Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Voz newspaper (St. Louis)


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 08:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

La Voz newspaper (St. Louis)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

University student newspaper of unascertained notability.

Newspaper link Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Clearly non-notable publication. There is a dearth of sources. Dubious claims. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The nomination and supplied link doesn't appear to match up with the article in Wikipedia. The article doesn't say anything about being a student newspaper. And why wouldn't the article have Category:Student newspapers published in Missouri if it was a student newspaper? It appears to be a bilingual Spanish-English community newspaper. I'm confused about this nomination. Crtew (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I finally found the paper's website on WikiLou . Bad web presence. Tisk, tisk. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That website has a bunch of stuff about magazine subscriptions and modelling. What gives?--Chaser (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Unless we can find more information matching the article. The link is for a student newspaper at SLU's campus in Spain. I don't think we usually have articles for student-run publications.--Chaser (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 23:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. No sources at all have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2013 (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.