Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 12

Olympic class starship – AfD has been reopened, nothing to do here. – JohnCD (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Relist let the process run out; it was speedy closed, there was a previous PROD objection which was used to close the AfD, but the AfD was opened because the PROD was disputed. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

really nothing to do here, the people who want to delete this can just nominate it for AFD properly and let the discussion run its course. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Amir of Bimlipatnam – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I am filing this request on behalf of new user Altaf shaik (talk · contribs), who requested it on my talk page after I declined a request at WP:REFUND. Altaf shaik's detailed comments on the AfD can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Amir of Bimlipatnam. I have temp-undeleted the article. Note that if restored its title should be changed to "Amirs of Bimlipatnam", because it is about the family rather than just the present Amir. My own view is that there do not seem to be independent sources to establish notability for the Amirs, but that a section about them could perhaps be added to the article about the town, which we have under the name of Bheemunipatnam. JohnCD (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I contested the prod earlier, the AFD was a pretty clear case of delete. So I cannot see a case to overturn. However if there are new references to add to show notability that would be a reason to give a second chance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. AfD was correctly closed based on valid, policy-focused delete arguments and no keep arguments at all. Thparkth (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll be watching this page closely, if it does not enhance its notability factor and stays the same as it used to be (filled with fancruft, or, biased and pov information) I'll CsD it right away, or even propose a second deletion. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – Don't know what else to say; there was a unanimous agreement on deletion. –MuZemike 16:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.