Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The revival google group
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The revival google group
Originally PRODed but removed. On the whole, it's a non-notable Google Group with ~144 members. Text is written in the form of advertisement. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 09:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- The group is notable in activity in Asia - http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?&sel=0,50392867,83986080,67188897 and also in Sri Lanka - http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?&sel=0,50392867,50392899 Text has been altered since its original entry and it no longer can be considered an advertisement. --The Ace 10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- The article cites no sources, and I can find no sources, even on Google itself. From all appearances, this article is primary source documentation for a Google Group, constructed from firsthand knowledge and mis-using Wikipedia as a hosting service. Wikipedia is not a free wiki host nor a publisher of first instance. It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. This article is unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G 10:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, no independent coverage of this group outside Google, making the article unverifiable. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:V WilyD 14:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This was already deleted as spam for non notable group. What's the point of people removing spam only to have it recreated, and then put on AfD? It should have been zapped as soon as it was recreated.Moriori 23:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Well, spam is not a policy established criteria for speedy deletion, and the recreation criteria (G4) does not apply to things that were speedied. And this club did assert some (although insignificant) notability, which precluded A7. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 02:26, 24 August 2006 (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.
