Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dossier Riolândia

: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. Sufficient consensus after relistings DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

=[[Dossier Riolândia]]=

:{{la|Dossier Riolândia}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dossier_Riol%C3%A2ndia Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Dossier Riolândia}})

Cross-wiki spam created by Machado Zamenhof, a sock-puppet user (blocked on Wikipedia in Portuguese, see also :meta:Special:CentralAuth/Machado_Zamenhof, Category sockpuppets of Victor R12). Deleted from Wikipedia in Simple English and Wikipedia in French. It is only a temporary event. It had only received some coverage in January 2014 because the Dossier had been just finished, but it does not seem that it lasted. Anyway a [http://www.inape.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/BINO.pdf document from INAPE's website (pg. 10)] indicates that it is an amateur organisation: "INAPE (Instituto de Astronomia e Pesquisa Espacial), organização amadora com sede em Araçatuba SP" translation: "INAPE (Institute of Astronomy and Space Research), amateur organisation located in Araçatuba SP". Kimbler (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per Wikipedia:Fringe theories, "To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia." This topic has been cited in a news item in a local newspaper, I would not call that "significant coverage". Lechatjaune (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge with UFO sightings in Brazil. Insufficient material for a standalone article. Victão Lopes Fala! 15:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

{{resize|96%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Does not appear to be notable, one newspaper article isn't enough to meet GNG, no Google News results, and most Google results are Wikipedia mirrors. Everymorning talk 16:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable spam per WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - not that I think it should be kept, but it's not a sock if they are blocked on another wiki. Otherwise I'd just delete it right now. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:09, 15 January 2015 (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.