Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suspected jihadists from the Maldives

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. PhilKnight (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected jihadists from the Maldives

Suspected jihadists from the Maldives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

• Delete - worrying BLP problems. The reliance on a single source is a problem, but so too is the idea of a "list of suspected ..." people in the first place, especially when they don't have articles. I've removed the names that were not listed in the source. - Bilby (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and Bilby. IQinn (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• BLP delete While the sources appear credible, the people mentioned in this list are only mentioned in passing. Should be deleted on sight per
  96 17:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Per nom, BLP violation. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete right away The word "suspected" is enough for me. (Although I did check out the article.) An encyclopedia needs to be for solid information, not for what is suspected. I hope the authorities catch the terrorists and prevent more crimes, but that is not what WP is for. Borock (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete And I'm blanking the page as insufficiently sourced libelous material. EEng (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this was reported to the oversight team for suppression as being potentially libelous. As an oversighter, I reviewed the matter and have speedy-deleted as a clear mass
  WP:SNOW delete here. But primarily, it's potentially libelous - Alison ^❤ 08:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.