Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicano Forums

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. -Doc^g 01:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicano Forums

Spam; written by site's webmaster (Daniel Maldonado as User:Virtualchicano) for self-promotion – note the use of "we". See also http://www.aztlanelectronicnews.net/content/view/104/2/ – Gloy 11:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply

I strongly object to the term "self-promotion". I did write the article myself because I worried that the nativists and white supremacists would write the article first and fill the article with half-truths and mis-information. I have seen cases in Wikipedia where articles were written by writers from VDare.com and I was simply trying to avoid an article being written about us by them.

I sent an email to a Wikipedian who writes for the "Chicano" category requesting assistance on writing a successful article but I've yet to receive a reply.

I was informed last night to change the "we" in the article and that is what I came in to do when I read my article was marked for deletion.

The changes have been made.

Please reconsider.

In addition, the link to our news website was removed.

If anything, I am guilty of being clumsy and new to Wikipedia. I certainly meant no disrespect and I appoligise for the badly phrased article.

But my concerns remain valid and I prefer to write the article myself than to read a misleading article written by nativist groups.

Kindest Regards,

Virtualchicano 14:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- If a misleading article is written about your forums, then you can nominate it for deletion and it will be deleted for the same reasons this one will likely be (that there are no sources available on it). Recury 16:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADDED COMMENT:

AztlanElectronicNews.net is a FREE service to our community, readers and anyone who chooses to use it. AztlanElectronicNews.net is included into GOOGLE news feed. AztlanElectronicNews.net is simply a news outlet for our community. The list of writers can be viewd in the "contact Us" page.

Virtualchicano 14:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "spam" may be a little harsh but the article does not pass WP:WEB. No verifiable third-party coverage I could find, no coverage of any kind other than mentions on various blogs and directories. Also obvious problems with WP:COI. If the website becomes notable in future no problems recreating the article but of course Virtualchicano should not participate in its creation or upkeep. Otto4711 14:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I came here via the article - this is awful self-promotion - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 14:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply

It is highly unlikely you will ever find "verifiable third party coverage" due to the fact that the word "Aztlan" sends people rushing to silence us. Aztlan is a word that people love to hate. Aztlan is never given a chance to be explained for what it really is, the homeland of the Mexica people. Aztlan is most often used along with the words "myth" and "racist" in a deliberate attempt to discredit anyone who believes the Mexica are entitled to a homeland.

Virtualchicano 15:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failing WP:WEB and clearly WP:COI. The Rambling Man 15:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply

Other "forums" software powered sites are allowed.

I repeat, this article was written by me on an effort to head off the nativists from portraying us as a bunch of mongrels. This article was not written to promote/market our community. Virtualchicano 15:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, no one is trying to silence you. This AfD is based entirely on whether or not your article complies with applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The policies an guidelines here are very clear in their requirement that there be some verifiable level of independent notability about a topic before an article has a place here. There is none that we can find. Additionally, when the subject of an article (or the owner of the subject of an article, or someone who has a strong tie to the subject of the article) writes the article, it raises issues of conflict of interest. That in and of itself is not sufficient to delete an article but that combines with no verifiable notable third party coverage is. Should your forum become notable in the future, defined as being the subject of multiple published independent third party sources, it will become a welcome addition to Wikipedia provided that someone without your level of investment writes it. As it stands, the article doesn't belong. Otto4711 16:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if you will never find verifiable third party coverage, then we can't have an article on the subject. See WP:V. Recury 15:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply

What interest does anyone have in writing an objective article about us? Surely you can see the catch-22 involved. What about the link to Urban Dictionary, will that not suffice? It is unlikely anyone will ever write "verifiable coverage" because they believe it would be furthering or cause. That's like asking the growers to write about the farm workers.

Virtualchicano 16:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, lots of people have written about the Chicano Movement. No one has written about your forums because no one has heard of them and they are just forums. Recury 16:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the paranoia levels being brought up, Chicano nationalism is already notable. A 700 member forum where more the majority of posts and topics come from the page creator, moderators and bots is not. Static Universe 16:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My Reply

Please do not imply that I am paranoid. Even if you were a qualified professional to make this statement you still do not know me.

I am not paranoid and no qualified professional has ever made that diagnosis about me. I deeply resent this suggestion. Thank you.

As I previously stated, I've seen at least one article written by a member of VDare.com. This is what prompted me to write the article myself.

The Chicano Movement was fine but our community is more about a modern resurgence with a focus on aiding migrant workers.

Lastly, our community served as the main "hub" during last years migrant right's marches. Activists from from dozens of groups were using our site to keep thousands of people informed on upcoming events, throughout the nation, and they still do. I often post the information myself as a courtesy to academics, professionals and Latino community leaders.

The suggestion statement that no one has written about our site because no one has heard of it is mistaken and false.

Virtualchicano 17:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I searched VDare and couldn't find anything about your site and no articles came up on a google search. If you can find the article, that would at least help your case although WP:V requires multiple independent sources. To address one of your previous questions, no Urban Dictionary is not considered a reliable source because anyone can submit entries to it. Recury 18:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus the fact that virtualchicano created the Urban Dictionary entry back in May. Static Universe 18:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable web content per WP:WEB. VirtualChicano, please provide verifiable third-party references. It's unfortunate that you have received so little independent third-party coverage, and the inevitable consequence for Wikipedia is that we cannot have an article about you, because we cannot properly source it according to longstanding policies. --Dhartung | Talk 20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply

I did not say that VDare has written an article about us. I am saying that I was trying to avoid a occurance such as this: Afro-Mexican , please scroll down to "Admixture" and follow the link "1" in brackets. This link takes you to an article written by a writer for VDare. The problem is that there is no shred of physical or DNA proof that Emiliano Zapata was an Afro-Mexican. The writer makes a comment about his hair as proof. I have viewed the original image and his hair is straight. Also, some people claim that because his parents were from a town where there were Afro-Mexicans living that one can deduce that he was Afro-Mexican. That is also circumstantial, however, but the author leaves the reader believing Zapata was Afro-Mexican. He was not. My daughters were born in Los Angeles, CA where there is a large African American community, this does not make my daughters African American. Although there were and are Afro-Mexicans who deserve there rightfully earned place in Mexican history, Emiliano Zapata was an indigenous, Nahua speaking person.

I simply took the initiative to write the article myself before someone else came along to intentionally write an article that isn't accurate.

Also, I would like to add that we are separate from the above Chicano Nationalist article mentioned in that we do not espouse a "ethnocracy". We believe in a multi-cultural, democratic, center-left nation.

The article I wrote was still incomplete as I fully intended to address false notions of "reconquista" and so on.

Virtualchicano 21:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to get it. You can't just come up with whatever you want and write it on here (there are plenty of other sites that let you do that). Even if it's true, and I don't contend that anything written in the article isn't, it isn't verifiable by reliable sources. Since it is your site, it is natural to think that you would qualify as a reliable source for this information. But according to Wikipedia's policies, you don't. That you are afraid someone that someone will write an attack article about is none of our concern. Recury 21:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although he does have a point that neither the Emiliano Zapata page or it's talk reference him as Afro-Mexican. Static Universe 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, but it has nothing to do with whether this article should be kept or deleted: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, sure the article doesn't meet any of the policies; it doesn't even come close. But what you have to remember is that Emiliano Zapata was not Afro-Mexican. He was an indigenous, Nahua speaker. So he's indigenous, not Afro-Mexican. Think about that. So, if Emiliano Zapata is not Afro-Mexican, you must keep. Oh, yeah. Delete. JChap2007 05:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N Fails WP:WEB Problems with WP:COI.--155.144.251.120 03:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Recury. GassyGuy 05:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.