Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiens Sans Frontiers

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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chiens Sans Frontiers[edit]

non notable, the only google hit is THIS ARTICLE, dead blog - 404 - blogcruft/spam Timecop 04:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy Delete, per nom. Incognito 04:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rohit Gupta as a previous version of the page shows that he is the founder of this blog but a anon was rather persistant from his profile... so perhaps it wasn't that notable after all..? Also, the FIRST google hit with "Chiens Sans Frontiers" (in english "Dogs without borders") is this article, just not the only one with that query :). WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 04:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also mention that one blog mentions that it was nominated for the "freedom blog" award - but I'm only able to get one blog hit for that mention... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 04:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. A number of Google hits indicating the role of this blog in the aftermath of the tsunami — Doing More, Jan 5, 2005; Guardian Unlimited article, Jan 6, 2005; Blogging the Crisis, Jan 10, 2005; Without Borders nominated Chiens Sans Frontiers ( now deceased) for the Freedom Blog Award. —ERcheck @ 04:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Of course I saw those - but the problem is that they only really mentioned that the blog "played a part" in the thing - there is no way to expand the article from this now that it is dead and there is little varification in other places. Maybe it should be merged the tsunami page with just a one-line such as it played a part etc.? WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 05:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Hosterweis 09:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Blog-- Astrokey44|talk 09:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's notability was temporary. Edgar181
Delete - per nom. -- Femmina 13:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable and not notable due to external link no longer existing. —gorgan_almighty 15:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unnotable and moribund. Eusebeus 20:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as functionally unverifiable from reliable sources, and likely to remain so as apparently defunct. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utter rubish. And no cookies for Splash for reinfesting wikipedia with this. --Doc ^ask? 11:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG. Stifle 14:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per JzG. Cptchipjew 22:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnotable Aigis 00:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it existsDelete, no longer exists! Even the extreme inclusionists have no leg to stand on. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 01:18, Jan. 19, 2006
Delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Proto t c 12:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. *drew 05:18, 20 January 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.