Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Marino (online newspaper)

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. MBisanz talk 01:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

El Marino (online newspaper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails general notability guidelines and Internet notability guidelines. Most of the references are links to the El Marino webpage, so there is a lack of independent sources. The author of this article is also owner of this website, so is a clear case of self promotion (and COI). Warko talk 18:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I won't vote since I am related to the subject, however I think it passes the Internet notability guidelines. You are incorrect when saying most of the references are links to the website itself; 9 of 19 are, and there are some references that may be used, in the article's talk page, I think that should be enough, given that the criteria for similar websites (news sites) is not that high. The article is written in a neutral way, I don't see the problem. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sufficient secondary source coverage independent of the subject is amply demonstrated already, as noted by Diego Grez-Cañete, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Want to try repairing the article? You've done that before. John Nagle (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: This article is a WP:REFBOMB of local sources, brief mentions, and conflict of interest. Most of the sources are directly related to Diego Grez-Cañete who is the owner of this org and the creator of this Wikipedia article. The non-local sources are not about this website, and 2 are actually op-ed pieces written by Diego Grez-Cañete. Fails WP:GNG and is a gross violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:COI. Vrac (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1st: Coi was disclosed long ago. 2nd: Refbomb is just an essay, and primary references only serve for things that haven't been covered elsewhere. 9 of 19 are related to the website, that is clearly stated before, I still don't see the problem, given that Wikpedia does not forbid people related to subjects from editing their articles, it is discouraged, but not prohibited, I haven't done anything wrong absolutely. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Writing a Wikipedia article yourself, about something you own, sourced with stuff that you have written. A better question to ask yourself is what have you done right. Of course you don't see the problem, because you have a conflict of interest, which is why the WP:COI policy exists. Sources that are related to you and that you have written don't count. What's left? Vrac (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate you, I did not write these articles, except nine used for very specific things, that Wikipedia's policies permit anyway (WP:PRIMARY). Got a proof the non-El Marino sources are all written by me? Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all of the puntillazo references are op-eds by you, like this. Vrac (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2015 (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.