Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish nuclear programme

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish nuclear programme

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

The website cited as source for this Wikipedia article does not have any sources, the name of the journalist who might have written the article has been removed. Further searching provides no significant results, this article seems to be based on tabloid journalism. In fact, the "theolivepress" article keeps quoting alleged CIA declarations but they don't provide sources.

The article was created in 2009, without any sources. Seven years have passed and this article still doesn't have a valid source, or sources provided are tabloid journalism (I.e. citations without the source of the citation).

If at any point an article about "Spanish nuclear programme" could be made with reliable sources, then a new article should be created, as it stands it's mere gossip.

Comment - I completed the AfD for 95.17.243.244. ansh 666 20:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - online search (in English) turns nothing, and I have tried a few key terms on https://www.iaea.org/publications in vain (though the search engine seems horrible). Sounds like a hoax. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable yet.--72.58.114.125 (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. This should be only briefly mentioned elsewhere. My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 30 October 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.