Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wacoz


 * 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.  Jclemens (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wacoz

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Declined prod. Prod reasoning was: "Not notable. Only ten items on Google link "Zimbabwe" with "Wacoz". In addition, the references provided in the article speak nothing of Wacoz." The same criticisms apply, even after several additions to the article. Google searches turn up only this page and the Wacoz blog. None of the other references given mention Wacoz, including the book, which is searchable on Google Books. One link is 404. The Wacoz blog is just a series of postings about current affairs in Zimbabwe, most if not all of them are just copies of wire service articles. There's surprisingly little mention of Wacoz itself. Either a hoax or a case of overactive imagination. Hairhorn (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V. No evidence of notability presented. The two promising references (#s 3 and 4) both fail to open for me. If either contained substantial references to Wacoz, I'd change to Keep. If both did, I'd go Strong Keep. But currently, this is deletable. --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. When it was prodded I tried to verify the existence of this organisation, and couldn't. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.