TV network's website, but provided no date or identifying article name to pursue further search, thus it now lands at today's headlines for that TV network's website. Of the remaining 7, four of them (#s4, 5, 6, &7) aren't articles exclusive about this organization but merely include it as one of about half a dozen other organizations that were performing a political activity; i.e., those articles aren't exclusively about this organization or, for that matter, they aren't even exclusively about the half dozen orgs that are mentioned in those 4 articles in passing. The four articles are, btw, almost mirror image of each other in content, and appear to be the same initial article by the same one author. This leaves 3 cites, 2 of which (#s1 & #9) are self-published sources, and the last one (#3) isn't a reliable source as it consistes of a YouTube video uploaded by a fan of the organization. An additional online search didn't produce any reliable sources for this organizations. Mercy11 ( talk) 03:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:31, 18 July 2022 (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.
- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 05:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Boricua ¡Ahora Es!
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Boricua ¡Ahora Es! ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of the article fails the notability policy. None of its 9 cites given in the article provide any notability. In addition, 2 of those 9 cites (#2 & #8) are dead links. The first one (#2) was a link to an anonymous IP site, and the second one (#8) lead to a TV network's website, but provided no date or identifying article name to pursue further search, thus it now lands at today's headlines for that TV network's website. Of the remaining 7, four of them (#s4, 5, 6, &7) aren't articles exclusive about this organization but merely include it as one of about half a dozen other organizations that were performing a political activity; i.e., those articles aren't exclusively about this organization or, for that matter, they aren't even exclusively about the half dozen orgs that are mentioned in those 4 articles in passing. The four articles are, btw, almost mirror image of each other in content, and appear to be the same initial article by the same one author. This leaves 3 cites, 2 of which (#s1 & #9) are self-published sources, and the last one (#3) isn't a reliable source as it consistes of a YouTube video uploaded by a fan of the organization. An additional online search didn't produce any reliable sources for this organizations. Mercy11 ( talk) 03:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:31, 18 July 2022 (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.