Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actualidades


 * 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   delete. Overall, the arguments for deletion are stronger; they have dismissed each source as either unreliable, trivial, or non-independent. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actualidades

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Strong delete As the website was deleted before for advertisment  Staffwaterboy Critique Me  21:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Contrary to what Kinu above says, it is both a magazine and a website. Furthermore, the review in Hispania is not cursory at all, but rather a formal review in a recognized peer-reviewed journal from the field. I agree with Kinu that there may be a conflict of interest, because I am the creator of this magazine and site.Profzjones (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Profzjones
 * Note The deletion discussion was created but the article didn't link to the discussion. Corrected. Triona (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, this AfD was not transcluded into today's discussion list, nor did it come with a proper header. I have fixed both issues. -- Kinu t /c  22:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The first version of the article was deleted because of lack of references to show notability. I have added references to peer reviewed journals clearly showing notability.Profzjones (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Profzjones
 * Delete. This is not a magazine as indicated, but actually a blog. The site appears to have received a few cursory reviews, and the mention is Hispania is likely the closest to a WP:RS; however, the mention at the other two websites (ACTFL, Cafe Pedagogique) are ostensibly culled collections of links with trivial mentions and very little to convey notability. (Not every site that a "what to watch"-type page picks up has inherent notability.) The "signficant coverage" aspect of WP:GNG does not appear to have been met. Also possibly a WP:COI issue, as the user name of the author of this article leads me to believe he is the creator of this site. -- Kinu t /c  22:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes it is both a website and a magazine but neither are notable enough and/or have enough reliable sources to have an article on Wikipedia. Heck, it doesn't have an article in the Spanish Wikipedia! Also, the author may have a conflict of interest. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: References to peer reviewed journals clearly show notability. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: for what it's worth, I see one mention in a scholarly journal, not multiple. Further, while the journal does contain peer-reviewed articles, I see no evidence that their "Book/Media Reviews" section has the same peer-review guidelines; see, which indicates peer review of submitted articles (section II), but not of the submitted reviews (section III). Apparently the editors select the ones deemed worthy of publishing, but there does not seem to be the same formal academic process. That notwithstanding, it still needs to be shown that there is significant non-trivial coverage in multiple third-party sources. This review may be one source, as I indicated above, but that alone isn't enough. As for the other links, two sentences about the site in a page full of weblinks is not "non-trivial" coverage. -- Kinu t /c  17:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Request for clarification: May I please ask for clarification? This is my first article ever.  I once again agree that there may exist a conflict of interest, as I am the author.  Hence, if you would like to delete this, then so be it.  However, I strongly question the assertions made above as to what constitutes Notability within this field.  Is not appearance in the publications of the two largest associations in the field of language learning notable?  Furthermore, the website and magazine have been the subject of multiple academic presentations at state-level (FLAG, Foreign Language Association of Georgia), regional-level (SCOLT, Southern Conference on Language Teaching), and international-level conferences (this year's AATSP conference, held in Guadalajara, Mexico).Profzjones (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Profzjones
 * Comment: the threshold for Wikipedia notability is not existence, but significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The Hispania review is a start, as it is a third party source that is reliable. However, the coverage must also be non-trivial; that is, a mere appearance is not enough, which is a problem with the other sources provided. As mentioned above, the ACTFL link you provide is a list of links with a few brief sentence about this and about a dozen other topics (the same seems to be the case for the Cafe Pedagogique link). Likewise, the independent clause is important; looking at the FLAG website, the conference schedule would seem to indicate that you are the one who presented about it, and thus this does not help to establish notability; indeed, looking at your resume (which is freely available online; for privacy's sake I will not link to it here), you also were the presenter about this topic at the other conferences you mention, which is the same issue. (Using passive voice to say that it has "been the subject" of these presentations is somewhat misleading... being up front about things would be welcome here, please.) I would recommend looking at the links to WP:GNG and WP:RS, as well as WP:WEB, to see what kind of sourcing would be needed. The key is, as stated above, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I hope this helps. -- Kinu t /c  18:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Sadly even if I did find some references, none of them are enough to make this article pass WP:RS. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ret ProfSadads (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2010 (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.