This article is within the scope of WikiProject Puerto Rico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to Puerto Rico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Puerto RicoWikipedia:WikiProject Puerto RicoTemplate:WikiProject Puerto RicoPuerto Rico articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CooperativesWikipedia:WikiProject CooperativesTemplate:WikiProject CooperativesCooperatives articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
User:Mercy11 the page states that the paper shut down in 2011, so the past tense is correct. It was unrelated to the San Juan Star so that information should never have been there. Frankly its questionable whether a short-lived defunct paper warrants a page at all. Mztourist (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mercy11 stop edit-warring this: [1]. Their website is dead and they haven't posted on Twitter since December 2011, you prove that it still exists. Company was dissolved in 2014 [2]Mztourist (talk)
We don't remove cited information; we preserve it as part of the history of the subject of the article. So apply you edit-warring to yourself and do not remove cited information. Mercy11 (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are claiming that the paper still exists but have failed to provide any proof of that, when a Google search will show that it is defunct. Won't waste my time debating with you further here, see you at the AfD. Mztourist (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous and read first before making false accusations: I was very specific in my edit summary that I was reverting your edit because you removed cited information. So, in your quest for changing from present tense to past tense (which no one here, except yourself, is arguing about) you also removed cited text without providing a valid reason. In WP we don't remove cited text without a valid reason. Is that a difficult concept to understand? Mercy11 (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is not using the present tense for a defunct newspaper a difficult concept to understand? Mztourist (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The newspaper with the largest circulation in Puerto Rico dedicated an article on the occasion of the first anniversary of the Puerto Rico Daily Sun, so this article should not be deleted. Yarfpr (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was in 2009! Prove it still exists. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do they have to prove it still exists? That does not make any sense. Most of Wikipedia is about things that don't exist any more... Whats important is that it was notable, and that there is proper citation... El Johnson (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eljohnson15 because if you read from the beginning of this thread, User:Mercy11 was edit-warring my use of the past tense given that the paper shut down at the end of 2011. Mercy11 finally seems to have accepted this. Mztourist (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mztourist Want to change to the past tense? Be my guest! As I have told you before, I never objected to your past tense but to your removal of cited information. You got into trouble because you were trying to leave the article with no cites. Being unsuccessful here, you got all upset, ran to the AfD naively claiming the paper wasn't notable and confronted everyone there who opposed you. As of today, apparently perceiving WP:SNOWBALL defeat, you seem to have given up fighting at the AfD. So, if anyone has finally accepted anything that would be you: finally accepted the paper is notable and finally accepting to keep the cited reference. You would have saved all the aggravation if you had just changed your tense without removing the cited information. Is not deleting cited information a difficult concept to understand? Next time, consider not camouflaging invalid deletion of cited content with valid past tense edits or you may run into trouble again. User:Eljohnson15's question is the same question every reasonable editor would ask -- as proven by the AfD where everyone is opposing the nomination.Mercy11 (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mercy11 the change to past tense has already been done. I never "got into trouble" for anything. You were insisting that the paper remained in existence when it clearly didn't. Your personal attacks above are what I've come to expect from you. I'm unsurprised that the Puerto Rican lobby has arrived at the AfD as apparently no page about Puerto Rico should ever be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article should not be deleted, but it should be made clearer that The Puerto Rico Daily Sun had a brief existence, and it was basically the equivalent or substitute for The San Juan Star when that newspaper disappeared (and before it was restarted). It is incorrect to say that The Puerto Rico Daily Sun was unrelated to The San Juan Star.--Lawrlafo (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made some edits in the article that should clarify some questions about this newspaper.--Lawrlafo (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
