Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Music Awards


 * 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The result was withdrawn nomination. Per WP:NOTE in regard to the subjects obvious notability, and per WP:SNOW regarding the clear consensus of the discussion. --Mathnerd 101 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Wind Music Awards

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have nominated Wind Music Awards for deletion for multiple reasons:
 * It is almost entirely spam, and is written using peacock words.
 * It does not cite any references.
 * It appears to be a contribution by a user with history of copy-and paste and test edits, as well as copyright violations.
 * There is an almost identical article on the Italian Wikipedia, and this article appears to be a machine translation of it.
 * It does not appear to be notable. --Mathnerd 101 (talk &#124; contribs) 21:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep, lack of WP:BEFORE, hundreds of sources, eg Corriere della Sera  La Stampa Il Giornale  Quotidiano.net  TGCOM   La Repubblica  Excite  Libero     Rockol  ... about the rest, I don't see how this little stub "is almost entirely spam, and is written using peacock words" (frankly, I don't see any of this), nor being a translation of an other language Wikipedia article is a problem. Cavarrone (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cavarrone. The mentioned sources are reliable and independent ones. The article is a stub but it shouldn't be called a spam. — Joaquin008  ( talk ) 13:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article now cites sources; I've also improved the translation and wording. (ETA: I contributed fairly substantially to this article.) – 29611670.x (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 *  Delete Pretty strong keep Withdrawn Nomination per above. The article certainly needs cleanup, but it does appear to be notable (I recently did a google search and I also got hundreds of hits). --Mathnerd 101 (talk &#124; contribs) 23:05, 8 April 2013 (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.