Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association

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 Keep (non-admin closure), weak keep as it's said this group has been around 29 years, but it's also claimed there are WP:RS, I will give ou the benefit of the doubt, but please add them if you want this article to survive any future AfD. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 21:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)"

[edit] Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association

Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable student association, article has no third-party or reliable sources. Agüeybaná 00:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Google search. JJL (talk) 00:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you be more specific, please? The ultimate point is to improve this article. BTW, WP:GHITS. --Agüeybaná 01:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment improving the article is not in fact the ultimate point here, as per Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#What_is_deletion_not_for.3F. AfDs are not for article improvement; a good article on a non-notable subject isn't the desired outcome. I do concur with WP:GHITS: "...using a search engine like Google can be useful...". JJL (talk) 03:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process is incorrect on that. If the subject truly is notable and fit to have in this encyclopedia, then it comes out of Afd with a few more and better references. If the subject truly is non-notable, then it is deleted. Therefore, Afds contribute to article improvement, except in cases like this one, were the subject is notable only in the eyes of Puerto Rican-bred yanks and their mini-mes. --Agüeybaná 03:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! Agueybana your comments are really discriminatory, and baseless, I recommend seeing the biographies of the members and leaders and verify if they are as you call "Puerto Rican-bred yanks and their mini-mes". Furthermore the proposal is based purely on political bias, and it is further proved by your statements. The importance of the organization is demonstrated by the article itself. Furthermore, the amount of people already involved and affected by it is evergrowing. Ill be adding soon a reference to the article from the island's major paper, which talks solely about the PRSSA. And about the Google thing, I do believe the page is showing I searched it right now, it is on the 3rd or 4th position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.177.208 (talk • contribs)

You were correct in identifying I have political bias; I am anti-US to the core. However, you were incorrect in saying that the reason for this discussion is that bias. I assure you that I made this nomination based on policy, not ideology. --Agüeybaná 04:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I stand by my "Puerto Rican-bred yanks and their mini-mes" remark. The links you provided here are all pro-statehood (hence the "Puerto Rican-bred yanks" part). --Agüeybaná 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep As you can see in http://www.fortunogobernador.com/comienzos.php , the PRSSA is highlighted in Congressman Fortuño's campaign biography as one of his most important contributions to the statehood effort. PRSSA also figured prominently in Senate President Kenneth McClintock's official biography at http://www.senadopr.us/senadores/senador.asp?bId=2wj8wl2Ett31&lan= until non-official references were deleted in December 2007 to comply with the State Elections Commission's election year government publicity rules. It also is mentioned as an important part of NPP congressional candidate Pedro Pierluisi's biography at http://prdemocratcorner.blogspot.com/2007/10/pedro-r.html. These are three third-party reliable sources that justify non-deletion of an article on an organization founded not 29 days or 29 months ago, but 29 years ago, which has produced several of Puerto Rico's most prominent and successful public figures today, including Resident Commissioner Luis Fortuño, Senate President Kenneth McClintock, former Attorney General and current NPP congressional candidate Pedro Pierluisi, his late brother José Jaime Pierluisi who remains the youngest ever Economic Counsel to the Governor in history, Caribbean Business editor Francisco Cimadevilla, and others. This organization:

1-has withstood the test of time

2-its founders have become notables

3-greatly influenced the outcome of the 1980 election

4-is featured prominently in the bio's of several notables

5-today has a growing membership

6-is supported by at least three third-party reliable sources

Being a notable subject, worthy of the article originally authored by me (and I've written about 115+ different subjects, most Puerto Rico-related), it's a matter of improving the sourcing of the article, recognizing that sourcing electronically newspaper articles from the late 1970's and early 1980's about PRSSA, and its well-covered annual conventions) is rather difficult. Pr4ever (talk) 03:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This article lacks sources, and still lists unreliable sites as references. The links you have provided help improve this violation of our guidelines and policies, so you can add them, and I'll withdraw my nomination. I, however, will still tag the article for cleanup. --Agüeybaná 04:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Move to Puerto Rican Statehood movement (why isn't there such an article?). A more practical choice would be to Merge into Political status of Puerto Rico--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is El Nuevo Dia's website an unreliable source??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.85.80 (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

At the time of this nomination, the only references used were the organization's official website and Facebook. --Agüeybaná 22:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well now it has more sites, any other reasons thatcaused the nomination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.176.166 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, as the original author of this article to which several of you have provided added value, either by incorporating additional facts and insights or by calling attention to the article's shortcomings, it's time to focus our attention to improving the article and making it comply more with wiki policies through additional research and sourcing. My appreciation to all who have contributed, one way or the other, but now it's time to move on. Pr4ever (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My point, well then the nomination should now be retired? unless there is something else the needs to be fixed immediately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.180.187 (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.176.198 (talk) 05:00, 6 March 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.