Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Flights to 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. A7 and G11; non notable and promotional.  DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Free Flights to Italy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant coverage from reliable independent sources and appears to be advertising for an organization. I note that the top google search for free flights to Italy is from a linkedin blog entry from Giuseppe Macario. The user who created this page sources many of his edits from blog entries from this person. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * comment The international NGO domain is granted to eligible organizations only after a decision made by ICANN/PIR. Why shouldn't they be reliable independent sources? The requirements are:
 * 1) Focused on acting in the public interest. Whether in support of education or health, the environment or human rights, members of the .ngo|.ong community work for the good of humankind and/or the preservation of the planet and do not promote discrimination or bigotry.
 * 2) Non-profit making/non-profit-focused entities. While many NGOs engage in commercial activities or generate revenue in support of their missions, members of the .ngo|.ong community do not recognize profits or retain earnings.
 * 3) Limited government influence. Recognizing that many NGOs have important interactions with government, not least for reasons of funding (which may include receipt of some government funding in support of their programs), members of the .ngo|.ong community decide their own policies, direct their own activities and are independent of direct government or political control.
 * 4) Independent actors. Members of the .ngo|.ong community should not be political parties nor should be a part of any government. Participation in the work of an .ngo|.ong is voluntary.
 * 5) Active Organizations. Members of the .ngo|.ong community are actively pursuing their missions on a regular basis.
 * 6) Structured. Members of the .ngo|.ong community, whether large or small, operate in a structured manner (e.g., under bylaws, codes of conduct, organisational standards, or other governance structures.)
 * 7) Lawful. Members of the .ngo|.ong community act with integrity within the bounds of law.
 * This is not "advertising", but a list of requirements written by ICANN/PIR. Do you know more authoritative sources? Also, if you think the article contains ads, why didn't you mention/discuss them in the Talk page instead of nominating the whole article right away? Basically, you don't like my edits (which is the gist of your explanation, apart from the first sentence). --Bianbum (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Domain registry rules are utterly irrelevant to the question of NOTABILITY. kashmiri  TALK  22:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per WP:N. No coverage in secondary sources, something one normally expects from a present-day charity. Zero (!) Google hits on . Extremely doubtful that this is even a registered organisation (no registration number nor HQ address mentioned on the site). The only info is through a LinkedIn Post of its "President" and it all looks like a vote buying scam. Should be speedy deleted under G3, G11 and A3. I suggest closure per SNOW.  kashmiri  TALK  22:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I strongly suspect the creator and principal contributor has a vested interest in the site and, seeing his edit history, I am considering an ANI report. kashmiri  TALK  23:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is a bona fide charitable organization, there's still no hint (and I found none in my own search) of significant coverage in independent reliable sources or any other route to the notability required for a Wikipedia article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as a non-notable organization and possible spam. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - My searches also found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister   talk  03:49, 19 December 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.