Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

If you think a page should be deleted, read the deletion policy to make sure.
Then follow these instructions on how to request a page for deletion. To find more information on what discussed deletions and quick deletions are:
PLEASE READ THIS

Before nominating: checks and alternatives

Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:

A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines

1. The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion.
2. The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)
3. Subject-specific notability guidelines, which can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines

B. Carry out these checks

1. Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for quick deletion.
2. If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)
3. Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing.
4. Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.
5. Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
6. Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lead.

C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted

1. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for RfD.
2. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.
3. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to fix it.
4. If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term.

D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability

1. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.
2. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an RfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an RfD nomination may still be appropriate.
3. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{third-party}}, {{primary sources}} and {{one source}}.

Discussed deletion

Put the deletion tag on the article.

1. Click "Change source" at the top of the page to be deleted.
2. In the edit box, add this tag: {{rfd|REASON}}. Put it at the top of the page, above the rest of the text. Then, replace the text "REASON" with a short reason why the page should be deleted. Do not be too specific here. You can add more details on the discussion page (see below).
   • It is a good idea to write a change summary to let others know what you are doing. You can say "nominating for deletion", "requesting deletion", or something like that.
3. Click "Save changes" at the bottom to save the page with the deletion tag at the top.
   • You can also check the "Watch this page" check box to add the page to your watchlist. This lets you know if the page for deletion has been changed. If the deletion tag is removed any time before the discussion is closed, it should be put back.

Create a discussion page.

1. If the deletion tag has been added to the page, a box should appear at the top of the article with a link saying "Click here to create a discussion page!" Click that link.
2. You should be taken to a page starting with "Creating Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/..." along with the current year and the name of the article to be deleted. In the edit box, the following tag should have already been added: {{RfD/Preload/Template}} . Replace the text PLACE REASON HERE with a more detailed reason why the page should be deleted.
   • It is helpful to include links to the various policy pages about Wikipedia (that begin with Wikipedia:). Here are some examples of this: "This article is [[Wikipedia:COMPLEX|not easy to understand]]" or "Not a [[Wikipedia:notable|notable]] topic''. This will make others more aware of why the page is not acceptable under Wikipedia's policies.
3. Click "Save changes" to save the new discussion page when you are done.
   • A change summary you can write for this page is "creating discussion page", "starting deletion discussion", or something like that.
   • As with the page for deletion, you can check the "Watch the page" box. This will let you know if someone else has replied to your discussion.

List it here

1. Copy the title of the discussion page to the clipboard. You can do this by dragging the mouse over the text from "Wikipedia" to the end of the page title to highlight it, then right-clicking and selecting "Copy".
2. Go to the list of deletion requests, and click "change source" beside the words "Current deletion request discussions".
3. At the top of the list of discussions, paste the title from the clipboard (right-click and select "Paste"). Add a pair of curly brackets before and after the title to make a template that will copy the content of the discussion page onto the main deletion page, like this:

   {{Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/(name of page to be deleted)}}

4. Finally, click "Save changes" to add the discussion to the list. If the page saves successfully, you should see your deletion discussion at the top of the list. And that's it!

If this is too complicated for you, there are some gadgets like Twinkle that you can use. This allows you to do it faster.

Quick deletion

See also: Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Quick deletion

If you think a page has nonsense content, add {{non}} to the top of the page.

If you think a page does not say why the subject is important, add {{notable}} to the top of the page.

If you think a page should be deleted per other quick deletion rules, add {{QD|reason}} to the top of the page.

Notifying the user

Generally, you should try to be civil and tell the user that created the page to join the discussion talking about the page. This can be done by adding {{subst:RFDNote|page to be deleted}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talkpage.

Discussions

See also: Wikipedia:Deletion review

• The discussion is not a vote. Please make suggestions on what action to take, and support your suggestion with reasons.
• Please look at the article before you make a suggestion. Do not make an opinion using only the information given by the nominator. Looking at the history of the article may help to understand the situation.
• Please read other comments and suggestions. They may have helpful information.
• Start your comments or suggestions on a new line. Start with * and sign after your comment by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs and make sure your comment is indented (using more than one *).
• New users can make suggestions, but their ideas may not be considered, especially if the suggestion seems to be made in bad faith. The opinion of users who had an account before the start of the request may be given more weight or importance.
• Suggestions by users using "sock puppets" (more than one account belonging to the same person) will not be counted.
• Please make only one suggestion. If you change your mind, change your first idea instead of adding a new one. The best way to do this is to put <s> before your old idea and </s> after it. For example, if you wanted to delete an article but now think it should be kept, you could put: "Delete keep".
• If you would like an article to be kept, you can improve the article and try to fix the problems given in the request for deletion. If the reasons given in the nomination are fixed by changing, the nomination can be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an administrator.
• Try to avoid confusing suggestions, such as delete and merge.
• Requests for deletion is not a war zone. You can click here for more information, although the page is not in Simple English.

Remember: You do not have to make a suggestion for every nomination. You should think about not making a suggestion if:

1. A nomination involves a topic that you do not know much about.
2. Everyone has made the same suggestion and you agree with that suggestion.

• All times are in UTC.

Current deletion request discussions

Flowing Wells Junior High School

Flowing Wells Junior High School (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Davey2010 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non notable school, Cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails NSCHOOL and GNG (not sure if A4 technically applies to schools so just sending here) –Davey2010^Talk 18:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

Agreed with Davey. BigKrow (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't take this down we worked hard on this.

its pretty famous inside of Tucson. 68.107.182.234 (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@68.107.182.234, Please read en:WP:Notability, en:WP:NSCHOOL and en:WP:GNG to gain a better understanding of why it was nominated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree 68.107.182.234 (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This is TS Rubber main by the way I'm just not signed in 68.107.182.234 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

We are planning to add more sources and it is notable 68.107.182.234 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

No idea who Rubber Man is, You have 7 days to adequately source it, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Self proclaimed moderator of this page 68.107.182.234 (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable, I'd also suggest Flowing Wells Unified School District isn't notable either. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  no we willll make it better. 68.107.182.234 (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  honestly i dont know how to feel.

  ill see what i can do the high school is also in english wikipedia and

  i found some sources to prove its notable 68.107.182.234 (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Flowing Wells Unified School District is also on en (en:Flowing Wells Unified School District) and tbh I'm not clued up on school districts so I don't really know if this is notable or not, There's plenty of coverage although it all appears to be LOCAL only but meh I'll leave it for now, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  How is it non-notable 68.107.182.234 (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  seems like ROUTINE and PRIMARY sources to me. That's a different discussion, but I don't think it's notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Please don't delete this me and my friend worked really hard on it 68.107.182.234 (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete, non-notable middle school, though I would keep the district as it is notable enough, it just needs cleaning up. RiggedMint 20:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Just to clear up any confusion the school district isn't part of this discussion and will be kept regardless of this discussion. –Davey2010^Talk 20:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  lets just see how it goes.

  if proof gets added the article can stay.

  if it doesn't take it down

  give us 2 months to add proof or it gets deleted. 68.107.182.234 (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  There isn't a choice for it to be longer. I suspect it's quite unlikely that this subject is notable, but if it is, then sources to that effect need to happen whilst an RfD is in progress. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 18:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Attic conversion

Attic conversion (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

AVG555 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Any article about an attic conversion is just advice or ideas for a conversion. No actual encyclopedic or notable information/ AVG555 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete agreed with nominator. No actual encyclopedic or notable information. No page on English Wiki either. Lionsonny (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Administrator note: Extended closure date, discussion wasn't listed at WP:RfD.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 15:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 23:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC) 15:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Jimmy Here

Jimmy Here (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Kuskrey has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No notability. Majority of the sources are primary to his YouTube videos and websites announcing events. Other please check If I am not wrong Ksy 04:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete non-notable. BZPN (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete- per normMunachichloe (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 04:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Allamah Sayyid Badiuddin Shah Rashdi

Allamah Sayyid Badiuddin Shah Rashdi (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Griffinofwales has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Subject does not meet GNG or AUTHOR. Created by a global sockpuppet network. Griff (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete per nominator. BZPN (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 02:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Asterian Language

Asterian Language (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

205.154.244.130 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non-notable invented language 205.154.244.130 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

• It’s a constructed language, and no, it is notable, just not very much so information-wise on the web, hence why I am creating this article. Kejgą (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles have to have citations, please add some or this page will probably be deleted NS1729 (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Quick Delete it's a hoax (A6). BZPN (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 23:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Dienoycus

Dienoycus (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

205.154.244.130 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Seems to be a misspelled version of Deinonychus, but the spelling is too different to be plausible. 205.154.244.130 (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Merge to Deinonychus We need merge. Raayaan9911 10:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 23:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Devan Leos

Devan Leos (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

205.154.244.130 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non-notable person per WP:GNG. The coverage is either not significant or not from independent sources 205.154.244.130 (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment- There seems to be some coverage of him to pass Notability, most likely throw my weight on keep Munachichloe (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 22:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Zubayr Ali Zai

Zubayr Ali Zai (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Kuskrey has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No Notability Other Please check If I am not wrong Ksy 16:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

• Has English Wikipedia Article so notable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zubair_Ali_Zai 165.155.163.135 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 16:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

What a Horrible Night to Have a Curse

What a Horrible Night to Have a Curse (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Zjui3r has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable Zjui3r (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Keep - This band are notable. The English language Wikipedia have had an entry about this particular album since 2008, and if it (or the band which created it) were not notable, it would have been removed a long time ago. I am happy to expand this and simplify it from the English Wikipedia's version. If this can't be kept, please move it to my userspace and I will work on it to make it easier and more complete. DaneGeld (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete Could not find any RS whatsoever. The normal English article should probably be deleted too. AVG555 (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Keep Notable Band --Ksy 15:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Notability is not inherited. Just because the band is notable doesn't mean every song or release they have is. The song/demo is being nominated for deletion, not the band. AVG555 (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Patrick Treacy

Patrick Treacy (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Brammarb has nominated this page for deletion for the reasons:

1. This page appears to have been created and maintained only by SPAs/paid editors, The evidence of paid editing appears incontrovertible (see here).

2. Questionable notability: a professional does not become notable simply because he or she (in the course of his or her professional duties) happens to see a single famous patient on a small number of occasions. It's the patient who is notable not the doctor

3. Lack of reliable sources everything seems to be based on a small number of interviews with the articles subject Brammarb (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete non-notable, fails GNG. BZPN (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 14:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Abbas Raza Nayyar

Abbas Raza Nayyar (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Kuskrey has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No Notability Just a Promotion of subject Other Please check if I am not wrong Ksy 14:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete No WP:RS whatsoever and this article reads very promotional. Some of the sources the article uses don't even mention the subject, so could be WP:OR. AVG555 (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete promotional article, person is non-notable. BZPN (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete Clearly promotional article, sources are questionable with several that have passing mentions at best and/or are press releases. There's not enough to show that WP:NBIO or WP:NPROF is met. Ravensfire (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 14:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Love Connection articles

Love Connection (IMVU series) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Ravensfire has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This show is about virtual people dating each other. There are no sources, no claim to notability, and does not meet any of the criteria in WEB.

This RFD is for these articles: These pages are:

• Love Connection (IMVU series)
  • Love Connection (IMVU Series) (redirect)
• All Stars In Paradise
• All Stars In Paradise (season 1)
• All Stars In Paradise (season 4)
• Paradise Hotel (IMVU Series)
• Tabatha Cavalli (IMVU Star)
• Angie Lavigne (IMVU Star)
• House of Villains (IMVU series)
• Bachelor Party
• Bachelor Party (season 1)
• The Simple Life: With Angie and Dakota
• Love Connection (season 1)
• Love Connection (season 2)
• Love Connection (season 3)
• Love Connection (season 4)
• Love Connection (season 5)
• Love Connection (season 6)
• Love Connection (season 7)
• Love Connection (season 8)
• Love Connection (season 9)
• Love Connection: Charm School
• Love Connection: Charm School (season 1)
• Love Connection: Charm school (season 2)

Ravensfire (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 04:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Jawonism

Jawonism (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

RiggedMint has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fails WP:GNG; could not find any sources other than the homepage referenced. RiggedMint 02:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I apologise for the article failing to meet the requirements and Standards. I am not an expert editor, so if you can, please help me to edit it so it can meet the standards. Although Jawonism is not known, It is a very small religion. 2401:D002:C00B:E00:7CD1:1D9F:4EB1:B775 (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Your standards are honestly fine, but the problem is that this religion doesn't really meet WP:GNG. There is (quite literally) only one source i've found about this religion, and that's the homepage listed in the article. RiggedMint 15:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand. 2401:D002:C00B:E00:F1D2:4FFC:3CB8:D46A (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This is my religion, a one that is not well known. 2401:D002:C00B:E00:F1D2:4FFC:3CB8:D46A (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

• delete Clearly non-notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• delete Non-Notable.--Ksy 05:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete non-notable. BZPN (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 02:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Yazidi Rebellion

Yazidi Rebellion (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Kurdish–Turkish conflict - Wikipedia BigKrow (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete the reason for reporting to RfD given above is not correct (sounds like nonsense - it does not explain why), but I can confirm that this is another hoax. BZPN (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Raid on Ottoman trading routes

Raid on Ottoman trading routes (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The Yazidis controlled all trade routes in Shingal and the surrounding area and were feared among the Muslims. They also refused to pay the taxes levied by the Ottomans and to submit to them completely. The Yazidis also attacked Ottoman columns of goods without fear and plundered them. BigKrow (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete the reason for reporting to RfD given above is not correct (it does not explain why), but I can confirm that this is another hoax. BZPN (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 22:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Ottoman-Yazidi Conflict (1891-1893)

Ottoman-Yazidi Conflict (1891-1893) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Between 1891 and 1893, a bloody conflict erupted, POV. BigKrow (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 22:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Attack on Bashiqa and Bahzan

Attack on Bashiqa and Bahzan (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Attack, no evidence on web. BigKrow (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 22:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Berwarî

Battle of Berwarî (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: It relates a battle that took place between the Kurdish/Muslim Zebari and the Nastorian/Christian Tiyari tribes in the Qumri village of Berwarî region (Amedi in Iraqi Kurdistan) around the end of BigKrow (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 21:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Incubateur HEC Paris

Incubateur HEC Paris (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Griffinofwales has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Declined QD G11. Notability in question. Griff (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 16:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Mortoza Polash

Mortoza Polash (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Zjui3r has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Does not meet the notability requirements Zjui3r (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete Award appears to have been to a different person, w:Sajjad Hussain Palash, with same last name. Creator is also now blocked as a sock, so potential here for a QD:G5. Ravensfire (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Also see w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mortoza_Polash where this was tried on enwiki earlier. Ravensfire (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 12:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Bambu Lab

Bambu Lab (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Zjui3r has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This article is written like an advertisement. Given detailed about all products but not seem notable. Zjui3r (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 12:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Category:Roller coasters by name

Category:Roller coasters by name (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

QuantumFoam66 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: this is nonsensical category that was previously was deleted on enwiki for not being defining or absurd. What exactly do you mean by "By name". I checked through all the articles (i actually didn't lol) to see wither or not they were another subcategory of roller coasters and I believe we don't to merge or whatever. Anyway this category make no sense and most categories having "___ by name" usually are meant to only contain subcategories, while this is just the other way around (contains only pages). QuantumFoam66 (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

• Please note that the fact that one person doesn't understand the reason for a category does not make it nonsensical. We have three "by name" categories, and none of them are meant to contain only categories. "By name" is one of those criteria that can mean either 1) things grouped by shared name (we don't have any like that) or 2) things referred to by individual names rather than by some other characteristic. In the case of roller coasters, examples of other characteristics include the year they were introduced, the country they are in, and their manufacturer.

The purpose of this category was to declutter the parent category so that the coaster articles weren't mixed in with other articles on the page. It also allows people to find a coaster by name when they don't know any of the other characteristics. I have no particular objection to merging this category back to its parent (or doing the same with the other two "by name" categories). However, if we do that, I would want to see something done to group them in the main category so that they are visually separated. That might take the form of using a special sort key either for the named coasters or for the other things in the parent category. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep - Maybe you should've looked at the Enwiki articles first because had you done so you would've seen the categories there for rides are much more complex,

"I checked through all the articles (i actually didn't lol) to see wither or not they were another subcategory of roller coasters" how old are you 5?, Everyone checks things thoroughly before nominating that's literally Rule 101 of editing Wikipedia!.

Anyway keep as the category name is fine and because no valid reason has been presented for deletion other than "I don't understand it and I didn't bother going through the category thoroughly. –Davey2010^Talk 21:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep per Davey, but what does nonsensical mean for this category, other than the Euthanasia Coaster, the category seems alright enough. RiggedMint 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 05:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Naveed Gill

Naveed Gill (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Davey2010 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non notable polo player, cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 18:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete Per nominatior Raayaan9911 16:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Top Talent

Top Talent (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Davey2010 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non notable talent show, The Enwiki article is a completely different talent show, Cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails GNG

Should also point out it was created by a globally locked LTA so no ide aif it's a hoax or not, Either way non notable show, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete seems like non-notable articles, However, Sources are not good. Raayaan9911 18:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 17:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of the Levant

Battle of the Levant (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Davey2010 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Article states "There are no Safavid sources to indicate that this battle took place. " so basically it's a WP:OR article, Cannot find any evidence of notability, en:Battle of the Levant redirects to a completely different battle, Fails SOGCOV and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 16:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete No Notability--Ksy 18:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 16:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Nautiyal (caste)

Nautiyal (caste) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Davey2010 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non notable caste, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 16:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 16:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Ottoman Safavid Clashes (1507)

Ottoman Safavid Clashes (1507) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No reliable source for verification. Not sure if the clash happened and the significance of it. BRP ^ever 15:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete No Notability as per Nominator --Ksy 18:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Ottoman Safavid Clashes

Ottoman Safavid Clashes (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Barely anything on the web about this. Hard to verify the content. BRP ^ever 15:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

Merge - There seem to be a few articles on this subject or related subjects that might benefit from being combined into a single entry. This Ottoman-Safavid dispute is historically significant. Brammarb (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Brammarb I am happy with Ottoman–Safavid relations being created by anyone. However, this page barely makes any sense and doesn't seem to have any reliable information to contribute towards that. Can you please suggest how to proceed with merging here? BRP ^ever 13:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It feels more like a piece of history tale with majority of the information missing. I am struggling to find anything meaningful to merge. BRP ^ever 14:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Alqosh Massacre (1832)

Alqosh Massacre (1832) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: An event such as the "Alqosh Massacre" in 1832 may have actually occurred, according to several sources and enwiki (en:Alqosh). However, the article provides false information regarding the details, and such a battle itself is most likely not independent, unimportant event. BZPN (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete Agree with Nominator --Ksy 18:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 14:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Khatare Massacre (1832)

Khatare Massacre (1832) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: There are no mentions of this battle in any serious sources. Another hoax that misleads readers. BZPN (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete agree --Ksy 18:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 13:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Shekhan Massacre

Shekhan Massacre (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I can't find any sources that specifically mention something like the "Shekhan Massacre". Perhaps this is part of some larger event, although it is described as supposedly a single battle. It looks like a hoax, and such a battle most likely never took place. BZPN (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

• Note: The content is copied from en:Persecution of Yazidis#19th century.--BRP ^ever 13:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  In that case, the name of this event is the author's OR, and the event itself is not worth separating from the whole history. BZPN (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 13:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

First Ararat operation

First Ararat operation (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Basically copied from fandom. While the content is CC BY-SA and the attribution is given, the reliability of the information and notability is questionable. BRP ^ever 13:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 13:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Baziqiya

Battle of Baziqiya (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No mentions in reliable sources, Google Scholar gives no results. Most likely a hoax. BZPN (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete Per nominatior Raayaan9911 12:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete tries finding sources but couldn’t find 102.89.23.72 (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Kirkuk (1821)

Battle of Kirkuk (1821) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Such a battle probably did not take place, there are no mentions in serious sources. Also, it's basically a copy of the Battle of Kirkuk hoax. BZPN (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete Yes there is no history of kirkuk, Iraq--Ksy 18:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 10:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Kirkuk

Battle of Kirkuk (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Such a battle probably did not take place, there are no mentions in serious sources. There are mentions of a battle with this name, but from the 18th century. Also, it's basically a copy of the Battle of Kirkuk (1821) hoax. BZPN (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 10:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Bitlis (1821)

Battle of Bitlis (1821) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Basically, the infobox itself (in my opinion it falls under A1 or A6), because the sentence A series of battles fought by the Ottomans and the Qajar dynasty in Bitlis brings practically nothing here, no value for the reader. The related pages section itself leads to another hoax. But as for the battle itself: Another hoax, no mentions in the sources. Interestingly, according to enwiki, there was such a battle, but during World War I. BZPN (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 10:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Mush (1821)

Battle of Mush (1821) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: There are no mentions in serious sources about this battle. Scholar gives no results. The only site that explicitly mentions it is simplewiki. It is most likely a hoax. BZPN (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 09:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Doğubayazıt (1821)

Battle of Doğubayazıt (1821) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: There is mention on enwiki of some defense of this city during the war of 1821-1823 (en:Doğubayazıt), but this battle is rather unimportant. It is very likely that it took place, but there are not many good sources about it, and the battle itself seems to be small and insignificant. BZPN (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 09:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Merivan

Battle of Merivan (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: There is no mention of this battle in any serious sources. The first result in Google is simplewiki. Google Scholar, on the other hand, shows only one source on this topic, which, however, covers a completely different historical period. BZPN (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete. I tried to find book IDs and they do not work? I couldn't find any good sources anywhere... I would think it's fails WP:GNG. RiggedMint 09:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 09:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Gulmakhana

Battle of Gulmakhana (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: According to the only enwiki mention (en:Simko Shikak revolt (1918–1922)), this battle took place. Interestingly, the source there is quite unreliable ([1]). Google Sholar gives no results, and I can't find any other serious sources on the subject. It's a hoax then. BZPN (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 09:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Defensive of Zet Valley

Defensive of Zet Valley (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This quite feels like an attempt to re-write the history based on minimal sources. The source do not title it as such and there is barely any information anywhere else to improve or verify the content here. BRP ^ever 08:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete per nom, that's hoax. BZPN (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete I can't find any reliable source that mentions this alleged battle of Zet Valley. I am not going to rule out the possibility of the battle actually happening, but the currently cited source does not appear to be reliable, either, so there's really no evidence out there supporting the inclusion of this article. Chenzw  Talk  17:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 08:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Kars

Battle of Kars (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Barely any information about the battle. The timeline of enwiki page is completely different. Nothing much about this specific battle on web. BRP ^ever 08:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete per nom, hoax. BZPN (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 08:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Miandoab

Battle of Miandoab (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The book does mention this part, but the notability of this specific battle is questionable. It is not even named as such in the book. There are barely any other sources. It feels like it should be small section in a page about the whole history. BRP ^ever 08:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete per nom, hoax. BZPN (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 08:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Zóviz

Zóviz (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Zjui3r has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: There is no good reference, and it is not notable. Zjui3r (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

• Delete. Not notable, no significant coverage. I think it qualifies for QD as either A4 or G11, but as it's been deleted before (under Zóviz and Zoviz), I don't know if that's better than letting the RfD run for a week so there's a discussion to point to later. 2601:644:907E:A70:5C82:DAB0:B356:17B8 (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 07:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Attack on Van (1834)

Attack on Van (1834) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Single source based page that lacks notability. Nothing on the web search. Probably could be combined into a single page but individually, there isn't enough information out there to have a wikipedia page. BRP ^ever 02:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete Looked it up and can't find any mentions of an attack or battle at Van in 1834, almost certainly non-notable.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 20:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete Cannot find any info on it and even if there was the page is too short and we would need more details.Lionsonny (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 02:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Siege of Mosul (1834)

Siege of Mosul (1834) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Lacks multiple reliable source for notability or to verify the content and expand on it. BRP ^ever 02:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 02:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Bitlis (1835)

Battle of Bitlis (1835) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Much different from en:Battle of Bitlis. I did a quick search on the book which seem to be reliable but there is barely much information to base a wikipedia page on it. BRP ^ever 02:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 02:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Soran

Battle of Soran (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Same story. Even in the source mentioned there is barely much information to base a wikipedia page on. BRP ^ever 01:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete hoax, there are no sources confirming this information, Google Scholar also gives no results. BZPN (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 01:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

List of Wars Involving Ardalan Emirates

List of Wars Involving Ardalan Emirates (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: List of wars that are barely notable or have no source for verifiability. Most of the pages only had infobox and some sources with no content and have been deleted per A1 for having little to no content. BRP ^ever 01:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete hoax, such battles never took place. BZPN (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 01:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Kermanshah (1789)

Battle of Kermanshah (1789) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Quite difficult to find sources to verify the information here. Likely part of a bigger war but there is no page on war itself. BRP ^ever 01:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete per nom. BZPN (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete The first siege in 1785 (and during which Allahqoli Khan Zanganeh died) appears to be supported by secondary sources. However, I cannot find any coverage about the subsequent 1789 siege(s). Chenzw  Talk  09:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 01:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Siege of Baneh (1834)

Siege of Baneh (1834) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No results other than the wiki itself when I do a web search. Likely a small part of bigger war. Hard to verify the details. The page itself barely has any information. BRP ^ever 01:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete hoax, there are no sources confirming this information, Google Scholar also gives no results. BZPN (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 01:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Siege of Sanadaj(1834)

Siege of Sanadaj(1834) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Nothing much out there, couldn't find much on web search. The page barely has any information itself. BRP ^ever 01:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete per nom, it's a hoax. BZPN (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 01:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Sack of Baghdad (1812)

Sack of Baghdad (1812) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Like others, so much information with so little reliable sources. Nothing much on the web for the events of that date. BRP ^ever 01:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete - per nom, and I was able to get my hands on a copy of the first cited source Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 7. Baghdad itself had been subjected to attacks/sieges numerous times in history, but the only mention of the 1812 attack is a mere passing mention in the context of another later war (emphasis mine): declare[d] war in October 1820... Fath 'Ali Shah's eldest son, Muhammad 'Ali Mirza, beglerbegi of Kirmanshah, advanced in the direction of Baghdad, as he had done previously in 1804 and 1812.... --Chenzw  Talk  07:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete, there are descriptions of this battle in the sources. It's a hoax then. BZPN (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete As per nom--Ksy 18:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 01:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Template:Hanoi Rocks

Template:Hanoi Rocks (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Navigational template with only one blue link. Navboxes are meant to allow navigating between pages. Without multiple blue links, a navbox can't do that. Note: template has one transclusion that would need to be removed. Auntof6 (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete lot of red links Raayaan9911 02:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Raayaan9911, Hi. Just a note that the number of red links do not matter in an article, see List of Pokemon. Thus, red links is not a reason to delete an article. Thanks, and have a wonderful day. — Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 02:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Raayaan9911, But in this case, since it is a template, it matters — Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 02:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Cactusisme, I let template keep Raayaan9911 02:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Raayaan9911, Sorry for the confusion but there is not any use for this template so it could be deleted. — Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 02:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I was just letting you know some information about red links> Sorry if it was confusing — Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 02:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

      No worries :) Raayaan9911 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 00:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Dvin

Battle of Dvin (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Battle of Dvin redirect to Dvin ancient city per WP? BigKrow (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Comment: There's wikidata:Q79383137, which I think is unrelated? Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 22:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 20:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Predište

Battle of Predište (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Couldn't find much about this. Lacks reliable sources for verifiability. BRP ^ever 18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 18:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

List of Brawlers in Brawl Stars

List of Brawlers in Brawl Stars (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Pppery has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unsourced fancruft * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Keep Notable, see page Brawl Stars. May consider merge?--Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 09:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete this is not a subject separate from this game. Moreover, it will be difficult to find reliable sources on this subject. BZPN (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete concur with nom - fancruft, also User:Cactusisme enwiki doesn't have a en:List of Brawlers in Brawl Stars article so your comment is incorrect, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 17:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The Muslim Company

The Muslim Company (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Kuskrey has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Could Not find any link to subject name Please Check If I am not wrong Ksy 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

• Quick Delete A4 Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 09:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, no significant coverage. 2601:644:907E:A70:5C82:DAB0:B356:17B8 (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 17:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Mljetičak

Battle of Mljetičak (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Can't seem to find much to verify the content and it's notability. BRP ^ever 17:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete another pseudo-historical hoax. BZPN (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 17:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Karpathos

Battle of Karpathos (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The enwiki version of this page is for a battle that happened much earlier in 1498. This page is about a different battle and lacks reliable sources for verification. BRP ^ever 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete another pseudo-historical hoax. BZPN (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  It’s in Some books u want me to add some extra sources I’m Good enough to do that Napolitana32 (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Carev Laz

Battle of Carev Laz (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Lacks reliable sources to verify the information, mostly original research. BRP ^ever 16:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 16:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Kurdistan campaign of Mir Muhammad

Kurdistan campaign of Mir Muhammad (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Another history article with little to no source for verification. BRP ^ever 15:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete Non-Notable Article. Raayaan9911 16:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Sharad (economist)

Sharad (economist) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Fehufanga has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable, poor sourcing (source 10 doesn't have anything but the title and a static image?), no significant sources elsewhere. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 11:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete per nom. Does not meet GNG. All sources are not reliable or do not provide significant coverage. Griff (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Siyal caste certificate issue

Siyal caste certificate issue (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Fehufanga has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Reads like ChatGPT-generated and is an unencyclopedic essay. Even if the article were to be rewritten, is this even a notable enough topic for a separate article? Maybe a sentence or two in an article about the Siyal caste, but not an entire article. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 11:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge into siyal (caste) 2401:4900:3DA4:73E:20E5:F4FF:FEE5:121 (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete per nom. In fact, I suspect this article is actually trying to advocate/lobby/push the relevant authority to remediate the alleged problem, which is not something that belongs in the encyclopedia. Chenzw  Talk  14:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete - Echoing Chenzw's comments. Griff (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Siyal people Location, Claim, Synonyms, Surname.

Siyal people Location, Claim, Synonyms, Surname. (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Fehufanga has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not encyclopedic. I don't think there's enough worth splitting or merging here. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 11:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge both Siyal people and this article into Siyal (caste) 2401:4900:3DA4:73E:20E5:F4FF:FEE5:121 (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge siyal people,Siyal caste certificate issue and this article into siyal (caste) 2401:4900:3DA4:73E:20E5:F4FF:FEE5:121 (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

• Merge into Siyal people, as that page is in even worse condition. A redirect won't be needed. 2601:644:907E:A70:9DA2:B986:8C6C:4252 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Merge both Siyal people and this article into Siyal (caste) per enWP. Redirects not required. Griff (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

IZOOlogic

IZOOlogic (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Zjui3r has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable and written somewhat like an advertisement. Zjui3r (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete, ads, non notable. Кронас (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom. Does not meet criteria in ORG. Griff (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete, advert. RiggedMint 15:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

David Capablanca

David Capablanca (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Jaypung has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The subject does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines for biographies. While the article highlights achievements in stock trading and entrepreneurship, it relies heavily on primary or promotional sources, lacks significant independent coverage, and includes unverifiable claims about awards and recognitions. The article's tone is overly promotional and does not align with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Jaypung (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Comment: Closing date is postponed to 7 days after this was posted here. 174.160.82.127 (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom. Chenzw  Talk  14:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom. Clearly does not meet NBUSINESSPERSON. Griff (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 16:06, 14 January 2025 06:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Category:Filipino actress

Category:Filipino actress (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

MathXplore has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: WP:CATGENDER MathXplore (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete Per nominatior Raayaan9911 11:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete I would redirect it, but it's misspelled (singular instead of plural). --Auntof6 (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 02:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Uterus collector

Uterus collector (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Zjui3r has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: It revolves around allegations against an individual (Mahendra Amin) and violates BLP Policy. The article is unclear. Zjui3r (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete per nom, this article violates NPOV and BLP. It actually looks like an intentional attack page. BZPN (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete this article per above. The overall topic should be discussed as part of a larger article, but not with this content or this name. Griff (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete There's some w:WP:BLPCRIME issues here as the person is only charged at this point and is certainly not a public figure. It may eventually warrant a paragraph in an existing article on ICE or the facility, but not as a stand-alone. Ravensfire (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Virginia Damtsa

Virginia Damtsa (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Zjui3r has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Does not meet the notability requirements Zjui3r (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete non-notable. BZPN (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom. Her only noteworthy claim is curator of an art gallery, which does not qualify under any notability policy. Griff (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Keyon

Keyon (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Kuskrey has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Page is written like a CV and Zero Notability other please check if I am not wrong Ksy 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete definitely fails GNG. Subject is not notable. Ternera (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete non-notable, promotional content. BZPN (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 14:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Search Manipulator

Search Manipulator (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Zjui3r has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I think it doesn't meet the notability requirements. Zjui3r (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete the topic is not notable enough (fails GNG), also written in an advertising style. BZPN (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete - Of the sources included in the article, none of them meet the requirements in the SIRS table. There are many passing or promotional references to this company, but nothing particularly notable or that would merit significant coverage. Griff (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 08:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Raheel Bhyria

Raheel Bhyria (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Kuskrey has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No Notability and page is written like advertisement of subject Other please check if i am not wrong Ksy 07:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete non-notable person. BZPN (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete - Limited notability, does not meet ENT. It does appear that the career of Raheel is beginning to grow, so he may be notable at a future date. Griff (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 07:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Crazy Time Game

Crazy Time Game (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

71.202.215.54 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This mobile game doesn't seem to be notable. I can't find reliable sources about it. There seems to be a different casino game called "Crazy Time" but I do not think it's the same thing as that apparently involves a spinning money wheel. 71.202.215.54 (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete - hoax? None of the references mention the game's existence. Google results do not mention it either. Ternera (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete - Not notable, does not claim to be notable, does not have sources providing SIGCOV, and does not meet our inclusion criteria per WEB. Griff (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 23:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Steve Webb

Steve Webb (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

71.202.215.54 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I don't think this person is notable (founder of Safe Secure Systems). Even the references appear to be about several different people. 71.202.215.54 (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete fails GNG, founder of non-notable company. Also promotional tone (recognized for his contributions to organizational safety and security). BZPN (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete, non notable, PR. Кронас (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 20:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Mario Nawfal

Mario Nawfal (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non-notable, to me it even looks like self-promotion. A figure known only for his presence on social media and running a business. BZPN (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete Per nominatior Raayaan9911 21:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I'm thinking on this one. There's a clear promotional tone in the article, and I've already removed a couple of junk sources (an expired blog as a source? On a page just created? Nooo, no hint of UPE here! Nope!), and several sources that are pretty clear paid/sponsored articles ([2] when the byline is Roundtable, yeah, that's a paid article). There is the NBCNews article [3] that appears to be a decent sources. Oddly, some of the negative aspects mentioned there aren't in the article, and other controversies are basically lightly mentioned. There might be a kernel of something here. Might. The utter lack of coverage in more mainstream sources is not a good sign. Ravensfire (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

   Delete weak delete but after consideration of the quality of sources, not enough to show notability. Ravensfire (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete Per nominator, Self promotion and not notable at all. Shakib ul hassan talk! 13:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Soft delete can change mind if more sources are provided because it has potential102.89.23.72 (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's not what a soft delete is. en:WP:SOFTDELETE says, "If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request." This RFD has already received three delete comments (including the nominator's), which by our standards is not minimal. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  In addition, whether a delete is soft is determined by the closing admin. It's not something that can be specified in a !vote. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 17:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

CryptoBridge EXchange

CryptoBridge EXchange (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unlikely to meet GNG, lacks significant coverage on reliable sources. BRP ^ever 12:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete per nom, non-notable. BZPN (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete non notable and promoting the subject!--Pot2156 (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 12:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Pratihar Rajputs

Pratihar Rajputs (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Shakib ul hassan has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable at all. The sources say something different from what is in the article. Shakib ul hassan talk! 11:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete per nom. BZPN (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Keep - This article refers to the Pratihara dynasty, which controlled a significant kingdom in the late 700s. While the article is poorly sourced, the facts themselves are true. In my opinion, this article requires cleanup, not deletion, and is good enough to be kept. Griff (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Category:Pages using the JsonConfig extension

Category:Pages using the JsonConfig extension (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

174.160.82.127 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: It has been suggested that this category is useless because it will include all pages with references. For this reason, it was deleted on enwiki and commons, as well as some of the other wikis.

The discussions:

• at enwiki: en:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 24#Category:Pages using the JsonConfig_extension
• at commons: c:Commons:Village pump/Technical/Archive/2024/10#Category:Pages using the JsonConfig extension and c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 97#Interface admin request

The pages can be removed from the category by creating MediaWiki:Jsonconfig-use-category with the text "-", if the result of this discussion is to delete the category. 174.160.82.127 (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete In addition to what the nominator said, this category masks uncategorized pages. Having it gone will help us find pages that need categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom. Griff (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 05:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Battle of Qarshi

Battle of Qarshi (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Hi, I can't seem to be able to verify the content. Web search doesn't match with the date or content mentioned. BRP ^ever 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete another pseudo-historical hoax. BZPN (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete agree per nom and BZPN! The article is written in a Non-encyclopedic tone. Its written like just giving an Ordering statement.Pot2156 (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete Pure hoax. Shakib ul hassan talk! 18:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 00:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Blossom Academy

Blossom Academy (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Griffinofwales has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Company is not notable. There is not any significant coverage of the company and all the sources are either promotional in nature or passing mentions. The awards are not awards at all, but rather participation notices or minor at best. Griff (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

• Delete - the awards are a bit slimy, passing a listing as an award. Nothing in the sources suggest they are notable, just seems like promotional material. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom. BZPN (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep There is presence of source from reliable and independent sources to pass basic 102.89.23.72 (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - As first Data science academy established in West Africa and it has coverage in different Media platforms independently from each other at least Should pass Basic NotabilityMunachichloe (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 19:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Soft metal music

Soft metal music (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

AVG555 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: WP:OR with no WP:RS whatsoever AVG555 (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete per nom. I cannot find any SIGCOV of this in RS anywhere. Griff (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 17:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Zanan Ahmad

Zanan Ahmad (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Constant unfaithful edits back and forth rfd please BigKrow (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

• This page has been prone to vandalism the page is notable please don’t remove this page I created this. John-David-Gemma (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It is concerning that you are removing a page solely because of repeated vandalism by a user. Instead of deleting the page, consider locking it to prevent further disruptions. As an editor, it's important to approach these situations with more effective solutions rather than resorting to deletion. John-David-Gemma (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrator note: User is CU-blocked by Bsadowski1.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 15:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• week Keep I found some links in google books as Author Other also check If I am not wrong --Ksy 16:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete - Does not meet GNG or AUTHOR. There is no SIGCOV in RS. I recognise that the nominator's reason is not a good reason to delete the article, but the article itself does not meet the criteria to be kept. Addressing Ksy's comment, being an author is not enough to be considered notable, one must meet the notability criteria. Griff (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• The simple Wikipedia page of Zanan Ahmad has been recreated multiple times across Wikimedia projects, including Wikiquote and simple Wikipedia, showing sustained interest and recognition of their notability. This alone highlights the importance of keeping the article. Zanan Ahmad has authored multiple books, verifiable on Google Books, which are valid references under simple Wikipedia guidelines. The publication of several works is a clear indicator of significance per the notability criteria for authors, and when combined with two independent news articles, the subject meets the General Notability Guideline. These sources provide sufficient evidence of notability.The previous editor’s claim that “being an author is not enough” is an unreasonable deletion argument. Zanan Ahmad is not just an author but one with multiple published works and independent coverage, meeting the standards for inclusion. Deleting this article would ignore the provided evidence and fail to follow simple Wikipedia own notability guidelines. —John-David-Gemma (talk • contribs) 07:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Having multiple books by no means shows any significance in terms of wikipedia notability. Just being an author doesn't make one notable. This page clearly fails WP:GNG. The subject clearly lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.  Delete.--BRP ^ever 17:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 19:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Recently closed deletion discussions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

---

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 17:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Jeph Acheampong

Jeph Acheampong (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Jaypung has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for biographies as the sources do not provide significant, independent, and reliable coverage. The article reads like a promotional piece and lacks evidence of notable achievements. Jaypung (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete, fails WP:GNG. Probably needs significant secondary sources to be notable more. RiggedMint 15:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - the en-wiki article has a 'tag only', if anyone will ask.--That article is not up for Delete, now.--Historically? Dunno. 2001:2020:341:C3A4:BCB9:E59B:3A3A:1641 (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete fails WP:NBIO. BZPN (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• keep There exists sources from reliable notable platforms and can comfortably pass basic and he is also a fellow as well 102.89.23.72 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete - The sources either only provide passing mentions or independent & reliable. 2001:x, it appears that the article went through the PROD process, but when that was declined, it was never sent to AFD. Griff (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

---

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 17:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Charlie Horn

Charlie Horn (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Griffinofwales has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Does not meet notability standards for business people, GNG, or any other category. Griff (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete per nom. BZPN (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 16:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

---

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 17:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Ted Giovanis

Ted Giovanis (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Griffinofwales has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Notability not shown per GNG. Griff (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete non-notable. BZPN (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

---

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Keep. Consensus to keep and discuss issues present elsewhere.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Shivaji's first raid into Deccan

Shivaji's first raid into Deccan (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Seems unknown I can't find anything about it. BigKrow (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

• Comment The User is repeatedly nominating articles for deletion with vague reasons, as seen here. The sources cited are WP:RS. The notability is significant, with more than seven pages here. The title is not fabricated; it is taken from J.D. Sarkar's book this, pp.37. The reason provided is unjustified, and the article fully complies with Wikipedia's guidelines. Shakib ul hassan talk! 13:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I suppose the question is - are two sources regarding this suitable for a standalone article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    For that, I could cite more sources, like these:

    • [4] "When freed from the affairs of the Morays of Javli, Shivaji made his first open raid upon the Mughal territory in the summer of 1657, and plundered Junnar and Ahmadnagar."
    • [5] "In the face of what seemed an unstoppable attack on Bijapur by the Mughals, Shivaji opened correspondence with Aurangzeb, offering to keep passes open and his services in return for recognition of his rights in the Pune region and the former More lands. At the same time, however, he raided several areas in the Junnar and Ahmadnagar regions, which were under the control of the Mughals."
    • [6] "As soon, however, as the Mughal army was withdrawn, Shivaji the Great suddenly raided Junnar and Ahmadnagar and captured a big treasure. He carried away a thousand good cavalry mounts which were at once utilised in raising his cavalry under the control of Netaji Palkar."
    • [7] "Ten years later by 1657, Shivaji had occupied Javli, assaulted Junnar and Ahmadnagar and acquired much treasure."

    I mainly cited the sources which were notable enough, and were baring the title prescribed. Shakib ul hassan talk! 14:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep sufficient evidence provided by @Shakib ul hassan, the article is well sourced and meets WP:GNG criteria.Mr.Hanes Talk 15:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
•  KeepNotable--Ksy 16:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Keep per above. BZPN (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I also ask @BigKrow to stop thoughtless reports to the RfD and be more careful when analyzing the content. BZPN (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  @BZPN: I suffer from mental illnesses so give me a break k??? BigKrow (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  This does not exempt you from following the rules/acting in harmony with the community. I understand that you may suffer from some sort of mental illness, and I'm sorry about that, but I need to call your attention to an issue. BZPN (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  @BZPN: apologies my friend. BigKrow (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Discuss elsewhere - I think that this should be moved to a talk page for further discussion. It appears from the article that there are several topics covered in this article..

1. The sacking by Shivaji of Junnar
2. The raid on Ahmednagar by Shivaji. Result unknown.
3. Attack by Maratha commanders on Mughal villages.

However, the background section of the article has me completely lost, and the infobox armies do not match the text. In short, there are many issues with this article, but I do not believe deletion is the appropriate option. Griff (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Griff, could you clarify how the Background section of the article left you completely confused? Also, you mentioned that the armies listed in the infobox don’t align with the text.

• [8] (pp. 38): Two Maratha leaders, Minaji Bhonsla at the head of 3,000 horse, and Kashi, crossed the Bhima and plundered the Mughal villages in the Chamargunda and Raisin subdivisions respectively, late in March 1657. aligns with the mention of 3,000 cavalry used by the Maratha leaders.
• [9] (pp. 38-39): Nasiri Khan, Iraj Khan and some other officers at the head of 3,000 cavalry were ordered there. Rao Karn, who was coming from Aurangabad to Bidar, was diverted from the way to the same place. Shaista Khan was ordered to detach 1,000 men from his contingent there.

So, was the total army size unclear in this context? I added the figure of 5,000 based on this source:

• [10]: He dispatched Nasiri Khan, Iraj Khan and Kartalab Khan from Bidar with a force of 3,000 horse towards Ahmednagar. He also wrote to Khan Jahan, the governor of Malwa who had been transferred temporarily to Daulatabad, ordering him to send a detachment of 1,000 cavalry under an experienced commander to Ahmednagar. Aurangzeb thus sent a total force of about 5,000 cavalry as reinforcements to Ahmednagar.

Regarding the Sack of Ahmednagar by Shivaji and its "unknown" result:

• According to the infobox’s result parameter:

In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section").

Based on this guideline, I created a redirect in the Result parameter to point to the relevant section: "See the Result section" [11]. Thank you very much. Shakib ul hassan talk! 07:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Minaji Bhonsla led 3,000 cavalry into battle. However, the topic of the article has to do with the raid of Shivaji, and his army is not mentioned at all. There is also the army of Kashi that is not mentioned.
• Similarly, you mention the armies of Nasiri Khan and others (including Khan Jahan), who were sent as reinforcements, but the army of Multafat Khan, who was the first army to engage in battle, is not mentioned.
• My issue with the result is not the infobox, but the fact that the result of the battle is entirely unknown.

More simply, we have a series of raids and minor battles, not directly tied to a war, with limited information, that all occurred within 3 months of 1657. I have questions as to whether this information is notable enough for an article. It is certainly enough to be mentioned in an article, but on its own article?? Griff (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems like you may have misunderstood the article. The phrase Shivaji's first raid into Deccan is simply a title used by historians, and it doesn't fully capture the broader context. As for the events lacking written records, those are often overlooked. You mentioned Shivaji’s and Kashi's armies, but since they aren't detailed in the historical records—due to the absence of primary sources—there’s not much to go on. The same applies to Mutlafat Khan, whose army size is unknown because there are no primary records to support it. Historians have instead focused on the reinforcements Aurangzeb sent to his aid.

As for the outcome, it’s not entirely uncertain, but there are differing accounts about who actually won the battle after the Sack of Ahmednagar. That’s why a separate Result section was created, to clarify the conflicting reports. The first raid by Shivaji involved smaller raids across the Deccan, including the looting of Junnar, its sack, and the killing of guards, followed by the sack of Ahmednagar and a pitched battle. Shakib ul hassan talk! 16:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Discuss elsewhere - I don't think this is a hoax, but I agree with Griff that there are potential issues with the article that are better discussed on the talk page, because the issues seem to be too big for RfD at this point. For what it's worth, I would also like to bring up the issue with the title again - I don't know whether there was a language barrier here, but "Shivaji's first raid into Deccan" is a very common combination of words that could plausibly be used by other authors as a general description. Just because they describe it as such does not make it the campaign's name. Also highlighting en:MOS:MIL and en:WP:MILNG as the guidance to refer to for such topics, and I am not ruling out the possibility that this article is better suited to be merged into the main article Shivaji itself. Chenzw  Talk  17:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 13:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

---

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Debate Room

Debate Room (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

2601:644:907E:A70:D42E:23A2:59C5:510A has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No reason to show notability, no references. 2601:644:907E:A70:D42E:23A2:59C5:510A (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete non-notable, falls under QD A4. BZPN (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete Non-notable discord server, honestly doubt any discord server is notable enough for Wikipedia.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 21:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

---

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. Consensus that it fails notability guidelines.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 20:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Isha Ambani

Isha Ambani (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't seem notable enough. BigKrow (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete: Per norm, fails WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE , the article is also created by a paid sockfarm that has been blocked on en-wiki [12]. NXcrypto Chatting 12:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Keep: I have searched the title of the article through a search engine. It does not fully meet the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (people). However, Isha Ambani may be notable in a different way, and additional information can be added to it. Therefore, I think it would be better not to delete the article.Zjui3r (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete non-notable. BZPN (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete - BIOFAMILY - notability is not inherited. The article (and its sources) focus on her relationship to the family, not herself. If she was in this family, her business positions would not qualify for her an article either. @Zjui3r, if she is notable for a different way, then the article should state that and provide sources. The possibility of notability is not a reason to keep the article. Griff (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 19:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

---

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 18:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Anthony Iannarino

Anthony Iannarino (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

2601:644:907E:A70:6102:D339:5958:92DB has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable, relies on paid coverage. 2601:644:907E:A70:6102:D339:5958:92DB (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

• Delete Most of the sources used are published the subject of the article. Little reliable independent coverage. It's written encyclopedic, sure, but it's coming off as a bit "advertisy". --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete per TDKR and nominator. BZPN (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete Per TDKR Chicago 101 Raayaan9911 16:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• ’’’Delete’’’ per norm 102.89.23.72 (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 17:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

---

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. Consensus to quick delete.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Zero Defend Sec

Zero Defend Sec (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BZPN has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non-notable, company promotion article. BZPN (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Comment: @BZPN: Please consider asking for quick deletion in cases like this. If the QD is declined, there's no harm done and then an RFD can be done. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's your decision as an admin anyway, Auntof6 ;). BZPN (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  P.S. it is always safer to report to RfD, maybe someone will have some observations. BZPN (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  @BZPN: It can be an admin's decision, but going straight to RFD can cause people more work and contribute to the backlog. As for being safer, if that's an argument then we would just do away with QD altogether.

  So I repeat: please consider using QD where possible. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Quick Delete: A4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zjui3r (talk • contribs) 13:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Quick Delete: G11. This is simply a promotional article. There is no notability claimed or cited. Griff (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 12:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

---

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Dhaj

Dhaj (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Shakib ul hassan has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No notability at all, seems hoax. I searched for it on Google Books but found no results. Shakib ul hassan talk! 11:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete another pseudo-historical hoax. Interestingly, the photo itself is also a OR posted on social media. BZPN (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Soft delete - I found a single university paper that wrote about him and the Ror dynasty. Shakib, you might be able to find more, but for now, what I have found is not enough for notability, but if an additional source was found, I would agree with this article being kept. Griff (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

---

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. consensus to delete. It can be recreated anytime with proper/acceptable content. Content can be restored on userspace on request. BRP ^ever 04:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Sosso Empire

Sosso Empire (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Raayaan9911 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: AI-Generated Content, It written by OpenAi ChatGPT, How they created Article like this. Raayaan9911 10:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Delete complex, flase info. BZPN (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Soft delete - subject is notable. Content is not worth saving. Griff (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Griffinofwales: FYI, a soft delete usually means a delete when there has been no discussion on an RFD. It means that the page can be recreated with no prejudice if someone wants to. Since there was discussion from another editor, I don't think soft delete applies here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 10:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

---

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Keep. The pages are to be merged into a single page listing all the paintings. BRP ^ever 04:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Paintings by Francesco Filippini

Category:Paintings by Francesco Filippini (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Griffinofwales has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I am nominating all articles within this category as they do not meet GNG, as they have not received significant coverage or shown notability otherwise. Griff (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

• Then this should be a nomination of the articles, not the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Auntof6, it is a nomination of the articles (which hopefully the nomination statement makes clear) within the category, and the category itself (which will become empty if this RFD is successful). Instead of 20 RFDs, I figured one combined RFD would be the best course of action, since the nomination criteria is the same for all. Griff (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

One combined RFD is good, but it needs to list the things that are included. This doesn't do that. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Merge articles to the article about the artist. Leave redirects for any that have incoming links. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

---

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. Dissolution of Soran Emirate has been soft deleted as there are no comments on whether the page should be deleted or not. Anything close to it would be Griff's comment. Battle of Rawandiz (1836) has been deleted based on consensus. BRP ^ever 04:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Dissolution of Soran Emirate

Dissolution of Soran Emirate (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Battle of Rawandiz (1836) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

BigKrow has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: no Wikipedia page BigKrow (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Comment: I changed the date of closing because this wasn't listed at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion. Depextual (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment: - I have added an article to this RFD that is related to the same battle. The closing date has been updated and the article has been tagged appropriately. These articles do not have a clear scope and the sources do not back up the information in the articles. Griff (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment: There is a Wikipedia page: it is the one we're discussing here. If you mean there is no page on enwiki, that is not a reason to delete an article here. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete for Battle of Rawandiz (1836) only - of the various sources in the article, I took a look at the one which I was able to access (and read), and that source did not contain any significant coverage about this particular battle/skirmish, not to mention that the source is technically considered non-reliable, since it is a PhD thesis and not a paper submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. The Rawandiz Revolt might be notable, but the individual battle does not appear to be so. Chenzw  Talk  13:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 12:42, 28 December 2024 07:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC) 02:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Related pages

• All archives before July 2008 - implementation of new system made archives redundant
• Category:Requests for deletion that did not succeed
• Category:Requests for deletion that succeeded
• Wikipedia:Deletion policy
• Wikipedia:Quick deletion
• Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
• Category:Deletion requests
• Category:Quick deletion requests