Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quail hunting

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quail hunting

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability; Just a one liner article since May 2007. Article created by a blocked user. Ninney (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Weak Keep for now. There seems to be a quite a bit information on the subject that exists on the internet and elsewhere that could be used on the article.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD is not cleanup, and a quick Google search revealed a lot of significant coverage. sst ✈ 00:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is more than notable. If not expanded, the page should be redirected to upland hunting. There is certainly information on the subject out there. I may attempt to expand the page myself. Meatsgains (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a plethora of good sources to support this article. I found one such source and started an expansion of the article to show what can be done. Much work needs to be done to make this more than a stub, but it is now more than a couple of sentences and my initial efforts show the direction. The subject is notable whether or not the article expands further - my small additions show the possibilities of an already notable subject. And then there is this. Have at it, editors! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:31, 21 January 2016 (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.