Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cargoitalia
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. --- Deville (Talk) 17:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cargoitalia
Article about a corporation that shows no evidence of satisfying
WP:PROD, once deleted for copyright violation, I'd suggest that if the result of this discussion is a Delete, that this article be Protected from recreation. Valrith 20:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
- Keep. Airlines are generally notable. I looked for newspaper articles about the company, and added two under "References" in this article, which means that it now unambiguously satisfies ]
- The first of these 'articles' falls into the category of merely trivial coverage as defined by WP:CORP : "... articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories". The second is inaccessible to me. Valrith 22:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the first article is about 200 words long and is non-trivial. [This] would be a trivial article. The second article is a bit longer, and is also therefore non-trivial. Newspaper or magazine articles which are not available online (or for which free registration is required) are just as valid as those that are available online free of charge. I wish someone had looked up these newspaper stories and added them to the article before the article was prodded. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As well, please note that both newspaper stories are bylined (that is, they indicate the name of the journalist who wrote the story), which generally indicates that the newspaper story is non-trivial. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The first of these 'articles' falls into the category of merely trivial coverage as defined by
- Keep
- i agree. i have no idea why you are indicating any of your reasons for deletion.
- Delete I believe the articles amount to trivial coverage as defined at GRBerry 03:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per TT. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.