Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fireweed Democracy Project (Second nomination)


 * 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 - the no consensus of the first AFD was mostly based on giving time for the article to be cleaned up. Time's up. Yomangani talk 00:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fireweed Democracy Project

 * Previously nominated on 11 April 2006 at Articles for deletion/Fireweed Democracy Project

No indication that this meets the guidelines for web content. Current version appears to make not even lip service to our foundational policy of freedom from bias and lack of reliable sources means that it is in all likelyhood impossible to do so.

There are zero Google news hits for this and of the 74 unique Google hits I was unable to locate any non-trivial coverage of this. Blog mentions, listings, and several trivial mentions yes, but nothing like what would be required to write a verifiable article from non-primary sources. brenneman 07:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - may be notable, but no external sources are provided except their own website. Delete unless reliable third-party independent sources are added to demonstrate notability. Walton monarchist89 15:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete reads like advertising for their POV, including a list of the endorsers. DGG 01:13, 23 February 2007 (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.