Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VivirAquí


 * 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. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

VivirAquí

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Promotional article on a non notable local Mexican newspaper, created by a SPA. Fails WP:NME, no award winning work, no significant purpose/history, non authoritative, not frequently cited by other reliable sources, no significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets. Google search comes up with no relevant hits to make the paper notable. (Most hits are irrelevant because Vivir Aquí is a common term.) Erebus Morgaine (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed some vandalism from the article - but it doesn't affect the AfD debate. Springnuts (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - difficult to argue otherwise given no WP:RS it does not pass WP:N. Springnuts (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  15:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.   -- raven1977 (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no assertion of notability for this free weekly periodical. B.Wind (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  21:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Free newspapers can be notable but there is no solid claim of notability here, never mind any proof. It is entirely unreferenced and the credits at the bottom are spammy. The original author has not been seen for more than a year and nobody else is working on it. I can't see any hope for it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2008 (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.