Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 4: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:35, 4 September 2024

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 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson Gurley

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

The article on Dawson Gurley should be considered for deletion as it appears to lack notability under Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons. The subject, while known as a YouTube personality, does not meet the criteria for significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that provide substantial analysis beyond trivial mentions. Much of the content is based on self-published sources or primary sources, which do not establish the depth of notability required for a standalone Wikipedia article. Without significant coverage from independent, reputable sources, the article does not meet the standards for inclusion and should be deleted. Mjbmr (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, Arizona, and Internet. Mjbmr (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: This is decent [1]. The rest are about an impersonator of his that was banned from an arena [2], [3]. Having an "impostor" pretend to be you with coverage in the Washington Post and Huff Post implies you are notable? I'd argue yes. I mean, there are no Oaktree_b impersonators, but this person seems to have several mentions of them in RS, so he's famously famous. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning if you're famous enough to have people imitate/pretend to be you in order to get stuff, I'd say you're notable enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like this guy (Dawson Gurley) is the impersonator, though? He is known for impersonating a definitely notable NBA player, Klay Thompson. The Yahoo article makes this clear. --Here2rewrite (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically this person has gotten attention for pulling pranks, and has gotten local TV mentions and some notice in reliable sources. Oaktree b, the way I read it is that he is pretending to be Klay Thompson because he resembles him (probably getting close to a legal line in doing so). Your comment seems to be that someone is impersonating Gurley, but I don't think that's the case. This is a guy pulling a stunt - to me, not notable. Lamona (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mjbmr wants to take back his nomination; see here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Aware that the nomination has been withdrawn,but with an extant !vote from an established editor I think this needs more time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there are three articles about him in reliable sources... seems to meet the letter of the law with notability guidelines unless you stretch what is non-trivial coverage. I don't think we should go into whether we think the person should be notable, that's just personal opinion. --Here2rewrite (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know what the article looked like before today, but the Washington Post, SFGate and BleacherReport articles are definitely WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources -- that's a WP:GNG pass, regardless of whether editors here may like or dislike the pranks. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:43, 18 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Healthera

AfDs for this article:

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

it does not provide sufficient independent, reliable sources that prove the company's notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Loewstisch (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Websites, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 11 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!} 07:22, 18 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 23:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stockly

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

I cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:CORP Loewstisch (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the majority of coverage is comprised of trivial mentions, and it reads as WP:ADS --Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's fair to say the TechCrunch, L'Usine Digitale, and Les Echos articles are trivial mentions; they're all focused on Stockly itself. But I will note that every article from the aforementioned three publications is authored by a journalist specialising in covering startups, per their respective bios, and I put very little faith in that sort of reporting ("Wow! Up-and-coming startup raised $x amount and promises to do $y thing and revolutionise the industry!" is the typical calibre). The Forbes, LSA, and Challenges articles do all appear to be trivial mentions though. GhostOfNoMeme 01:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP,WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGTRIV. No indication of signifance. Looks and reads like an advert. scope_creep^Talk 19:00, 14 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!} 23:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Sahin

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are most business news than BLP sources. Routine coverage. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 07:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, California, Massachusetts, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Do you mind if I ask for clarification about why it's been nominated for deletion? Is it because many of the references also refer to her company, rather than just her personally? I had assumed (perhaps wrongly) that because she is the founder and CEO of a global HR company which has seen rapid growth post COVID, and the founder of the industry on which its based (employer of record industry which allows companies to easily hire people all over the globe), that her notability would be inherently tied to the company's performance and notability. I'd be grateful for your clarification and guidance. Cheers, Kate. KWriteReturn (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KWriteReturn: This is a WP:BLP and consensus that is long established states that that person is not the company. Notabilty is not inherited from any other entity and there is nothing here to indicate why this person is notable. Looking at the first seven, in fact the 14 references. These are a mix of routine company news about employment, non-bylined paid-for articles, press-releases, funding, merging, expansion and acquisition news. It is all routine news. There is no WP:SECONDARY coverage to verify per WP:V that she is notable. It states in the WP:BLP policy "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.". There is nothing here. Nothing. scope_creep^Talk 06:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, because there are No allegations of notability, nor reliable sources, for this BLP. Look, in 2024, claiming that someone is a CEO and therefore automatically deserves a Wikipedia article, is untenable. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 8 September 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 11:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd go for a redirect to the business of which she is CEO, but it seems not to exist.TheLongTone (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT so any future attempt has to go through AfC. This is a classic promotional biography attempting to conjure notability through WP:SYNTH. I found a single source that even winks at WP:SIGCOV in an independent, reliable source, and even that's mostly about her company, so it's a WP:GNG failure. The rest of the sources are PR fluff, official bios, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Her book doesn't appear to have any reviews in independent, reliable sources, so there's no pass on WP:NAUTHOR, and I don't see any awards that constitute an WP:ANYBIO #3 pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:51, 18 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!} 06:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Nelson

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

No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 07:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Politics, Sexuality and gender, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 4 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!} 06:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All her notability is related to her emails and work with JD Vance. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:53, 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 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 [4][5][6][7] 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 keep‎. No valid deletion rationale presented. If the veracity of the content of the page is disputed, that is an editorial issue, as long as that content is verifiable by reliable sources. Since the notability of the subject was never questioned here, and no BLP violations were claimed, there is no reason to delete the page. Owen× ☎ 12:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Katsobashvili

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

According to the recently published book Terrible Humans by Patrick Alley, a co-founder of the anti-corruption NGO Global Witness, this page is a wholly false biography. The book, in the chapter 'The Gatekeeper', states that it was created as part of a scheme establishing a network of false, or shell, companies designed to enable Dan Gertler and others to evade sanctions imposed by the United States Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control in December 2017 for their role in 'opaque and corrupt mining and oil deals in the Democratic Republic of the Congo'. Katsobashvili is also mentioned on the EN:WP page for Interactive Energy, another Gertler-related company involved in the scheme. Further details available if required.14GTR (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep for failing to assert a valid deletion rationale.

Clearly Global Witness has decided to make an issue of the truth of his biography, and their claims have been reported by others. And no doubt you find their claims and that of their founder credible. But an NGO being unhappy with a Wikipedia article doesn't constitute a deletion rationale.

He does get press coverage (some of which includes the allegations by Global Witness) like [8], [9], [10]. So it seems likely that the article passes WP:GNG (and you certainly haven't made the argument it doesn't).

I'm not trying to defend this guy, or advocating for keeping an article if it's just a bunch of lies. But if you have reliable sources demonstrating that parts of the article are untrue, wouldn't the appropriate thing to be to add those claims to the article? Then we get a full picture rather than just taking an approach that results in Wikipedia containing no information about this person. Oblivy (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could accept the arguement that Katobashvili warrents a mention in the article on Gertler, in the context of Gertler's response to the US sanctions but beyond that all we have is an individual who, seemingly, agreed for his name and photo to be used by others to avoid those sanctions. According to Terrible Humans he is not a career oil and mining magnate and Global Witness could find no trace of the companies listed on the WP page as having being created by him in the various corporate records they checked. Apologies for the delay in responding.14GTR (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point but I think I've already addressed it. You have an NGO that is rubbishing Wikipedia's article, and nothing else. I not only don't see that's a valid deletion rationale but also think it would set a bad precedent to delete an article just based on someone off-wiki saying it's inaccurate. Oblivy (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Global Witness are stating that the article, and the false story it relates were created as part of the scheme to avoid sanctions. By portraying Katobashvili as an career oil and mining magnate funding Interactive Energy, it attempts to give credence to that company which was a key part of the sanctions work-around. The three sources you found also, by my reading, make this point.14GTR (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to the extent they do, they cite Global Witness. Oblivy (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Georgia (country), and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 4 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!} 06:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a section to the article describing the allegations at the heart of ths AfD. In my opinion this should have been the first thing done with this claim, although there may be more granular WP:BALANCE reporting on GW's research about some of the claims within the other article sections. I remain firmly of the view that we should resist any efforts by outsiders to censor Wikipedia through off-wiki allegations, even if it's done for noble reasons.

Note that I was a bit hesitant about including the embedded WP:ASPERSION about the page creator being an employee. It's one of the bases for the GW allegations, so I've described their allegation at arms-length without adopting it myself. If anyone has concerns I think the words about being created by an employee could be removed. Oblivy (talk) 02:52, 16 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Malhan

AfDs for this article:

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

Runner up of the show and doing lots of music video is not enough for notability. Xegma(talk) 04:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, Internet, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is not only a runner up of a show, but a very popular indian youtuber too. Columbidae5 (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stay, you have reliable sources The Times India, The Hindustan News, News18, among others, it also has encyclopedic development and maintains relevance in what it does as a video blogger. Alon9393 (talk) 22:21, 10 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!} 06:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The foreign-language articles behind the interwiki links look completely alright from a sources notability perspective. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:40, 19 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 IIT Delhi. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Library, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

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

no non-primary sources found. Sohom (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify it for now, need to add more independent sources. Xegma(talk) 04:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Education, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to the associated educational institution. It's history will still be there in the unlikely event independent sources can be found. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 13:45, 6 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!} 06:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify that is still possible, it is not too late. Give the originator a chance to find true secondary sources. I think they should exist, but they might not be in english. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original creator has had two months to add such sources. Sohom (talk) 02:10, 13 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!} 06:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right ! the sources might not be available in english , it might be available in hindi langugae which is the most common language in india 150.242.22.239 (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

some research papers were added in the reference, which are related to the central library of IIT delhi 103.27.10.106 (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: an IP editor (possibly Scntst0009 logged out?) has posted their response at the original creator's talk page instead of to this discussion.[11] I see an argument for the notability of the institution (IIT Delhi) but not for the library. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IIT Delhi. It's kind of a nice article, but it just doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. As @4.37.252.50 points out the history will still be there if sources emerge later.

All the inline cites are from primary or non-independent sources (i.e., IIT) other than the Business Standard article which doesn't mention the library. Three papers that were added do seem to move us some way forward but on closer inspection fall considerably short of the line:

DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology seems to be from a non-predatory journal (at least it's on this list which claims to exclude predatory journals. It's significant coverage of the library. BUT it's written by two librarians at IIT.
Journal of Information and Knowledge is maybe from a non-predatory journal but it is more about a piece of software AND it's co-written by an IIT librarian
UCL article is about a visit to UCL by a representative of IIT and seems to be based on an interview. It's maybe good as a cumulative article where there was one longer piece of SIGCOV and some multiple shorter independent sources like this, but it's not enough on its own.

Oblivy (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IIT Delhi per Oblivy. I was reluctant to !vote this because, like Oblivy, I think it looks like a nice article. But there isn't really a case for this being independently notable. GNG and NORG are not met, and the content reads like what you would find in the student handbook, but not an encyclopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:54, 26 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 redirect‎ to The Descent from the Cross (David Folley). Star Mississippi 20:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Folley

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

Fails WP:ARTIST and probably WP:GNG as well. The sources that I was able to verify are either insignificant coverage or not independent of the subject. I searched for other sources, but only found the artist's blog, a YouTube video, some mentions on gallery sites, and the usual social media sites. I was not able to located the article "Old Master", so I don't know how much coverage it includes. I also wasn't able to find "David Folley: Portrait of a Painter", but considering that it was published by Zap Art Promotions, I'm guessing it isn't independent and was probably created to accompany an exhibit. Overall, the subject seems to be a successful professional artist with the usual smattering of coverage in local media that you would expect. They don't, however, seem to be notable enough for an encyclopedia article, but I would be happy to hear other opinions. The article about their painting The Descent from the Cross (David Folley) also seems to have questionable notability, but I'll leave that discussion for another day. Nosferattus (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Nosferattus (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, someone went to prison for a rather nasty attack on a foreigner in Wales that has the same name as this fellow... That's about all I find for sourcing. No listing in the Getty ULAN [12] either. Sourcing now in the article is purely local in nature, not helping show the notability needed. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick search on ProQuest identifies non-trivial independent newspaper articles, including the "Old Master" coverage referenced above : [13], as well as: [14], [15], [16]. Also Art UK has a profile page: [17]. There is potential for meeting WP:NARTIST here. I've added these new citations to the article. ResonantDis_tortion 23:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the added sources, there is also a book about the artist, and enough on the page to meet GNG and WP:NARTIST. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - fails WP:ARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Prominent/beloved local artist, but WP:NOTFANPAGE. See source analysis--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC) Redirect to The Descent from the Cross (David Folley) as an WP:ATD. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.proquest.com/docview/426571633?sourcetype=Newspapers			465 word article on an exhibition. Does not support the claims it is attached to )DoB, graduation in 2005 from Exeter, current studies.Exeter University etc local "The Plymouth Evening Herald Plymouth (UK)	✘ No
Telford, William (3 September 1997). "Here's one for you Mr Russell, Artist Depcits Latest Painting to Liverpool Playwright". Evening Herald.	?	?	? print	? Unknown
https://plymouthauctions.co.uk/		?	no mention of David Folley. Home page for auction house	✘ No
http://www.red-squirrel-gallery.com/artistsprofile.aspx?contactid=264437			subject's own write up	✘ No
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1448865598?sourcetype=Newspapers			~ local "The Plymouth Evening Herald Plymouth (UK)	~ Partial
https://www.proquest.com/docview/426608904?sourcetype=Newspapers			~ another article in the local "The Plymouth Evening Herald Plymouth (UK).	~ Partial
https://www.proquest.com/docview/335007852?sourcetype=Newspapers			~ local "The Plymouth Evening Herald Plymouth (UK). "Morris dancers are immortalised on canvas at last'	~ Partial
https://www.proquest.com/docview/895303940?sourcetype=Newspapers			~ local coverage The Western Morning News ; Plymouth (UK). "Artist plans Penlee tribute to human spirit"	~ Partial
https://www.proquest.com/docview/896397173?sourcetype=Newspapers			~ local paper write up "Bravery of lifeboat crew inspires artist's new work: Painter commemorates 30th anniversary of Penlee disaster with tribute to human spirit" The West Briton ; Truro (UK)	~ Partial
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/?WCI=SiteHome&ID=7826&PageID=67992			fails verification. no mention of David Folley	✘ No
Evening Herald			? print publication Telford, William (16 October 1997). "Artist's beef at burgers, Painting protest at McDonalds". Evening Herald. p. 15.	? Unknown
The Herald			? JoJo (30 May 2008). "Preparing Robert's play an art in itself". The Herald. p. 7.	? Unknown
https://plymouthmorrismen.weebly.com/links.html			link farm for Morris Men dancers	✘ No
Evening Herald			unknown - print publication	? Unknown
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}}.

Redirect to the page on his artwork The Descent from the Cross (David Folley) per WP:ATD. The subject is a prominent local artist but does not quite have sufficient notability to meet WP:NARTIST for his own page. Redirect seems a sensible solution. Any issues with the notability of the target can be dealt with separately. ResonantDis_tortion 10:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems like a sensible WP:ATD. Changing my !vote to redirect. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:16, 15 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]