Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WOW Alliance


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 00:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

WOW Alliance

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article has stood unsourced now for at least 2 years, and therefore fails WP:V. In trying to look past press release type information, I am struggling to find anything that give this alliance any degree of great notability Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 12:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Try this search:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Do BBC News or CNN still count as WP:RS? Article could use expanding, for sure, but that's not a reason to delete.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 21:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable enough, although I wish someone would bulk it out. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - An article only "fails" WP:V if the topic in unverifiable, not currently un-sourced no matter how long it has been in that state. The sources shows by Livitup do indicate significant coverage by very reliable sources and thus passing WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable enough, and is verifiable.  Ebe 123  → report on my contribs. 11:48, 14 December 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.