Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmet Delia

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) sst✈ 14:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmet Delia

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

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per rationale given by IJA. --Mondiad (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found 7-8 Gbooks mentioning him.--Zoupan 19:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., Anyway I'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets gng, so the creation by sock is just rationale seems to be a revenge vendetta rather than a rational argument for deletion Jacona (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Adequate sourcing. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 25 February 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.