Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicana/Latina Foundation


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Spartaz Humbug! 02:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Chicana/Latina Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

An article relying only on self-organization's sources without any significant coverage on third-party sources, after my search for additional sources WP:BEFORE. It may be a product of WP:IPR. Chiserc (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chiserc (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand.-- Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 00:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per nom. The sourcing in the article appears insufficient to meet WP:GNG and I was unable to find better sources on the web.  Should be deleted unless independent, reliable sources covering the organization (and not just name-checking them) can be found.  Eluchil404 (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting to consider extensive work done since the nomination and the possibility of a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep due to found sources that meet WP: GNG and the article can be expanded in the future. Added Stub tag Justwatchmee (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep or I'm weakly inclined toward a merge to Olga Talamante. There's been some solid work done on the article in the last few days. But review of the sources added (and such others as I can find) only illuminates that most of the coverage of the foundation comes from sources that are either about or by Talamante. That makes it hard to write a good article about the foundation itself. -- Visviva (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: modified my not-a-vote to clarify that keeping also seems fine to me, as I think this meets the GNG, although I remain somewhat on the mergeist side here. -- Visviva (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Additional comments on the newer sourcing would be quite helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets GNG with current sources. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge with Olga Talamante. The subject of the article doesn't meet WP:GNG because of the lack of significant coverage in sources currently given in the article. Additionally, almost all sources I can access are related to Ogla Talamante, overviews of the foundation, or scholarship information, which can't be considered as significant coverage of the foundation itself. I can't open some websites and I can't access information in the books, but these inaccessible websites may count towards GNG. However, a merge to the article Olga Talamante may be helpful because many sources in this article is directly related to the person, not the foundation. Please notify me if any more sources are found, since this article is a few steps away from meeting GNG. (Sorry if my edits flood your watchlist.) The person who loves reading (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Really good analysis here, thank you! Chiserc (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Both The Mercury News and Santa Cruz Sentinel articles load in more than one browser here. Can't say why it wouldn't load for others as they are both pretty mainstream papers.  Also, the book published by UT has pretty good coverage.  Anywho, just passing it along.  Cheers. Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 01:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For The Mercury News, it shows "THIS ARTICLE IS ONLY AVAILABLE TO SUBSCRIBERS" and tells me to pay money to read. For Santa Cruz Sentinel, it shows "Please, provide an email to continue reading free articles and also receive our daily email newsletter with the latest headlines." I can't read these websites because of these messages. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In the Mercury News Wikipedia page, there's a sentence saying that The Mercury News operates a paywalled website, which is located at mercurynews.com, sjmercury.com, or sjmn.com. Its SiliconValley.com website focuses on the technology industry in Silicon Valley. Although I may be able to open the website Santa Cruz Sentinel, it requires an email and I don't want to provide it and receive irrelevant emails. I feel that this foundation may or may not meet WP:GNG because of sources which I can't open, but a merge with Olga Talamante would be the best option for now. If more reliable, secondary, independent sources with partial of significant coverage come up in the future, this page may be converted to an article again. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Odd, I've never subscribed to either paper and can read the articles. Thanks for the tech details you're seeing.  My view on the AfD remains unchanged. Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 02:09, 10 July 2023 (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.