Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo Alliance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Voiding this AFD. The whole thing is tainted by the copyvio thing. if anyone things this should still be deleted I suggest they renominate it in a couple of weeks Spartaz Humbug! 19:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Apollo Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Copyright violations: http://apolloalliance.org/about/ and unambiguous advertisement Sophitessa (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go CSD G11 and G12!!! The Junk Police (reports|works) 09:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Close (defaults to keep) - copyvio resolved. The Junk Police (reports|works) 11:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, so nominated. copyvio of [1]--Pgallert (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep, copyvio has been addressed by Woody. Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't see the one genuine paragraph that is now the lead phrase. Should have looked deeper into the page history, sorry. --Pgallert (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reverted the article back to a clean version, someone with the username ApolloAlliance (talk · contribs) added the copyvio stuff. The article needs to be debated on its merits and notability. Regards, Woody (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability. Seems like an advert. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ChildofMidnight, Re:"notability", you have officially reached zero credibility, in one shot, as either an incurable rock-underside dweller who does not know what blue links signify or is unable to follow them, a legally blind person, or a partisan hack. What part of:
| “ | The founding board members of the Apollo Alliance are:
|
” |
did you find were most unlike any indication of notability, exactly?
Quite apart from what is in the article itself, which I urge all editors to view, in the hopes that I won't have to quote it all here, for a change, I present the following search results:
- Comment: Please keep this discussion civil. Personal attacks actually hurt instead of help your argument. Although Yahoo is not Google, WP:GHITS equally applies here. And since notability is not inherited, that the board's founding members contain a lot of notable people is just marginally, if at all, relevant. I express no view on the question of whether the article should be deleted, as the Gbooks and Gnews hits look fairly promising. Tim Song (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pleas keep this article. It may need to be corrected, but the apollo project is a key player in the Obama Administration. To delete this would be censorship of the most dangerous kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sferral2003 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let us remember that the Apollo Project is the thing that put men into space, and the Apollo Alliance is not. Some keep referring to the Apollo Alliance as the "Apollo Project," and that might introduce confusion. I heard from a talking head that the Apollo Alliance was the group that actually penned recent legislative bills, so IF that's true, it would lend notability to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.201.247.20 (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly doubt that that is verifiable, but good luck trying to find reliable sources for it. Tim Song (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article can do a better job at demonstrating this organization's notability, but internet research indicates that they are notable. --Pink Bull (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2009 (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.