Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Flights Italy


 * 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 speedy delete. under G5 and G11. I will protect against re-creation also. If any other variants appear, please let me know.  DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Free Flights Italy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ORG. Adam9007 (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Nearly all results on the above links are only there because of similar wording, e.g. "free flights to Italy". --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I looked at this after an IP had removed a speedy tag, and couldn't work out what this organisation did. I've now looked at their website, and I'm not much wiser. It looks rather like a politically motivated outfit, but where the free flights come in, I am not sure. It was speedied as Free Flights (to) Italy on Dec 29th 2015 (and protected) by, but I don't know his reason for protecting - possibly recreated from other titles. The absence of reliable independent sources suggests promo to me. Peridon (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, he deleted it as Free Flights to Italy after Articles for deletion/Free Flights to Italy. The original author was Bianbum, who is indeffed for socking. There is a good chance, therefore, that the current author is a sock and G5 could apply. There looks to be quite a bit of COI involved, too. Peridon (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The system thinks the IP who removed the speedy tag is the creator (I think?). I saw that but decided to take it here instead because I wasn't sure about this article's eligibility for A7. Adam9007 (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good choice IMO. As I read it, A7 probably is available, but I think a decision from here would be better. G4 (re-creation after discussion) I think is out, as I read it as being a speedy deletion per se rather than a closed as delete discussion result. DGG will know the answer to that. G5 is on the cards, but that can be coupled with lack of notability here anyway. Peridon (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. Non-notable, promotional and a disruptive recreation of a recently deleted article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:47, 17 January 2016 (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.