Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahawat (2nd nomination)

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. Tone 16:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shahawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. This went to AfD in September but was closed cos of no consensus. Knowing what we now know about these Carter stubs, can we please have a consensus and kill it? ithankyou Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The previous AFD closed as "no consensus" because one user argued it might exist without providing a shred of evidence. That is a ridiculous close in a debate that was otherwise unanimously for delete. Of course, we can have articles on things that might exist but cannot be proved not to. But only if, like Russell's teapot, there is a significant amount of discussion in reliable sources on the possibility. This one not only fails GNG and GEOLAND by dint of not existing, but it cannot even rise to the level of WP:TEAPOT. SpinningSpark 12:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 10 November 2018 (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.