Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< September 03	September 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EPICENTER

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

Sourcing is poor, even after it was "improved". Myself and others have failed to find any good secondary sources for this organization. Most of the sources in the article are primary or non-RS, or do not cover the subject in enough detail. Notability is not established and article seems promotional in nature. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 16:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, I can't see how it meets GNG. I removed some of the worse cruft, but it still reads as mostly promotional.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2024 (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.

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urbonavičius

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

Disambiguation page with no valid links. There are no people with this name listed at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a disambiguation page. --Altenmann >talk 16:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep, Valid surname page. These are notable people with potential articles, eg by btranslation from the corresponding text from lt-wiki --Altenmann >talk 16:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We'll try one more relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid surname set-index article; surname pages are not disambiguations. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 18:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:COMMONSENSE. An empty article indexing another language Wikipedia is of no use at all. Write the articles first, then index them. In the greater contaxt this is a great illustration of why set index articles are pointless and should be scrapped. Ingratis (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ingratis: It describes the surname's etymology and its relationship to similar regional surnames. It then lists some people with the surname who have other-language Wikipedia articles or are mentioned in an English Wikipedia article. You might consider that worthless, but I don't understand what you mean by calling it empty. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2024 (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.

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. Consensus reached. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanavičius

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

Disambiguation page with no valid links. There are no people with this name listed at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a disambiguation page. --Altenmann >talk 05:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valud surname page. --Altenmann >talk 05:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be valid surname page if it had sourced information about the surname itself, or a list of people with the surname about whom we have information in en.wiki. It fails on both. PamD 07:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If you need sorces, add {cn}, not delete. I easily added a ref after a minute of search. YEs we have info in en-wiki about the people, e.g., [1]. It is normal to have redlinks for persons reasonably notable for future articles. --Altenmann >talk 08:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:it now has sourced content about the surname. PamD 07:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A valid, helpful, surname SIA with potential for expansion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a valid SIA; checked the Lithuanian Wikipedia articles and their subjects seem to be notable. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 18:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yo, Shhhnotsoloud, how is this valid and helpful yet you made me go through the motions for Filić? :D In general I acknowledge that we do tend to force people write an article first and it's not a bad idea. It's hard to judge the potential otherwise, because for example we don't know if all Heroes of the Soviet Union are inherently individually notable (maybe in Russian they are but not in English?), or we don't know if every member of Lithuanian parliament is so (the guy's Lithuanian article is marked for notability issues, yet has translations to German and Polish, what's up with that?), etc. One thing that would be interesting is to see if there are mentions of these list items in the English Wikipedia anyway, and so does this formatting promote article creation better than just search engine output. --Joy (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Joy: You've taught me to soften my approach! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2024 (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.

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 merge‎ to Antonov An-26#Accidents and incidents. asilvering (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 South Sudan Supreme Airlines Antonov An-26 crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. From what I've been able to find, only primary sources exist on the event with barely any/no secondary sources existing on the event. The event does not have in-depth nor continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the crash. No lasting effects nor long-term impacts have been demonstrated as a result of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Africa. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Merge . I believe due to there being no notable injuries nor fatalities that this incident is not notable, the article should be merged into An-26 Accidents and Incidents along with the shortening of the accidents and incidents catalouge in South Sudan Supreme Airlines for this accident, i'll try to lengthen the original catalouge in the An-26 page to compensate for the shortening of the original catalouge. Lolzer3000 (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it should be merged per WP:NOTNEWS. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 22:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a merge target in mind? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My apoligies for not making the merge target clear, i'd like to merge it into the accident and incidents page for the An-26, since its already in the catalouge for Wau Airport, i'll expand the Wau Airport entry with basic information from this article to pertain it. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, no need to apologize. I understood the merge target you proposed, I was just wondering what merge target user Hamterous1 had in mind.

And unrelated to that, welcome back :) Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, happy to see you again, i'll be more active in this AFD category from now on along with the 2024 in aviation article. Lolzer3000 (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge over to Antonov An-26, I found some AP coverage but it was only one article, I then looked into some French and Spanish papers but wasn't able to find anything useful. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It sounds like there are two different Merge targets being proposed, Antonov An-26 and another that has yet to be identified. Please don't mention the subject of a target article, provide a link to the page you are talking about so the closer doesn't have to go on a search to find what you are talking about.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 4 September 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Twins at St. Clare's

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

No reliable source to pass WP:GNG and does not appear to match any of WP:NBOOK's criteria. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 22:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 22:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't get very far in my own search for sources, but it would really surprise me if a book by Enid Blyton wasn't notable under WP:NBOOK. I expect there's coverage in historical newspapers. -- asilvering (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep: I've found two pieces of coverage (The Observer and Coventry Standard), but they are a bit shorter than I'd like. There also might be some coverage somewhere between pages 142-149 in From Morality to Mayhem: The Fall and Rise of the English School Story, published by Lutterworth Press, but whether this is about the book or the series, I can not tell as the preview cuts off. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, if a decision is made to delete this article, a merge/redirect to St. Clare's (series) would be preferable. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've struck the Weak part of my !vote. I have access to the book I mentioned, and in my opinion, it contains sufficient coverage to count towards WP:NBOOK. If anyone would like to take a look, please email me. Pinging @PARAKANYAA as their !vote is based on mine. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ per ARandomName. Some of the coverage makes me think all these articles might be better off upmerged to the series even if they are technically notable, but that can be done editorially. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the coverage in the book above and Oaktree b. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two arguments to Keep but they are Weak Keeps so additional opinions would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Some coverage here as well [2], probably just enough with the sources in the comment above. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2024 (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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inna Lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un

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

Exactly what a dictionary definition is, exactly what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOTDICT. My prod was deleted by a guest user. SJD Willoughby (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I bring up Wikihow and Quaran websites, none of which are helpful, as sourcing in my search. I don't see why we need this, the sourcing now used basically just confirms it exists where it says it does. Oaktree b (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT, WP:DUE. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is true the article in it's current form is more of a dictionary entry but when deciding to delete something or not the current state of the article is not that important, the significance of the topic is. I believe that because this phrase has cultural/religious significance that can be seen in its wide usage when someone dies in middle eastern cultures it is significant in the same way the article "Raining cats and dogs" is. Therefore I believe it should be kept on that basis as it is a common expression and other common expressions also have articles. EvilxFish (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and a lot of Wikipedia articles are kind of like dictionaries anyway since they have a title and give the definition, such as the article on cats. They're just much more detailed. Like you said, this saying also has such cultural and religious significance that it deserves its own article. This saying is referred as the "Istirja", so maybe that could be the article's title instead. I think that'd be better but I say keep it! BlueOtaku8000 (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a second, unbolded Keep comment so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this phrase, along with other ones such as the basmala, tasbih, etc, should just be thrown on Wiktionary. There's a table on the Dhikr page with commonly used phrases, so we could just swap out those links for the Wiktionary links. AmrAlWatan^{(🗣️|📝)} 02:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per EvilxFish's argument. Abo Yemen ✉ 09:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per EvilxFish. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (vote changed Sept 8 2024). If the above editors voting Keep want to write a detailed article and submit it for AfC or NPP review they should. Currently it is just a dictionary entry, and that is both inappropriate and not notable.Ldm1954 (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of notability is not decided by the current state of the article, rather the inherent notability of the topic itself. Meaning that whereas I do agree that the current state of the article is dire, this does not affect notability or worthiness of inclusion into the encyclopedia. I personally would struggle to edit this article as I believe a lot of the information for this topic would be found in languages I cannot read or speak but I do not feel it unreasonable to believe such literature exists, based on what I have searched and seen online about this phrases usage. Assuming the comment by @BlueOtaku8000 earlier is correct, I would support renaming it to a more concise title though as a separate issue. EvilxFish (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ldm1954, Soft Deletion is not possible if there are arguments to Keep an article. Soft Deletes are like PRODs they are for uncontroversial deletions. If there are editors arguing for a Keep outcome, then the deletion is clearly not uncontroversial. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't (yet) know all details as well as I probably should. I will remove the Soft in my vote. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect The phrase undeniably holds cultural significance, notable being more than a mere expression, as emphasised by EvilxFish. As a balance between the two views, it could be merged and redirected to Al-Baqara. samee converse 09:49, 7 September 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise Indus Shield

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

I don't see how this meets NEVENTCRITERIA. There are several issues. I don’t see evidence of WP:LASTING impact, or even WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability and WP is not a newspaper. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's a WP:DIVERSE coverage of the exercise and it passes WP:NEVENT therefore the article should be kept.[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] War Wounded (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the coverage was published in October 2023, so there’s no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Additionally, some of the sources are GENREL, such as Bol News. WP:109PAPERS — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can these sources be evaluated?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would say that this event passes WP:NEVENT therefore should be kept. Wikibear47 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikibear47, Passes WP:NEVENT on what basis? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Pakistan Uses JF-17, J-10C Fighters & CM-400 To Counter India’s S-400 System In New Warfare Drills		?	~	? Unknown
Chairman Joint Chiefs Of Staff Committee witnesses Air Exercise Indus Shield-2023		Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#BOL News		✘ No
PAF Multinational Exercise “Indus Shield-2023” commences				✘ No
Air exercise ongoing in Pakistan with participants from 14 nations including Saudi Arabia, UAE				✔ Yes
14-nation mega aerial warfare exercise in full swing at PAF air base				✘ No
Army chief visits air base to witness aerial exercise Indus Shield-2023	~			✘ No
Pakistan Air Force launches 14-nation Indus Shield 2023 exercise with Middle Eastern participation				✔ Yes
China, Saudi Arabia among others participate in 14-nation 'Indus Shield 2023' air exercise organised by Pakistan Air Force				✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Reassessed Arab News sources as reliable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for discussion of source assessment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NEVENT. Disagreed with the nominator that article received coverage in only October 2023 as this [11] & this [12] are the coverage after October. 39.34.141.22 (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2024 (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.

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 merge‎ to Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John T. Wilson (born 1861)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected per WP:ATD to Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes. He is mentioned there but that section could be enhanced with more information about him. I did find sources about him, but none are truly independent - they are all publications of the "Brotherhood" itself. There are mentions here, and a few pages of a memorial here. These also help fill in more information about the Brotherhood that could improve that article. Lamona (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested: not enough for its own stub, but can improve the target. Bearian (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support Merging Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge WP:NOPAGE + per Bearian and Lamona. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. asilvering (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pind Brahmanan

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

Doubts has been cast as to whether this is a place. Plotting in the coordinates, you get to a settlement Tarapur where "Pind barhaman" shows up as a school. Fallingrain.com can't be used as a sole source for a settlement. Geschichte (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one source is not enough. Xegma(talk) 19:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment This is a case I worry about all the time in places where I cannot even pronounce the local language: what ties the location to the name? GNS shows both names in this this area, attaching Pind Brahmanan to the larger, SW piece of town, and Tarapur to the smaller, NW piece. Is this correct? Heck if I know. It would be nice if we had an official Pakistani source for this. Otherwise I'd be inclined to favor GNS over GMaps but both have significant issues with reliability. Mangoe (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vadym Nevinglovsky

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 4 September 2024 (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.

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. RL0919 (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya Maeshiro

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

Fails WP:GNG. Subject has no coverage whatsoever besides a trivial profile of player stats. A7 speedy deletion nomination previously rejected. Dan • ✉ 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Dan • ✉ 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify it for now and I think we should wait for until new sources added in the draftspace. Xegma(talk) 19:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article hasn't changed in years and the subject only played football for one season. A cursory Google search provides no sources to add to the article. I can't imagine draftifying will lead to anything new added. Dan • ✉ 20:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:44, 6 September 2024 (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.

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Wright (motorsport)

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

Does not pass GNG. Sources referenced and available online are mostly in passing or not reliable. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Need to add more sources. Xegma(talk) 18:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Engineering, Motorsport, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources provided appear primary and do not meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mir Ali Imam Al Mamun

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

The cited sources are: (1) an anonymously self-published local history page which says its source is the Bengali Wikipedia article [13] (which in its present form supports little of the promotional content here), so it is WP:CIRCULAR in addition to all of its other problems; and (2) a user-generated "royalty" website described by other editors at RSN as "cruft", a "fan site", and "clearly unreliable".

Online and offline searches in English and Bengali found nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. This retired Lt. Col. does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The article serves as nothing but an attractive nuisance for those who add unsourced content. Worldbruce (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Worldbruce (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an interesting read but completely unsourced and unverifiable. I tried to find a single RS but failed.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2024 (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.

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nafsika Antypas

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to be a WP:BLP1E, making news for being the victim of a scammer/abuser. Other sources about her brand are from journals running paid promotion, e.g. vegconomist.com, or interviews (primary sources), e.g. foodnavigator-asia.com. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Food and drink. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G4 - This is a copy of Draft:Nafsika Antypas, draftified following the last AFD, and copied to mainspace without improvement. Almost certainly sockpuppetry as well. Wikishovel (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, didn't see the previous draft, I'm okay with G4 as well. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Greece, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G4 as per Wikishovel. Xegma(talk) 18:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G4 isn't really valid here as the previous AFD closed as Draftify, not Delete. So, it's worth continuing the discussion here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is still based too heavily on unreliable sources that are not support for notability, while the few reliable sources in the bunch are just about her being defrauded by the main subject of those sources, rather than about her doing anything noteworthy. Strictly speaking, this is a recent new creation that isn't substantively identical to the original version from 2022 (which did get draftified, but then got deleted as a stale draft before being recreated from scratch in 2024), so I wouldn't consider it eligible for G4 either, but not being eligible for speedy doesn't make it keepable. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2024 (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.

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 merge‎ to Northwest Airlines#Non-fatal accidents and incidents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Airlines Flight 5 (1990)

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

Failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:NOTNEWS, only cited primary and tertiary sources additionally and had no lasting effects. Additionally no injuries or fatalities. Lolzer3000 (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lolzer3000 (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No fatalities. No continuous coverage. Every accident get a report, so that doesn’t count. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Northwest Airlines#Non-fatal accidents and incidents. Per longstanding WP:AV consensus, minor non-fatal airline incidents with no WP:LASTING effects are adequately summarized in the accident section of the airline article. I just edited the write-up in that article to cover the important facts. Carguychris (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2024 (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.

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Arthur Dodwell

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a British man who was a senior police officer in India, and done what I can to improve the article. Sourcing is very poor, however - two brief mentions and a family announcement of his death. I think this passing mention of a Ted Dodwell is probably also him, but it doesn't give any further information to add to the article. I don't think he is notable under WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, India, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with verification issues and generally entries. No significant coverage on the subject and I cannot find the subject to be notable who was worthy of notice to warrant a page on. Fails WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, the position of police commissioner, except for very large cities, is not automatically notable as a political office. Bearian (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2024 (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.

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 merge‎ to List of fictional frogs and toads. seems to be a valid point that there is some content that could be merged Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional frogs and toads in animation

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

A list that appears to be a redundant fork of List of fictional frogs and toads, which already has a full section on animation. I am assuming it was initially split off due to size concerns at the time, but that no longer appears necessary. As both lists specify that the entries should be restricted solely to notable examples, when you remove the entries here that do not meet that criteria, what is left is identical to the list already present at List of fictional frogs and toads, making a separate list or any kind of merger unnecessary. Rorshacma (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Animal, and Lists. Rorshacma (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. It looks like the main article already lists the notable examples, making this an unnecessary duplicate. (No objection to a redirect if someone really thinks it's important.) Shooterwalker (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a title that should not hold an article (per nom) but which is a reasonable {{r to section}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear example of WP:OLIST and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. cyberdog958^Talk 20:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above nomination. No indication of notability and an unneeded split off an already dubious page in terms of notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the missing entries to List of fictional frogs and toads - this does not seem to be complete, missing Tiana (The Princess and the Frog) and possibly Kermit the Frog - and redirect. I agree that this is a WP:CONTENTFORK, but the article title does get a reasonable number of hits and therefore should be preserved as WP:AtD, and WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Current consensus is also that the target's notability is not "dubious", as determined here. Daranios (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per others, leaving the article around would seem to encourage recreation when we really shouldn't be getting this granular. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the missing entries to List of fictional frogs and toads and then redirect it to there to preserve the article's history. I would not be opposed to the article being recreated if there was SIGCOV/analysis on toads and frogs in animation. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since not all entries are over there. Dream Focus 00:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of fictional frogs and toads per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. This will also preserve the page history for any editors planning to merge content into that article, which is necessary for attribution. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2024 (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.

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.

Direct Textile Store

The result was speedy delete. A7, G11 (non-admin closure)‎ AusLondonder (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Sources provided are unreliable PR websites and other corporate websites. Failed to locate other sources providing significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. AusLondonder (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 13:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yannick Dinane

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

Was deprodded without comment or adding any sources. Dinane fails GNG with a lack of SIGCOV. Even if someone explains what is in the World Soccer source it won't be enough to pass GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. CptViraj (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. JTtheOG (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:44, 6 September 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 11:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junior World Series of Indoor Cricket

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

This article survived an AfD in 2010, but since then WP:GNG has not further been established, and the article is unreferenced. A quick search reveals little coverage and nothing in depth. Fails WP:OFFCRIC and WP:GNG. AA (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AA (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG, so we don't need the article. Just because it sort of survived an AFD in 2010 (it seems to have been removed from the AFD), that isn't a reason to keep. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. A search for sources yields no in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 13:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Sha

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

Biography of an actor with no independent sources, and I am unable to find anything that would show notability. There is also no claim to notability per WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. The article states that she had notable roles in Aatma The Revenge and Prema Hathiras, but there is no article about either of those movies. While we don't trust IMdB as a source , it can sometimes be used as at least an indication about the significance of a film or a particular part; according to IMdB, then, Aatma is a short film with no other people listed as cast or crew (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt19496446/), while Prema Hathiras isn't even listed there, so nothing there to meet WP:NACTOR.

The article has been moved back and forth between mainspace and draftspace by its creator, and I'm not going to get into a move war trying to draftify it, when there is no indication it could become an article at this time. I think it is borderline speediable both as non-significant and as advertising, but maybe it's better to go through with an AfD.

bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I was writing the nomination, Ravensfire did what I should have done before nominating, and removed all the unsourced information. The claims I refer to above are visible in the article history. --bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and India. bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear failure for any notability. Creator has played games moving this back and forth from draft to mainspace, deletion is appropriate at this point. Ravensfire (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any independent references to support claims of notability. The now-removed promotional references could not even pass WP:V. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I went back to the original article text and citations as the one I read now has no content. I agree there were no WP:RS. The only non-Instagram reference with coverage of subject was from http://www.uniindia.com/ which appears to be an aggregation site with no editorial oversight. Nnev66 (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Looked at earlier versions for sources but just like current page, there was nothing reliable. Currently only one unreliable Instagram source on page. Simple search I did not find any significant coverage and anything notable about the actress. This page is very much an attempt for promotion. RangersRus (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 13:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Canady

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

Article about a non-notable business executive. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Sources are routine announcements and press releases. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, because there are No allegations of notability, nor reliable sources, for this BLP. Being a CEO is not automatically deserving of a Wikipedia article. They have to do something important, and it has to be recognized in two or more reliable sources. I see zero. Bearian (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed the sources that were press releases, youtube interviews, and other unreliable sources. I probably should have also removed the Forbes because it is "ForbesPro - the promotional content brand" so probably also from a press release. What remains is non-notable business reporting. His book is currently #1 in the Amazon category "Strategic Management" - I do not know what that means in terms of achievements (can you buy your way to best-seller on Amazon?). It is not on the NY Times current list (book was published Feb 2024). Lamona (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure promotional garbage on a subject that fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2024 (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.

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. Multiple editors cite coverage in the article's cited sources as a rationale to keep. No policy-based elaboration of "lack of notability" was provided here or for the initial proposed deletion. (non-admin closure) Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Carl

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely covered in establishment and conservative media. Thriley (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely looks notable enough for me. The broken image isn't ideal, but will re-upload and substitute it for a cropped version. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a bit thin - both the Washington Examiner and American Conservative are considered only so-so in terms of reliability. I don't know the reputation of the European Conservative. But there is an article in the Washington Post and the EENews is a Politico publication. Not yet in the article is Vox discussing his book. There are articles in other publications that I am not familiar with. His book is published by a lesser-known publisher, Skyhorse, but it's not self-published. Lamona (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2024 (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.

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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AH Milad

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

Article about a non-notable entrepreneur and author. Sources are promotional paid pieces. Does not satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Claim's of winning "UNICEF of the year 2023" which is not a thing, neither does such award exist. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and Bangladesh. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think he notable, you want chek on Google 2404:1C40:5A:2CE3:1:0:C1D1:9C8B (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe AH Milad notable Efietking (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete it was deleted several times and probably created by sock. Mehedi Abedin 13:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milad (entrepreneur). Mehedi Abedin 13:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, G4, G5, G11 per User:Mehedi Abedin, latest of many variant spelling used by desperately self-promoting sockpuppet. Wikishovel (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2024 (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.

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. Star Mississippi 12:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mihai Apostol (footballer)

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Neither playing in the Moldovan league or lower leagues in Netherlands give any sort of automatic notability. The only non-database source in the article is a primary source (club), and searching for his name in conjunction with clubs, I could not find a shred of reliable sources. Geschichte (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Greece, Moldova, Netherlands, and Portugal. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – my Romanian doesn't go further than a few words yet from my sources assessment this fails the GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Antonov An-32. History is there if someone wants to merge Star Mississippi 12:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Kongolo Antonov An-32B crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. From what I've been able to find, only primary sources exist on the event with no secondary sources existing on the event. The event does not have in-depth, significant nor continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the crash. No lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated as a result of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into An-32, the article itself is a stub and also fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE nothing much to expand upon in the An-32 category, although the entry in List of sole survivors of aviation accidents and incidents, could use some improvement to pertain the little information shown in this article. Lolzer3000 (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Antonov An-32. This article barely passes notability guidelines given and all of the content is mentioned inside the An-32 aircraft article under accidents and incidents section. Galaxybeing (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2024 (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.

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 no consensus‎. Can be revisited to see if the discussion gets traction at another time Star Mississippi 12:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bellinzona Ladies Open

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

A very small tournament that seems to get no third party coverage. Even a plain google search just reveals primary sources. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Tennis, and Switzerland. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a womens Challenger level event that does get outside publicity. Whether its a 2021 event, or Tennis 24, or Tennis Point magazine on youtube. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All these 3 sources are primary. We need third-party sources, that is not connected to tennis. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A source would only be a primary source if it was directly connected to the event organisers or the ITF, not merely because the source is a tennis-focussed source. Iffy★Chat -- 10:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are not primary sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not regard a youtube clip of an event as a suitable, reliable source. As per WP:SPORTSEVENT, " To be notable, games should be extraordinary and have a lasting impact on the sport; news coverage should be extensive (e.g., outside of the week of its occurrence and in non-local newspapers)". The other 2 sources fails that. Especially one being just a listing of results. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That applies for individual matches, not for leagues or tournaments. Iffy★Chat -- 09:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVENT could also apply here. ": An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." This small tournament definitely fails that. LibStar (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need some more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 11:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galway Warriors

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

Non-notable (and short-lived) amateur sports team. In terms of WP:CLUB and WP:SIGCOV, I can find no independent/reliable/significant coverage of the team's activities during its relatively-short lifespan. A WP:BEFORE search returns less-than-independent webpages like this on the IAFL website (which contains no information that can be used to expand/support the article). Or ROTM local sports news coverage like this (which is also of limited use in expanding the article or establishing notability). It is hard to overlook that the article was created by an apparent COI/SPA contributor, with a quasi-promotional intent, before the org/team had contested even a single competitive game. (This seems such a clear-cut case that I had planned on PRODing. But I note it had already been PRODed. Before being dePRODed as part of a series of (yet more) promotional edits.) Guliolopez (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the amateur and not significant sports team. Significant coverage not present so it makes clear not notable page. --Johnpaul2030 (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spleodrach (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2024 (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.

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 merge‎ to Eritrea–United States relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Eritrea, Washington, D.C.

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

PROD tag removed due to concern about removing "national embassies without a discussion". Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources. Effectively just a directory listing. AusLondonder (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Eritrea–United States relations: No WP:RS sources I found from a quick Google News. Ping me if anyone finds one Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Eritrea-United States relations: Most embassies by themselves aren't notable, but would make a good addition to the relations article between the guest and host country. Hlsci (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at some point it will reach relevance. Alon9393 (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a criterion for notability. WP:CRYSTAL balling future notability. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jasdeep Singh Gill

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

Falls under WP:BLP1E, as the subject is notable for only one event. Also, all four sources appear to be part of a press release, as they were all published on the same date, 2 September 2024, mostly by news desks with similar content. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Health and fitness. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notable for only one event as suggested by almost all of the third party reliable sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is not notable and the sources are about his appointment. The subject has not made a significant impact or achievement worthy of notice to be warranted a page on. Fails WP:NBIO and per nom WP:BLP1E. RangersRus (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Hussain Keen

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

Non-notable per WP:NPOL, a middle-ranking party bureaucrat and failed 2014 candidate. If he wins in this year's election he'd be notable, so the article was draftified once, but then immediately recreated in main space. The only coverage I could find in a WP:BEFORE search was routine coverage of his candidacy, and passing mentions. Wikishovel (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Wikishovel (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete not ready for mainspace and also exists in draftspace. Xegma(talk) 04:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xegma, under what CSD criteria? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
R2 CSD criteria. Xegma(talk) 07:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a candidate of a party and two sources are poor with passing mention and others are unreliable. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala

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

There are no WP:RELIABILITY, Most of the sources given here are their YouTube channel links, sources are self-published, clearly fails WP:GNG. Thank you! Spworld2 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, and Kerala. Spworld2 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spworld2 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is a small group of people who are ex-Muslims in Kerala, Sources are provided mostly YouTube links, without sources significant socks. An online group that conducts debates and uploads them through a YouTube channel. In Kerala, there are "'Ex-Christians'" and "'Ex-Hindus'" like this. But none of them have an article and they all belong to the category of rationalist Kerala Yukthivadi Sangham article is included in this, it doesn't need a page, very few people are involved in this, they are a small group of non-religious people, currently in Kerala, people who come from other religions (Ex-religions) and are non-religious, it can be merged into this page. It can be Delete or merge into a page Ex-Muslims ~ Spworld2 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Atheism and Islam. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:16, 4 September 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SDM Law College

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

Not notable educational institution. I can find nothing except listings showing it exists. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Karnataka. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 4 September 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SDM Institute for Management Development

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

Not notable educational institution. I can find nothing except listings showing it exists. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Karnataka. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 4 September 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Scouting in Minnesota#Voyageurs Area Council. as consensus appears to be that sourcing is of insufficient depth and independence. This target has a slight edge, but can be revisited if needed editorially. Star Mississippi 02:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voyageurs Area Council

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

Blatant use of Wikipedia as if it's an extension of their website and this doesn't meet WP:NCORP. That it's likely incorporated as "non profit" and their pesence in MN, WI and MN is not within the intentions of WP:NONPROFIT. Graywalls (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, Companies, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Graywalls (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a lot of articles for councils: List of councils (Boy Scouts of America). Councils are run by volunteers in BSA and they usually are done based on region so I don't know where even the WP:NONPROFIT argument applies (if it even did). The more important thing is WP:N and if it doesn't hold, I would be more towards a redirect to the list provided or any Scouting-related page. – The Grid (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, it sounds like the council itself is in the process of shutting down and their territory is being merged into other councils. So, the probability that the council will continue to have any significant long-term web presence is low. While the article does have some problems, the proposal does not indicate why this council would be less notable than others, many of which have independent pages. Wikipedia has plenty of pages dedicated to organizations that no longer exist, including several about defunct BSA councils, so while this organization may not serve people in the future, it would have met WP:N standards during its period of operation. Within certain communities of interest, such as Scout Patch Collectors and Scouting historians, every council is notable enough to get a few pages in things like Scout patch identification guidebooks. Although many of the sources linked are from the council, there are already a few independent sources (but more are needed). I oppose deletion, although I would not object to significant edits to address the issues of neutrality, limited references, etc. ToddDTaft (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pages about organizations/companies that fail to meet the requirements of WP:NCORP don't qualify to have a standalone article. Graywalls (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and there's room for merging/redirecting as articles such as Scouting in Minnesota and Scouting in Wisconsin exist (as a valid alternative to deletion) – The Grid (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Grid:, Yep, merge was my first thought, however being that there's no single suitable target being it is relevant to MN, WI and MI, and the article unambiguously failing NORG, it leaves deletion as a reasonable option. Graywalls (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please consider the alternatives to deletion like Redirect or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend keep, because this BSA council is no less notable than the hundreds of other councils that also have wikipedia articles. Furthermore, although much of the original material in the article (which Graywalls has already deleted without waiting for the results of this discussion) was poorly sourced, that is more appropriate for a Template:Primary sources to be added (to encourage other editors to contribute to the article) than a deletion request (which only discourages others from contributing). Johnson487682 (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contributions based primarily on the website of the organization, personal websites should be discouraged. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a good justification to retain notability failing articles. As a matter of fact, there are so many articles in BSA topic area that are written essentailly from BSA operated sites, personal websites and blogs that they should be merged, redirected or deleted. If it was only in Minnesota, re-direct to Scouting in Minnesota is an easy one, but given it spans over three states, the target is not an easy pick. Graywalls (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content was contrary to policy because any Wikipedia article must not be primarily based on self-published sources. See WP:ABOUTSELF (the five conditions are cumulative). The removal was necessary, and the AfD being in progress does not matter at all. —Alalch E. 10:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I see no support for Deletion right now. While a Redirect requires a single target article, articles can be Merged to multiple articles so I don't see a problem there. However, just because, other, similar articles exist is not justification to keep this one if notability can not be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to List of councils (Boy Scouts of America) per nom. After my search for sources per WP:BEFORE I could not find any with something resembling significant coverage, let alone WP:ORGDEPTH-grade significant coverage, and all of the reliable sources I could find were local reports on mundane affairs such as the closing of a camp or local youth receiving scouting awards. WP:NCORP fail, can't provide legitimate encyclopedic coverage of this topic. Interested readers should look elsewhere for information, such as by visiting the organization's website.—Alalch E. 10:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scouting in Minnesota#Voyageurs Area Council is a better redirect target. —Alalch E. 11:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even notice when I looked. My vote is Redirect/merge to Scouting in Minnesota#Voyageurs Area Council per Alalch E. and my comments above. If anything for the nominator, the self published do needs to be removed which can easily be done with the merge. – The Grid (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either redirect or merge is fine by me. I'm not sure if the content should be merged and if the camps and number of children are such due information in the target article, and those numbers change year after year, but I don't take a position on this.—Alalch E. 15:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E.:, I see no salvageable, reliably, secondary sourceable material that would be WP:DUE to address in other articles, so while I prefer the first suggested list as the target, I'm not entirely opposed to just re-directing to something. Even if deleted, since there's no preserving worthy contents, creating a new re-direct later is no frill. Graywalls (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's postulate: If there is suitably sourced prose content about this topic in a section of an article, that article should be the target of the redirect, and the list entry can link to that content as the locus of most direct coverage on Wikipedia. The question is then: Seeing how such content is currently not present in Scouting in Minnesota, should it be present? This kind of breaks down into two further questions: (1) Is content about individual councils a usual type of content in Scouting in X articles, that is presumably generally seen as due, and (2) are there sources to support any prose about this particular council. The answers to both 1 and 2 are yes: This type of content is absolutely usual (look at any Scouting in [X US state] article), and such sources do exist for this particular council because I've found them and have added them to the article which is the subject of this AfD. This suggests that the target should be Scouting in Minnesota, while the list entry should link to that, and so the only remaining question for me is whether it's only the sources, which do confirm the existence and the "jurisdiction" of the council, as already stated in "Scouting in Minnesota", should be brought over (just copying the references does not require a merge outcome), or if any content should actually be copied (that does suggest a merge outcome). —Alalch E. 20:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added the refs, see Special:Diff/1244053906. —Alalch E. 20:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of redirecting to List of councils. The latter, not so much simply because it just so happened to be in there. Graywalls (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but wouldn't a targeted redirect be the best option here? My thought process here is like articles for any county's school district/board or library department. You have the county page that is a cumulation of the content. When a merge is suggested in the past, it has been assumed to not be a direct merge but anything within the policies. Anything about cleanup on the targeted page is more outside the purview of the AfD. I can imagine there's a bigger can of worms with these articles altogether. – The Grid (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (just took a quick look) Like other Scout councils. Typically have immense history, immense amounts of coverage (albeit not unusually ideal slam-dunk GNG coverage). Much is under the names of council(s) that were merged/ renamed into it. And in this case multiple camps which could individually meet NGeo. Large amounts of historic and encyclopedic material and sourcing were deleted by the nominator after nominating. North8000 (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of councils (Boy Scouts of America) or Scouting in Minnesota#Voyageurs Area Council as suggested above. Under WP:BRANCH, organizations that are units of larger parent organizations require WP:SIGCOV in sources outside of the local area, in this case northern Minnesota/Wisconsin/Michigan. While there is news coverage of the council, it's all within the council's area. I couldn't find any from beyond it. Disappointed to see that arguments are "keep" are based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel B. Cid

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

Not enough in-depth references for a WP:BIO, suggest redirecting the article to his notable creation OSSEC. Already done that, but was reverted. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 4 September 2024 (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.

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. Daniel (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elvish Yadav

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability issue. Winning one show and couple of music videos are not enough. Xegma(talk) 05:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Television, Internet, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the 50 ish refs do make the subject pass WP:NBASIC, could you specify the guideline that you are using to determine if they are notable or not? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability for WP:GNG is determined by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and that is already demonstrated by the references in the article including many newspaper articles, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, almost half of the refs are about Bigg Boss OTT. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 18:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly appears to be the subject of much third-party coverage from reviewing the sources. StewdioMACK (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to identify which sources provide SIGCOV helping to establish GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 are about this person, as are most of the other sources used in the article. I think we have enough to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2024 (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.

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. Other than a perfunctory nomination, views are unanimous against deletion. The suggested merge is reasonable, but received no support here. Owen× ☎ 05:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie Jane

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Australia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG per these sources [14][15][16][17] which give fairly significant coverage to the subject. There are also other sources available that when combined further their notability for an article. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, source 8 above is a brief album review in Billboard (fine I guess), the rest are about the season of Big Brother and mention this person in relation to the others on the show. Not exactly significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the Big Brother season? Seems to have survived long enough on the show, but I'm not sure they're notable outside of that context. Doesn't seem to meet musical notability requirements either. The Billboard review is fine, but it's used for musical notability, then we go onto the TV show sources; you have to pick one sort of notability, you can't stack them. Being almost notable as a DJ and almost notable as a TV personality don't add up to an article here. I'm not fussed if this gets !deleted either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully we'll see more participation. Also, to the nominator, in the future, please provide a more comprehensive deletion rationale that demonstrates BEFORE has been done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources I added.

Sources:

Gorman, Brigid O (23 April 2013). "Barrister's a secret singing sensation". Lawyers Weekly. Retrieved 1 September 2024.
"Meet Bowie Jane". VoyageLA (Interview). 5 April 2021.
Doreian, Robyn (25 August 2013). "All out, all change". Lifestyle. The Sun-Herald. Sydney: Fairfax Media. p. 12. Retrieved 1 September 2024. While studying law and commerce at Deakin University, she played covers at restaurants in an acoustic duo. Once qualified, the flip side to courtrooms was laser-lit gigs at venues like Transport, at Melbourne's Federation Square, where she blasted her energetic originals. And in 2013, she sang at the Australian Open tennis tournament. The moniker Bowie Jane came from her nickname - ever since she was a child, she's worn glittery bows in her hair. It was also how she kept her alter ego hidden from colleagues and clients. ... In March, she shelved four years of law practice and moved to London to become a star.

Bad Boy

"Dance Club Songs". Billboard. 13 October 2018. Retrieved 1 September 2024.

I also found this unreliable law profile source, with her real name:

"Miranda Ball". Meldrum's List. Retrieved 1 September 2024. The law profile notes: "Miranda's experience is extensive having run high profile White Collar Crime Litigations as both a Partner then Barrister. Her recent work includes the Bernie Madoff litigations in Bermuda & the UK, Operation Wickenby, Australian Crime Commission investigations and examinations, Special Leave Applications to the High Court of Australia, Legal Professional Privilege Claims, Constitutional Challenges, Children's Court hearings, Australian Taxation Office litigations/investigations and Coronial Inquests."

There is sufficient coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, plus the sources identified by @Ednabrenze to allow the subject to pass the general notability guideline, requiring "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Yours sincerely, Bas (or TechGeek105) (talk to me) 06:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to get a second opinion on these recently located sources. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've looked at the first three articles found by @Bas/TechGeek105 and they all provide significant coverage of the subject in my opinion. The Sun-Herald one looks more like a traditional newspaper; Lawyers Weekly and VoyageLA both say they have editorial oversight. The article itself is much better in terms of citations and content compared to when it was proposed for AfD. Nnev66 (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Lynch v. Donnelly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Lynch

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

Article remains mostly bare that does not pass GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Rhode Island. Skynxnex (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ There are 25 sources for him on Newspapers.com but they are just passing references or him being quoted about another issue. If someone finds other material please ping me. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - Redirect to Lynch v. Donnelly, it's the most notable thing he's known for. I did go back and try to find some other sources but wasn't able to. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Lynch was the defendant of the Supreme Court Case Lynch v. Donnelly and was honored by the Rhode Island General Assembly for his service in a delegation to China and his work to redevlop the City of Pawtucket. Furthermore, he was director of Rhode Island's Division of Purchases and served in "numerous other" posts for the State Government. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lynch v. Donnelly. The claims stated by the commenter above me are not "inherently" notable enough to guarantee inclusion in an encyclopedia — "director of a state Division of Purchases" is not an WP:NPOL-passing job, for example, and being honored by the legislature isn't an instant inclusion freebie either. So if his actual strongest notability claim is that he was involved in a noteworthy legal case, then he can be redirected to our article about the legal case, but he doesn't get his own standalone article as a separate topic from the case without a heck of a lot more substance and sourcing than has been offered so far. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think this discussion could use a few more days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as above. He appears notable only for the legal case. AusLondonder (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lynch v. Donnelly per Bearcat and Dr vulpes. Not independently notable, a case of WP:BLP1E. Sal2100 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 11:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore women's national under-18 softball team

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NORG due to a lack of secondary sourcing about the team itself. The only source is primary and does not cover the team itself in any event. Let'srun (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Singapore. Let'srun (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage. Does not meet notability guidelines. Priscilladfb16 (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like not meet notability and WP:GNG 🌀TyphoonAmpil🌀 (💬 - 📝) 07:45, 4 September 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 05:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Germany women's national under-18 softball team

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

Unable to find any sources suggesting this subject meets the WP:NORG or WP:GNG. The only sources currently in the article are WP:PRIMARY and are not about the team in any event. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Germany. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only references for the article are official results from International Softball Federation, without any other significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This article fails to meet WP:GNG. ~~~~ Priscilladfb16 (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. Not seeing third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 02:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Anthem of the Republic of the Rif

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

It does not appear to meet GNG and I don't believe there are guidelines for national anthems themselves. Based on my search on Google and TWL I could not find any sources. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EXIST and even that is speculative. The only thing this article accomplishes is some guesswork about how the short-lived republic probably had a national anthem but nobody really knows what it sounded like or who wrote it. Note that the audio sample used in the article is actually from the Lebanon National Anthem, which may or may not have borrowed the melody, another possibility that nobody seems to know for sure. If the Republic of Rif anthem really existed, it is lost to history and there simply is not enough reliable info for an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% speculation, no sources, no information found in any source, reliable or not, that isn't traced back to WP. This is a no-brainer. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2024 (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.

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 both. Daniel (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang

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

Nominating both Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang and Panglima Bandahala for deletion. Created by the same editor, they appear to be based entirely on the blog posts of one person (with very similar text) and then refbombed with sources that aren't about them.

Bundled nomination for:

Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang
Panglima Bandahala Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, Islam, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Page is a complete mess, not up to WP standard. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your feedback regarding the articles on Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang and Panglima Bandahala.

I understand the concerns raised about the sources and the structure of the articles. However, it is important to emphasize that these figures are significant historical personalities within the Bangsamoro narrative, and there are credible resources beyond the initial blog posts cited that provide detailed accounts of their lives, contributions, and the broader struggles of the Bangsamoro people. These articles aim to highlight an important part of Philippine and Islamic history that has often been neglected.

The representation of Bangsamoro history on platforms like Wikipedia is vital for the preservation and recognition of their culture, traditions, and the ongoing struggles for identity and autonomy. The information available about Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang and Panglima Bandahala contributes to understanding the complexities of the Bangsamoro's past, including their resistance and leadership. These contributions deserve to be documented and made accessible as part of Wikipedia's mission to share knowledge.

I am committed to revising and improving the articles to meet Wikipedia’s standards and address the current issues regarding source quality and notability. Ensuring that historically marginalized figures are properly represented on Wikipedia not only preserves cultural heritage but also educates a global audience about these important narratives.

Thank you for considering these points, and I look forward to contributing to the discussion constructively.

To address the issues raised, here are some steps we can take to improve the articles:

Strengthen Source Quality: We can work on finding and incorporating more reliable, secondary sources that directly discuss these individuals, ensuring that the information meets Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability and verifiability.

Refine the Content: The articles can be reorganized and rewritten to align with Wikipedia’s style and structure standards, removing any promotional or subjective language and focusing strictly on verifiable facts.

Expand Historical Context: Adding more historical context about the Bangsamoro struggle, the role of traditional leaders, and their impact on local and national history can provide readers with a better understanding of the significance of these figures.

Community Collaboration: I welcome any guidance from experienced editors on how best to refine these articles. Collaborative efforts can ensure that the content is accurate, neutral, and informative.

By improving rather than deleting these articles, we not only preserve the history and culture of the Bangsamoro people but also contribute to a more diverse and inclusive representation of global history on Wikipedia, aligning with its mission of spreading knowledge.

Best regards,

Suficalcaluang

please refer to:

https://www.scribd.com/document/508811524/WITH-THE-BRAVEST-The-Untold-Story-of-the-Sulu-Freedom-Fighters-of-World-War-II

https://medium.com/@calhussin96/sayyid-captain-kalingalan-caluang-a-hero-of-wwii-and-champion-of-the-bangsamoro-people-53f9c0cf82d4

for questions on the writer:

Dr. Calingalan Hussin Caluang, MPH

Pioneer and Founding member of SALAAM-AdZU

Sunni, Ash’ari in Aqeeda, Shafi’i in Fiqh, Practitioner of Ilmuh Kamaasan(Bangsamoro Spirituality, Culture and Tradition)

Lineage Father Side: Calingalan Hussin Caluang

son of Former OIC Governor(1996) of Sulu Sayyid Sharif Al Hassan Caluang(Practitioner of Ilmuh Kamaasan, With Ijazah in the 41 Spiritual Orders/Tariqa in Sunni Islam)

son of Sayyid Sharif Hji Yahya Caluang (Elder Brother of Sayyid Al Hussein Caluang who was the MNLF Field Marshal and MNLF Top 90)

son of Sayyid Sharif Captain Kalingalan “Apuh Inggal” Caluang (First commander of the famed Combat Company of the Sulu Area Command and recipient of the Bronze Star Medal, Cousin of Sgt. Imam Marajukin L. Ahad, Cousin of Hj Ayyub Mammah son of Panglima Mammah son of Panglima Mangummah/Sakadudukan son of Sultan Muhammad Jamalul A’zam I)

son of Sayyid Sharif Caluang

son of Sayyid Sharif Panglima Bandahala (Right Hand and Relative of Sultan Jamalul Kiram II)

son of Sayyid Sharif Satya Munuh(famed as the Awliya/Saint of Tandah Sulu,respected relative of the Sultan and also said to be the Uncle of the Sultan in his time, relative of the hero of Sabah Paduka Datu Muhammad Salleh)

son of Sayyid Sharif Kasim/Qasim(Arab of Hadhrami Descent, tracing back his Lineage to the 7 Sunni Sufi Missionaries who brought Islam to the Philippines: Tuan Mashaykha,Shariful Hashim,Karim Makhdum, Tuan Maqbalu, Balfaki Alawi, some of the Wali Songo of Indonesia)

Lineage Mother Side: Calingala Hussin Caluang son of Marlene Tuando Hussin daughter of Sayyid-Sharif Usman Hashim Hussin(Descendant of the Sayyid-Sharif/Salip of Patikul, related to the Sayyid-Sharif Sarajan Family)

Note: Sharif is an Arabic title denoting descent from Imam Hassan bin Ali alayhimus salam, while Sayyid denotes descent from Imam Hussain bin Ali alayhimus salam. Both are descendants and grandsons of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).

Muqaddam Mutlaq(Authorized Representative) of the Tijaniyyah Tariqa:

Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Dahiru Usman Bauchi

(Grandshayh of Tijani Tariqa in Nigeria,Deputy chair of the Fatwa Committee of the Supreme Council Of Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) in Nigeria)

Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Imam Salah El Din Al Tijani Al Hasani

(Grandshaykh of Tijani Tariqa in Egypt, Polymath Islamic Scholar,Professor of Medicine at the Faculty Of Medicine Kasr Al Ainy of Cairo)

Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Mouhamadou Mahy Cisse

(Director of Studies at the African American Islamic Institute)

Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) in teaching, transmitting, spiritual formation of the 41 Spiritual Orders(Tariqa plural:Turuq ) of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah

Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) in the Science of Authenticating,Validating and Preserving Genealogy of the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam from the Naqib al-Ashraf (نقيب الأشراف: "Office of the Overseer of the Nobles" or "Chief of the Nobles") of Turkey and Algeria

Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi(author of Refuting ISIS: A Rebuttal Of Its Religious And Ideological Foundations)

Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Ali Gomaa(Former Grand Mufti of Egypt)

Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri(Founder of Minhaj-ul-Quran International and Pakistan Awami Tehreek, author of Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings)

Affiliated with the Naqshbandi Tariqa and with Ijazah(Permission) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Muhammad Adil Rabbani Qaddasallahu Sirrahu

(Grandshaykh of the Naqshbandi Tariqa Worldwide )

Affiliated with the Qadiriyya Tariqa and with Ijazah(Permission) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Hashimuddin Gaylani

(Grandshaykh of the Qadiriyyah Tariqa Worldwide)

Affiliated with the Shadhiliyya Tariqa and with with Ijazah(Permission) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Dr. Nizar Jamili

(Shadhili Qadiri Tariqa under Shaykh As Sayyid Hazim Abu Ghazalah the Mufti and Head of the Jam-e-Yatu Darul Quran institution, Jordan)

Affiliated with the Rifai’iyyah Tariqa and with Ijazah(Permission) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Fawaz Al-Tabaa Al-Rifai Al-Hasani

(Member of the Association of Scholars of Ahrar al-Sham in Syria, Chairman of the Genealogy Investigation Committee in the Al-Sada Al-Ashraf Foundation in Syria)

Affiliated with the Chishtiyyah Tariqa and with Ijazah(Permission) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Ambar Chishti

(Chairman at Moinuddin Foundation, Ambassador of Peace at Institute of Peace and Development or INSPAD)

Affiliated with the Muridiyyah Tariqa and with Ijazah(Permission) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Bara Falilou Mbacke Qaddasallahu Sirrahu

(Shaykh of the Muridiyyah Tariqa, CEO of Shaykh Ahmadu Bamba Foundation, Head of Shariah Department African Institute of Islamic Finance) Suficalcaluang (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using AI (e.g. Chat GPT) to assist you in writing this? Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]