Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleanca Kuq e Zi


 * 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. Nothing in this discussion rebuts the nominator's assertion that there is no nreliable third party coverage of the subject. The "keep" arguments are weak, asserting that sources exist without citing them, or simply pointing to Google results, which are not by themselves reliable sources.  Sandstein  07:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Aleanca Kuq e Zi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Article lacking indication of importance or significance. A7 CSD removed with claim that one of the sources may indicate notability. References provided are limited to two primary sources and an online article about the organization gathering signatures in protest of a government census. Additionally, notability of the subject is not established through the general notability guidelines.  Cind. amuse  20:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I can find nothing on this.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, and sven see for 131.000 articles --Vinie007 16:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. A google wave at a collection of links does not provide an indication of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A mere glance indicates a large collection of unreliable sources. Can you indicate which sources specifically support content in the article? Thanks,  Cind. amuse  05:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Vinie007.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please see my response above. Can you indicate which sources specifically support content in the article? Thanks,  Cind. amuse  05:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sources are there, but Cindamuse elected to call them primary: How can they be secondary if the NGO is brand new? --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here is a link that may assist you in understanding the difference between primary and secondary sources and how they apply to articles on Wikipedia. Primary sources encompass material that is closest to the subject, distributed by the subject or by entities closely affiliated with the subject, or those entities benefiting in some capacity from an association or affiliation with the subject. Primary sources are not independent of the subject. Notability established through the general notability guidelines require significant coverage in reliable sources, which are independent of the subject. The Aleanca Kuq e Zi article is supported by two inline citations and two external links to the organization's own website. These are primary sources, which cannot be used to establish notability. While the other reference (http://lajme.shqiperia.com) is independent of the subject, this does not equate to significant coverage. Please feel free to contact me any time you have questions. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  09:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment reply: Thanks for the clarification on the sources. Right now I see 8 independent sources. What's the number of independent sources required, for this article to be kept?--Doktor Plumbi (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

hr style="width:55%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball   Watcher  02:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  06:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, expanded it. Maybe you can check again. --Vinie007 12:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - A clear delete based on the given evidence. One can almost excuse GedUK for his CSD denial, but persisting in this approach without any real evidence, especially since you created the page.... that's interesting. Shadowjams (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, please check article importance section --Vinie007 08:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did. No additional evidence of notability is very convincing to me. Shadowjams (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2011 (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.