Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women in the Bangladesh Army (2nd nomination)

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 keep‎. Disruptive nomination. Any editor in good standing is welcome to bring this to AfD if they feel it merits one. Star Mississippi 15:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the Bangladesh Army

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:MIL. The given references are only of examples that some women were appointed on a post, some women completed their courses/trainings etc. The article lacks an overview of the whole topic. RangaVIche (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep the nominating statement is incorrect, several of the sources discuss women in the Bangladeshi army in general. The nomination for deletion was the first edit from this brand-new account, and this is the second time that happens with this article, as seen in the first AfD discussion, from last year. --bonadea contributions talk 14:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Mehedi Abedin 14:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is a very good article, and does have appropriate sourcing. Yes, I also noticed it could use a lead section - but if lack of one was point for deletion, that would eliminate a lot of existing Wikipedia articles. Of course it could use some editing. Even Featured Articles could use some editing. This one is a keeper. — Maile (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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