Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JaiMahadev (talk | contribs) at 03:36, 27 February 2021 (→India). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to India. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|India|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to India. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.

Purge page cache watch

India

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (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 delete. Daniel (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liju Prabhakar

Liju Prabhakar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am concerned that Prabhakar doesn't meet any of the 4 criteria at WP:CREATIVE; I don't think the Kerala State Film Award is enough to pass this on its own. Every single source cited is only a passing mention and the only other source that I could find in my search was this, which is also a passing mention. I am, therefore, concerned about WP:GNG as well. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think He meet the criteria WP:CREATIVE . Liju Prabhakar won won 50th Kerala State Film Awards For best colourist and widely cited.[1][2][3]. Liju Prabhakar played a major role in Many great films Including Churuli[4],Chola (film)[5][6],Chase[7],Njan Marykutty[8],Drishyam 2,Happy Wedding. His Work has significant attention in most of the movies that he has worked. So I think this article needed in wikipedia. Thank you Darsana.vinod (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. All of those are what we call 'passing mentions'. In other words, he is mentioned once along with several other people but none of the sources give him any actual coverage. I will do a full source analysis in a moment. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes No Name check - they literally couldn't even be bothered to write his full name - it just says 'Liju' ✘ No
Yes Yes No Just a name check ✘ No
Yes No Another name check ✘ No
Yes No Name check, same as previous ref ✘ No
Yes Yes No No significant coverage ✘ No
Yes No No significant coverage ✘ No
Yes No No Mentioned once on the poster ✘ No
No No No coverage ✘ No
Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
Yes Yes No Passing mention, no notability established ✘ No
Yes Yes No As per all above ✘ No
No Blog No ✘ No
Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
No No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riswan Ali E K

Riswan Ali E K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Largely unverifiable. Not a complete hoax, I think, but hugely exaggerated (or just very hard to verify?). I searched both under "Riswan Ali E K" and "Riswan Ali Edakkavil", but found very few results, and none from reliable independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Raveendran

Abhishek Raveendran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:ACTORBIO and I can't find detailed sources Padavalam🌂  ►  09:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nitoo Das

Nitoo Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One line article lacking sources - tagged since 2013. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. External links only to subject's publications, so the article is essentially WP:PROMO. Geoff | Who, me? 00:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shiyas Kareem

AfDs for this article:
Shiyas Kareem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject clearly fails. WP:NACTOR. Does not have notable roles in any movies. Other than being a participant of a reality show and in some non notable competitions, there is nothing notable to have an independent article as of now. I also doubt the creator of the article has COI with the subject. Its still unclear whether the subject is having a notable role in Marakkar: Arabikadalinte Simham. This might also be a case of WP:TOOSOON Kichu🐘 Discuss 05:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Kichu🐘 Discuss 05:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 05:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 05:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 05:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imtiaz Ahmed (1990s Jammu and Kashmir cricketer)

Imtiaz Ahmed (1990s Jammu and Kashmir cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage about them. Störm (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Per Nom. No RS.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 16:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Assam cricketers. Daniel (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naba Bhuyan

Naba Bhuyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayub Sheikh

Ayub Sheikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheman Shaik

Cheman Shaik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP claims to be of a computer scientist, inventor, and an author. I can't find anything strong enough to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Quite low h-index of 5 on google scholar. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oppose/keep The subject is primarily a computer scientist and inventor with 6 patented technologies with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as follows:

1. Absolute public key cryptographic system and method surviving private-key compromise with other advantages

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22Absolute+Public+Key+Cryptography%22&OS=

2. Password self encryption method and system and encryption by keys generated from personal secret information

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/8023647

3. Codeless dynamic websites including general facilities

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7770122

4. Dynamic Language Text Generation http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=24&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7721222&OS=7721222&RS=7721222

5. 3d Mouse For Computers https://uspto.report/patent/app/20200089339

6. Defeating solution to phishing attacks through counter challenge authentication

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=10,880,331&OS=10,880,331&RS=10,880,331

The author profile may not be that strong as per Google Scholar score, I completely agree, but as an inventor Wikipedia should consider the article as patents are granted after due assessment by the USPTO. Regarding general notability, the subject has been highlighted by the leading publications of India and Arab.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-info-tech/new-data-encryption-technique/article1750219.ece http://www.arabnews.com/node/290802

Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Patents are meaningless. Anyone can register a patent, but it's only if it's tested in court that it can be found to be an original, enforceable, idea. And it's only if reliable sources report on that that it can show notability. Computer science has one of the highest citation rates of any field, at least on Google Scholar, but this computer scientist has hardly any citations to his work. As the claim has been made that the article subject has notability in an academic field I will put it on the relevant deletion list. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil Bridger, his patents have been tested in court too. Here are the facts and references:

*Patent 8023647

Here is the list of litigants for patent infringement case (all cases closed):

  • Gucci America, Inc.
  • VMWare, Inc.
  • Hewlett-Parkard Co.
  • Foxconn Technology Group
  • THG Energy Solutions, LLC
  • Siemens Corp.
  • Cisco Systems, Inc.
  • Raytheon Company
  • Lockheed Martin Corporation
  • Chipotle Mexican Grill
  • AT&T, Inc.
  • Texas Freight Services, In
  • iReverse Home Loans, LLC
  • Cashstar, Inc.
  • True Media, LLC
  • Startups.co, LLC
  • Mainstream Technologies, Inc.
  • NC Financial Solutions, LLC
  • Verizon Communications
  • The Rocket Science Group, LLC d/b/a MailChimp
  • Edmunds.com, Inc.
  • Marriott International, Inc.
  • Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.

References:

https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2019-00498 https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/8023647 (under Related Cases, check PTAB (2) and Litigation (23) *Patent 7721222 Litigants in the patent infringement case were:

  • Walmart
  • Target

All cases closed. Reference: https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/UniversalCipherLLCvTargetCorporationDocketNo219cv00163EDTexMay072/1?1614374019

Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above patent has received 45 citations from 30 assignees including technology companies like Sony, IBM, Microsoft, and Google.

Don't you think they establish his notability along with the coverage on leading newspapers like below:

? Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein thanks for the attention. Even we ignore the scholarly publications, is there no importance of the inventions? Citations of the patents are also an approval of the importance of the inventions. Don't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdomwiki 40 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'importance' is subjective. Inclusion in Wikipedia are guided by it's nobility criteria not how we view subject's importance. RationalPuff (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RationalPuff, if 'importance' is subjective, then members should reconsider the deletion nomination. Here are the usability or impact of the patents:

  • Patent 8,023,647 or its encryption technique is used by over 20 companies including Verizon, AT&T, JP Morgan, and Lockheed Martin.

references: https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2019/1/3/universal-cipher-formerly-cumberland-systems-patent-challenged-as-likely-invalid https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/8023647

Patent 7721222 or its Dynamic language text generation system and method has been used with phone and tablet devices. reference: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/walmart-target-sued-over-text-generation-tech-patent

Patent 7,721,222 has been cited by leading tech firms like Sony, IBM, Microsoft, and Google. Patent 8023647 has been used as citations by Apple Inc., Microsoft, Oracle and other significant technology firms.Who is citing the patent is more important than how many have used it as a citation.Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Requesting members to review the notability evidences shared on this page. I have improved the article also. Hope it is better now. Despite all, if you think deletion is the only way left, please respond to my comments. Waiting for your response.Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as has already been pointed out, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 16:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Wisdomwiki 40: to clarify how Wikipedia works. We consider something important (notable) when other independent, reliable, secondary sources discuss a subject. You link to a lot of patents, but those are primary sources that are not independent of the subject - they tell us nothing about notability. Rather, we need to see magazine, newspapers and books that discuss the person. Those sources need to be independent (ie. not paid for or connected to the subject in some way). Reliable (ie. not self-published and known for editorial control). In-depth (not minor or trivial mentions). Multiple sources. Then we can say, yes, this person is notable because other people have decided independently to write about them. -- GreenC 19:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:GreenC what's your thought on citations from the following newspapers-based that are known for quality journalism with unbiased editorial practices:

Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:GreenC, XOR'easter, RationalPuff, Onel5969, David Eppstein, TT me, CommanderWaterford, improvements to the page regarding WP:GNG notability done based on citations from independent secondary sources in the print media in multiple languages:

  • Al, AALEM (Arabic, Monthly Magazine), February, 2007, Tenth Year, No, 94, Muharram 1428 H

References: https://archive.org/details/arabic-al-aalem-magazine-feb-2007-cover-page/Arabic%20Magazine%20Cover%20Page.jpg

  • Arab News (English, Daily Newspaper) - 2006-08-27

Reference: https://archive.org/details/arab-news-invention-by-indian-can-help-local-business-save-billions/NewsDetails_Invention%20by%20Indian%20can%20save%20businesses%20save%20billions.jpg

Telulgu to English Translation: https://ia601502.us.archive.org/21/items/eenadu-paper-clip-cheman-shaik/Eenadu%20Paperclip%20Tamil%20to%20English%20Translation.pdf Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you are making claims about scientific research/discoveries/invention, tabloids coverage rarely hold water. Do you have any technical/scientific/technological secondary publication that are talking about the subject? RationalPuff (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RationalPuff, this book places Absolute Public Key Cryptography, one of the inventions, as one of the key crypto techniques. It's already there with ISBN number under Publications section: https://www.routledge.com/Handbook-of-Surveillance-Technologies/Petersen/p/book/9781439873151 Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • That book does not say anything about this technique being "key", but just mentions it as one of the techniques for which patents have been taken out. It doesn't even mention Cheman Shaik, the subject of this article. Sorry, but you are wasting your time arguing here in the light of the lack of citations to the subject's scholarly work. In general, for a computer scientist, we require many thousands of citations, not less than a handful. Why are you so fixated on this article, given the subject's obvious lack of notability? It is very difficult to avoid thinking that you have a conflict of interest here, and that you have been paid to produce this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil Bridger, please check this one. https://archive.org/details/handbook-of-surveillance-technologies-absolute-public-key-cryptography/page/n1/mode/2up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdomwiki 40 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I checked the same thing (hosted at the Google Books site) before I made my last comment. All that link does is to confirm that this book doesn't even mention Cheman Shaik. All that you are doing with your interventions here is to make Shaik look more and more like a patent troll. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, the author has mentioned the U.S. Patent #708882, I'm reading your patent troll thanks for sharing. Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are scraping the barrel and wasting everyone's time here. You need reliable and significant coverage that talks about the subject not about the things the subject might have been associated with. It's not Wikipedia's job to fill the blanks. Moreover, with a few obscure citations this subject is not even close to the nobility threshold. RationalPuff (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that this man is probably both important enough and notable enough to have an article. My problem, and I think the problem with searches concerning WP:GNG and WP:Inventor (See Wikipedia:Notability (people)), is that I don't speak a lot of the relevant languages. Indeed, that is a problem of Systemic bias in Wikipedia. I am not criticizing anyone for that; it's a fact. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He works in the US. If there is relevant local coverage it would be in English. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which disregards the Arabic and Telugu references that already exist in the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The references in the article are claims in newspapers that he has invented something, which newspapers are notorious for believing on the basis of a press release with no support from academic sources. It's pretty obvious from reading the patents that they only consist of gross generalities - something that patent trolls do. I have been accused before of being a dyed-in-the-wool inclusionist, but can see no reason why we should include an article about this person. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was not accusing anybody of anything. And you could very well be right. I haven't taken a position. Thanks for your input. OTOH, reasonable minds may differ on the conclusion. YMMV. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AS Irani

AS Irani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Shah (cricketer)

Bharat Shah (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:GNG is of no relevance; he has played a first class match and therefore passes WP:CRIN. DevaCat1 (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers or similar has played 1 FC match, but no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per Rugbyfan22. Only sourced to a statistical database and comprehensively fails WP:GNG, which trumps any sports-related notability guideline. SportingFlyer T·C 23:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GNG is the standard for everything. The cricket notability guidelines are absurd, "first class" matches are too common, and playing in 1 should no more make a person notable than having a significant role in just one notable film makes someone notable. Note that being on the field for a team for part of a game does not mean the player actually did anything significant, so even that comparison is flawed, but if actors and actresses need multiple apperances we should demand the same of sportspeople. Especially since the top sports people have played in way more games than top actors and actresses have been in notable productions. So the one game threshold is just plain absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG, the single first-class appearance doesn't seem to be covered by any substantial source. --Ashleyyoursmile! 18:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Baluch

Mohammad Baluch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harpal Zala

Harpal Zala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Seth

Iqbal Seth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P. Jadeja

P. Jadeja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Laheji

Abdul Laheji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y. Radia

Y. Radia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Shaikh

Mustafa Shaikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffar Suleiman

Jaffar Suleiman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Ahlawat

AfDs for this article:
Yash Ahlawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is a non notable actor who doesn't meet the notability guidelines of WP:NACTOR as he has only played minor roles in a few films. The references are all paid and routine announcement.

  • Ref #1 The clarity on the Forbes article is crystal as "brand connect" articles are paid for press and even has a disclaimer at the bottom stating Disclaimer: The views, suggestions and opinions expressed here are the sole responsibility of the experts. No Forbes India journalist was involved in the writing and production of this article.
  • Ref #2 Brand content (paid article) with disclaimer at the bottom
  • Ref #3 Routine announcement
  • Ref #4 Rehashed press release mentioning the subject briefly

So none of these are reliable and independent of the subject. BEFORE shows mentions in passing. Fails WP:GNG as well. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 11:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Tyagi

Sanjeev Tyagi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not have multiple major roles, fails WP:NACTOR. Article was redirect to single major role, but keeps being pushed into full article, so AFD is the only option. Ravensfire (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Yakub

Mohammad Yakub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandesh Kulkarni

AfDs for this article:
Sandesh Kulkarni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable filmmaker and actor. Hulatam (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2021 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teja Tanikella (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 delete. Daniel (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teja Tanikella

Teja Tanikella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An apparent autobiography on a one-time actor who fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The closest he gets to passing GNG is the fairly routine coverage of his wedding, already cited in the article. Nothing better found in a WP:BEFORE search. The one film that he starred in seems barely notable itself. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please find the sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

References

  1. ^ https://www.filmibeat.com/celebs/teja-tanikella.html
  2. ^ https://www.ragalahari.com/stars/profile/3487/teja-tanikella.aspx
  3. ^ https://in.bookmyshow.com/person/teja-tanikella/29673
  4. ^ http://movies.sulekha.com/teja-tanikella_movie-list
  5. ^ https://www.quicklookfilms.com/people/Teja-Tanikella
  6. ^ https://www.cinebee.in/teja-tanikella/profile/4808782731280384
  7. ^ https://chopnews.com/mr-lavangam-movie-cast-crew-and-story/
  8. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/events/hyderabad/teja-and-divyas-elegant-wedding-soire/articleshow/69663828.cms
  9. ^ https://www.indiaglitz.com/tanikellas-son-turns-hero-with-mrlavangam-telugu--news-65635
  10. ^ https://newsjizz.in/11752-the-elegant-wedding-party-of-teja-and-divya.html
  11. ^ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1579899/
  12. ^ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6925202/
  13. ^ https://www.ragalahari.com/localevents/186628/tanikella-bharani-son-maha-teja-bharanis-wedding-photos.aspx

TejaTanikella (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources even come close to showing significant coverage Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— Adiv97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SPA created just minutes before adding this vote. RationalPuff (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basit Ahmed Bhat

Basit Ahmed Bhat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No senior fully-pro appearances. Recreated after previous PROD. BlameRuiner (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QuantInsti

QuantInsti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to locate significant coverage in independent, reliable and secondary sources. The article is written like a marketing brochure. M4DU7 (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia

Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. She has featured in only one television show, so it's kind of WP:TOOSOON. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fawaz Zayani

Fawaz Zayani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actor who has mostly played supporting and recurring roles and fails WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sruthy Jayan

Sruthy Jayan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actress with a few small roles. Fails WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 13:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetaj Brar

Sweetaj Brar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable singer with no evidence of passing WP:SINGER or WP:GNG. The references are announcement of her music release and cover the subject trivially. She has sung a song in Chhalaang and has received some coverage for the same. However, they lack sufficient depth to meet the criteria. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trell (application)

Trell (application) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appear to be a non-notable company with no significant coverage in reliable sources. I previously proposed this article for deletion but the pord tag was removed by anon so bringing it here. GSS 💬 03:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 03:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 03:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see coverage from the Times of India and other sources, but it appears to be a one-off event about the wave of users that emerged after Indian authorities banned Tiktok. I can't find any other secondary coverage about the topic, at least on the anglophone and sinophone internet. Would propose that the article be deleted and redirected to the 2020 China–India skirmishes Indian response section. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 03:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added 10-12 reliable sources which are covering other than TikTok ban coverage. This helps for secondary coverage. Sonofstar (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the high quality sources added by Sonofstar. Mottezen (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VR Sharma

AfDs for this article:
VR Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO - much of the coverage is WP:MILL, routine coverage related to companies: press releases etc, and does not take the subject pass WP:BASIC or the WP:GNG. It should be noted that this article was previously deleted via AfD in September 2020. The article was re-created by the original editor in February 2012 without addressing the issues that it was previously deleted for. Dan arndt (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the person is a well-known business personality & deserves to be on Wikipedia as people keep searching for details about him over the internet.Rohitnwi (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The consensus to delete in September 2020 was based on numerous !voters who failed to find significant coverage that would meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Barring a major notability-conferring event in the last six months (and none is indicated), it's likely that the subject continues to fail to meet those criteria. Per the nom and the arguments in the last AfD, his press coverage continues to be more of the same routine passing mentions. Notability on Wikipedia is rooted in significant coverage by reliable, independent sources, not search frequency. DanCherek (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per dan, and nomination. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shweta (meme)

Shweta (meme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am wondering if this meme should be deleted. The reason I think so is that it seems to fail the notability guidelines and has BLP1E issues, as I highly doubt that Shweta, and anonymous girl, is going to become a public figure from this event. It is also an embarassment for the subject, and therefore is subject to BLP concerns. It is similar to the Jessi Slaughter and Brian Peppers cases, which were deleted as well. According to the notability guideline in news, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Steve M (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Steve M (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subash Singh

Subash Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page does not have news article DasSoumik (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TV9 Kannada

TV9 Kannada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page does not have news article. So I think this page should not be on wikipedia. DasSoumik (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford thank you. I'll keep it in my mind.

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jiyas Jamal

Jiyas Jamal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's just a vanity article. Does not meet WP:GNG. PROD was removed by another editor without an adequate explanation. Likely sock/meatpuppetry involved. RationalPuff (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uthhan

Uthhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm concerned that this might not pass WP:NORG, in particular WP:ORGCRIT, which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. In a WP:BEFORE search, I found two sources, Patna Daily and Techstory where there is an actual author and it isn't just a blatant press release written by Utthan themselves. I'm still not convinced that this meets the high bar at NORG and even the two links above look like they might be promotional/sponsored.

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No Clearly a press release Yes No It's all written by the organisation so does not contribute to SIGCOV ✘ No
No Passing mention ✘ No
No Another press release Yes No We need more than press releases ✘ No
No No Another part of their promo ✘ No
No No The link is dead but the title is exactly the same as the other press releases ✘ No
No No Promo for their app does not make it notable ✘ No
No No No This is a link to their shop ✘ No
No No No This is their Facebook page ✘ No
No No No This is their own shop ✘ No
No No No This is their Facebook page ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The page is applied for Deleting for adding external links which are linking to promotional contents. Now, the admin has removed the promotional/sponsored links to any other external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VENKATESHafx (talk • contribs) 12:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any independent, reliable sources to show that this passes WP:NORG? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2019-11 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 21:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SUVASTU Properties

SUVASTU Properties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable real estate company that fails to meet WP:NCORP. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search showed this which is a blatant sponsored post / self published. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Suvastu Properties – An artist in modern real estate industry". The Business Standard. February 24, 2021.
  2. ^ "AMIT CHAKRABORTTY, Chief Marketing Officer, Suvastu properties Ltd". July 26, 2020. Archived from the original on December 3, 2020. Retrieved February 24, 2021.
  3. ^ "Eid fair begins at Suvastu Nazar Valley Shopping Mall". The Daily Star. September 17, 2007.
~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 05:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teejay Sidhu

Teejay Sidhu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR - several guest appearances in television shows, the reality show the article says she is known for she finished 6th, the movie roles are minor parts at best. Not enough to meet WP:GNG either. Ravensfire (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rahat Public Junior High School

Rahat Public Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was unable to find any coverage that would establish notability through WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The best sources that I can find are the bare minimum descriptions provided in school directories such as Edugorilla and Schools.org.in. From the sources available, there is nothing to suggest that this school is notable, historic or significant. It is a recently-founded and very small school that has apparently never been subject to any decent media coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern with redirecting would be that that list is only for schools with their own stand-alone articles. Once this school is determined to not be notable enough for an article, it will then be removed from the List of schools in India, which would then make the redirect potentially confusing. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Count me as a delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plavelil Shanku Pillai Memorial Upper Primary School

Plavelil Shanku Pillai Memorial Upper Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NORG and WP:GNG; the former requires the school to be the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. During my WP:BEFORE search I could not find any evidence that this school has ever received this kind of coverage and most of the search results were just Wikipedia mirrors. I could not even find trivial news stories that most schools get, such as local papers promoting the school fête or notices of being closed due to COVID. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Go Phightins! 15:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anantha Vruthantham

Anantha Vruthantham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. PROD was removed because there is a mentioning of the movie in the singer's obituary. The singer performed one or more songs in this movie. I am not sure (yet again, see my previous nomination) how is that supporting the notability of the movie. Thank you, Kolma8 (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Reply to Kolma8 (talk · contribs): I already left you a message in your talk page two times regarding this question you asked and you havent replied to me that yet. Please kindly ping me if you have anything to ask me here, or else I wont get notified. I already said that if we have any mere source to establish notability (for old movies only), it must be considered. You are simply nominating most of the old movies' article for PROD even if some sources of any kind have been provided. Thats not the way to do it. I also have a concern that you are not following proper WP:Before in most of the cases. Malayalam sources are present for most of these movies. I already rescued 3 articles about malayalam movies that you nominated for AFD. Regarding this case (the source is from The Hindu), I will say weak keep. I only got one source and it says It was for the 1990 film Anantha Vruthantham that he sang. Regards. Kichu🐘 Discuss 07:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Kashmorwiki (talk · contribs) I am really trying to understand how the phrase "It was for the 1990 film Anantha Vruthantham that he sang" in the provided source can support any criteria in WP:NFILM and WP:GNG, but I am afraid I can't. I do agree that all sources should be considered, but as another side of the same coin, not all sources can be accepted. But thank you for your vote. Cheers, Kolma8 (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Happy to userfy in case anyone wants to try to incorporate anything elsewhere, but there's a consensus that the film does not meet our notability guideline. No prejudice against a redirect if warranted. Go Phightins! 23:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Punnaram

Punnaram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. PROD was removed because there is a mentioning of the movie in the director's obituary. I am not sure how that is related to the movie itself. Kolma8 (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFILM. A mere mention in an obituary is not enough to establish notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Agree with the opinion that there is not enough sources to establish notability. But since this is a movie, its practically not possible for some movies to find sources. So sources like this can be considered to establish notability [10]. Also additional inclusionary criteria also says that The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. This was one of the notable movies of the director mentioned in the source. Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 14:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kashmorwiki, the sheer fact that there is no available sources supports (or should support) this deletion nomination. It is arrant balderdash to keep an article which fails all the criteria of WP:NFILM and WP:GNG and for which we all agree that there is no sources to support notability. Even many movies from the 1920s, 1950s (to include movies from India) have sources to support their notability and impact on the movie history. Kolma8 (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kolma8, please note my comment.This is the reason why I said weak keep. I know there are not enough sources. RegardsKichu🐘 Discuss 03:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Three of the four sources in the article are database listings with no SIGCOV and the obit is a mention. Notability is not inherited from participants in the film. I couldn't find much of anything other than promos and listings and there are not even many promos. No objection to a redirect to Sasi Shanker, but I do not see sourced content for a merge.  // Timothy :: talk  21:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that notability is not inherited, and no secondary source coverage crosses the general notability guideline threshold. Go Phightins! 11:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Karna

Raja Karna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited. Onel5969 TT me 04:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me the reason for adding this article in deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srimant ROSHAN (talk • contribs) 14:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not added the word (illegitimate son) in this article because Raja Karna was one of the legitimate son of Rajaram Maharaj . Because he was born from unknown women who was married with Rajaram Maharaj at Jinji fort.That is why you cannot say it is illegitimate son of great Rajaram Maharaj. There is a word (wedlock )I copyed this word from Rajaram Maharaj Wikipedia article. I don't know the meaning of wedlock therefore I am sorry . Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According readed records by me he is the legitimate son of Rajaram 1. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bouloussou Satyanarayanamourty

Bouloussou Satyanarayanamourty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL and appears to have been written by a relative. The Sources are 1) a non-specific citing of land records by the regional government; 2) the Proceedings of the Indian Science Congress (1952), which is in relation to his brother (Bulusu Jaganadha Sastry; who's notability is also not clear) being a member of the Indian Science Congress and even that is just listing him as a member; 3) is his grandson's (and apparently the author of this article's) Mahindra University faculty profile; and 4) a non-specific citing of the subject's death certificate GPL93 (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Zoozaz1 talk 19:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Somewhat snowy. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apex Public School,

Apex Public School, (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school. Onel5969 TT me 15:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 15:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Gilitwala

Amit Gilitwala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable player, has not won any major contests. — Amkgp 💬 15:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Singh Chandel

Ankit Singh Chandel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not sure how this guy meets NPOL, aside from the fact that "State Co Convenor" doesn't appear to be an elected position, he basically runs the IT & social media of a party, which is also not an elected position, just a standard office type job. There's no coverage to meet GNG either. CUPIDICAE💕 14:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite small and not notable at all. The account that made this article itself is called ankitchandelbjp, smells like WP:Coi, but can't be sure. Regardless, sources mentioned are no very well known, they also don't cover the person-in-question. The information provided is also not notable, again. Even googling the person in question hasn't shown any new information about the person. In my opinion enough coverage of the subject does not exist, stringent mentions of independent and well-known sources per WP:BLP is not shown. No other option than to delete. SenatorLEVI 15:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sainik School, Manasbal

AfDs for this article:
Sainik School, Manasbal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Collection of trivia The Banner talk 14:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riya Manoj

Riya Manoj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been deleted via BLP PROD and speedy deletion recently (A7 and G5). Still appears to be a non-notable child actress. I can confirm that she is in Abhiyum Naanum listed as supporting cast. I can confirm that she is in Senthoora Poove as well but no indication that the role is a major one so I can't see that WP:NACTOR can be met. I'm not finding enough evidence of a WP:GNG pass in a WP:BEFORE search either, still. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 02:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Science and Religion (book)

Science and Religion (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has a link to the book as its only source. I've found it hard to find secondary coverage online. If one searches for the book's name together with its author's, some results appear though apparently nothing that would amount to significant coverage. So, the book doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think so the page should be kept because information on Jainism and Science has very less sources on internet.. in order to promote the information about Jainism and science to public it should be kept...Rishabh.rsd (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Afzal Parray

Mohd Afzal Parray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page appears to have been created one of the close associates of the subject. The life section doesn't cite any source (where does information comes from?) and the editor's name resembles with the subject's name. Moreover, the subject's notability is questionable. Please see WP:POLITICIAN. If the page is kept for notability, then every person in India will probably have their own Wikipedia page by the end of 2030. District Development Council members are non notable and its chairperson is headed by an additional district development commissioner (Additional D. C.) which is itself a non notable post. The author has recently changed their username[11] after the article's take page was updated and to bypass COI.

There are currently 280 members in Jammu and Kashmir, including 20 chairpersons. Does it mean we should create Wikipedia pages for each family member of the Jammu and Kashmir.? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This appears to have been a bad faith nomination and the sockpuppetry is disregarded. I am not sure what policy/guideline based argument is made by the remaining delete !vote but as it has been demonstrated and agreed that there is sourcing that meets GNG the result is keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart Esports

Stalwart Esports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotion of esports and paid press release PanunKoshurBoi (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardar Nadir Ali[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Perryprog (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Perryprog (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SavingWikiFromSpaming was a block-evading sockpuppet of TheRedReaper, who had been indefinitely blocked at 15:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— SavingWikiFromSpaming (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete News article don’t show the significance of a team. A team should win or participate in a notable competition. If i only create a team and post some news article it is not shows a good thing. This thing may only created for social handle verification. Wikipedia should not promote this unimportant objects. Wikipedia is like a mirror for world which gives us real history about our past and present. Please do the appropriate thing it deserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.127.95.161 (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be on a crusade against Zeyan Shafiq – see IP range 03.127.95.160–163's contribution history.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Very clear consensus in favour of article deletion at this time with no dissenting opinions. Given this and that the discussion has ran its full 7-day course, I am going to go ahead and close this in favour of deletion. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Premtosh Nath

Premtosh Nath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NPOL; did stand for election in Sabroom in 2008 but was not successful. He has not received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator's reasoning. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly fails both NPOL and GNG JW 1961 Talk 20:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancharakalyanam

Ancharakalyanam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Prod was removed, because there is a mentioning of the movie as "Shiyas' films include Mayavi, Onnaman, Dubai, Junior Mandrake, Amar Akbar Anthony, Ancharakalyanam etc." [12]. I personally don't see how it passes as a "significant" mentioning. Thank you, Kolma8 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aga Syed Mohammad Baqir Al-Moosavi Al-Najfi

Aga Syed Mohammad Baqir Al-Moosavi Al-Najfi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:NBIO and WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 15:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 15:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 15:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 15:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Disregarding non-policy-based !keep votes, clear consensus exists. David Eppstein's comment is the most persuasive in terms of policy arguments. Daniel (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Kumar Malik

Rajesh Kumar Malik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of nobility. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:GNG, WP:RS RationalPuff (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.HariSinghw (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— Indiandeanslaw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The SPA has been created just minutes before adding this vote. RationalPuff (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dean is not a high-enough administrative position to pass WP:PROF#C6, and the Central University of Haryana at which he works is a new university with an enrollment lower than many US High Schools, unlikely to be considered a "major academic institution". His name is common enough that I had trouble finding his publications in Google Scholar among the ones by the chemical engineer and library automation researcher with the same names; both of them had too-low citations for WP:PROF#C1 and this one's must be even lower. There could plausibly be a case for WP:AUTHOR but for that we'd need multiple published reviews of his books, not in evidence. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, basically per David Eppstein. Being a Dean is certainly not enough for passing WP:PROF#C6. Citability is quite low and there is no indication that his books made a significant impact. Does not pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep He is author and has been a member of the committee for taking policy making decision for whole India at National level deputed by apex body University Grants Commission of India. His contribution was remarkable.Mamtakuhu20 (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— Mamtakuhu20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Being an author is not, in and of itself, indicative of notability. We would need proof (e.g. published reviews of his books) that his work has made significant impact. Committee work of the type you mention is not unusual for academics either. If his contributions there were indeed, "remarkable", as you say (and how do you know that?), we would need verifiable evidence from independent reliable sources regarding that. Nsk92 (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck this duplicate !vote since the same user has already cast a 'Speedy Keep' !vote above. Nsk92 (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag Singh (cricketer, born 1990)

Anurag Singh (cricketer, born 1990) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is some thought of merging here that can be pursued, though it is unclear what material would be merged is acute. That can be resolved outside of this discussion, probably. I am happy to userfy a copy of this article or move it to draft-space if someone wants to pursue a merger. Go Phightins! 11:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul's College, Lucknow

St. Paul's College, Lucknow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 19:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest a project to destub all schools in UP: Then possibly merge. Saying Fails GNG is very tidy- but we we need to explain why. I have added a wl to Roman Catholic Diocese of Lucknow which is totally underdeveloped- it reminds me of the articles we were proud to add fifteen years ago. It could be the target for a merge. Para one looks like it has been transcribed from a notable source as part of a batch but unsourced. Para 2 looks like a personal memory but suggests this school has over 500 pupils- so sources could be found. I suspect researching this one school, is going to be a similar process to reseaching other UP schools, so a more global approach to problems could be be more productive. ClemRutter (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has sat for 14 years with no sources at all, which is a very clear violation of our verifiability rules. A quick google search turned up no reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I not convinced to take action with any of the discussion points except ClemRutter's, so I am relisting in the hope of getting more detailed arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth; subject fails GNG and ORGCRIT. No sources in article to check, BEFORE showed database listings type entries and nothing more. We often redirect to an appropriate target, I have no objection to a redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Lucknow if there is support for this, but the article has no properly sourced content for a merge and I oppose merging unsourced content.  // Timothy :: talk  07:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Next Film Productions

The Next Film Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Indian film production company, established in 2020. Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Sharma

Vikas Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG or any relevant criteria. Sources cited in the article discuss the subject specifically in the context of his death and there is no coverage outside that. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Joyalukkas. Daniel (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joyalukkas Lifestyle Developers

Joyalukkas Lifestyle Developers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable company coming under the parent group Joyalukkas. Sources give are mainly covering about the parent company. I did a WP:Before and could not find anything other than some ads. The article clearly fails WP:COMPANY and written for promotional/advertising purpose. The author only created his user account for the creation of this article and removed the PROD tag without proper explanation. Should be merged with the parent company article Joyalukkas. Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 07:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 07:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 07:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 07:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 07:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 07:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-12 ✗ G11
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm discounting the unsourced allegations of wrongdoing by the IP, which in any case would not establish notability. Sandstein 11:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saggezza

Saggezza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search links me predominantly to primary sources which we do not consider as reliable. The REF-BOMBING is merely a mirage to induce a sense of notability. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - likely paid-for spam, creator blocked for spamming. My gut says this is a sock-created article but am not confident to push the delete button. MER-C 16:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly a corporate stooge sock puppet, but company's tech was bought by Cisco, and they partner with other major data companies. Notability in sourcing might not be there, but company clearly works with shady companies and uses large amounts of consumer data, and their presence and NSA connections should be exposed. 24.237.27.195 (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If sourcing isn’t present then the article isn’t notable. See WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree - I think it's an absolute shame companies can hide behind WP:NCORP as a way to conceal their activities and connections, especially those involved in massive data breaches with obvious concerns to the greater public - which Salesforce went out of their way not to notify anyone about, because of course they did.[1] I'd be interested to know if anyone involved in this page has any COI they'd like to disclose - I don't see why we're so eager to employ extremely broad guidelines to provide cover for the companies sharing access to all our private information (one of many reasons I'm not using my normal account for this discussion). 24.237.27.195 (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 05:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Challengers Bangalore in 2021

Royal Challengers Bangalore in 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No source cited Jenyire2 20:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment , The article is already updated till the date. The tournament will start on April 9. This article should be keep Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 09:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanya Ananya

Dhanya Ananya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actor who doesn’t satisfy WP:NACTOR as she hasn’t won any prestigious awards neither has she taken up significant roles in the movies she has featured in, generally, a before search shows she lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her, thus this is also a GNG fail Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — @CommanderWaterford, please see WP:SIGN & do so each time you make a comment for the sake of clarity(please do so immediately) Furthermore, I’m afraid your knowledge of policy pertaining to notability might be inadequate & I do not believe you possess sufficient knowledge on WP:GNG. The number of sources google news popped up isn’t relevant but what matters is the quality of those sources. Mere mentions do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV thus such sources are of zero relevance to WP:GNG which requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Furthermore per WP:NACTOR she doesn’t meet the threshold as no criterion is satisfied as she is yet to be featured in lead roles neither has she won prestigious awards for actors. Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeyan Shafiq

Zeyan Shafiq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Covert advertising from a blocked sockpuppet account. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A piece of advertisement. references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Timberlack (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timberlack: I would invite you to reconsider your reasoning. There are several references on the article with extensive coverage of the subject. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timberlack: As per your contrib history, you've been commenting on indian businessmen related AFD's, within 9 minutes you passed comments on 3 AFD's, Can you share how did you check the references so quickly? Hums4r (Let's Talk) 06:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 13:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can you name the blocked sockpuppet account and point out the covert advertising? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, AfD nominator here. The article was published on 12 January by Zeyan, a blocked sockpuppet of Hums4r. The concern regarding covert advertising is for the company KashBook and Stalwart Esports. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Again MrsSnoozyTurtle, I’ve already clarified the part of using “Zeyan” account to publish it on the SPI page, moreover it was not published, they moved it back to draft space and then the page was edited and published by Fences and windows, you should perhaps have a look at the edit history, also point out the part that looked as “covert advertisement” to you, i am very interested in learning about it and removing it, since i was the major contributor to this article.Hums4r (Let's Talk) 22:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hello MrsSnoozyTurtle. I see your concern about advertising, but I'm not sure what the solution is if the subjects pass WP:GNG and the articles are written neutrally. You would have a point if Stalwart eSports is not notable; Zeyan Shafiq would then only be notable for a single event (founding KashBook) and the article would have to be rewritten to focus on the event (i.e. "Founding of KashBook") rather than Shafiq. But as I mentioned, this depends on Stalwart eSports not being notable (and would be grounds for an AfD on that article too). Are you suggesting that? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since i have a COI, i won't suggest to keep or delete, i would just mention this comment. The Article was written by me and then reviewed by experienced wikipedians like Fences and windows, TheAafi, Kohlrabi Pickle and many more, the article was properly check and reviewed and was even posted to 'DYK' section. There has been a discussion earlier regarding the references as well and they were reliable as per wikipedia policies. I don't see 'Covert advertising from a blocked sockpuppet account' on this article because i've been a major contributor to this and apart from me all other editors who have edited this aren't sockpuppets/ blocked.Hums4r (Let's Talk) 06:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

changing to Keep: Per significant coverage that we find in a number of sources available in the article. Note: I've struck my earlier speedy keep comment after Hums4r's global block. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly a piece of promotion and advertisement. References do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Even the details provided about subject are baseless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HACKER KASH (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HACKER KASH is a sockpuppet account - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardar Nadir Ali
HACKER KASH is a sockpuppet account - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardar Nadir Ali
  • Note to closing admin: Its now only that I only noticed Hums4r was just a sock account. So I had a detailed study on this person Zeyan. He even shared this wikipedia article on social media for promotional purpose. So I would like to strongly stand with my early opinion. 'Delete Kichu🐘 Discuss 06:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmorwiki: Wikipedia considers the Hums4r account to be a sockmaster – the Shahzada Iqbal, Zeyan and Prakrutiprajapanti accounts are considered to be sockpuppets – see WP:SPI/Hums4r/archive and block log.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The reason for nomination isn't clear, but in any event, I don't see anything that can't be fixed with a little rewriting. Certainly nothing that warrants WP:TNT. Separately, a couple of other editors have suggested that the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG without explanation or reference to the several independent news articles that profile him in depth. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge Merge into KashBook. On further reflection, I am modifying my vote. I have been uncomfortable with how, despite the subject ostensibly passing GNG, the article reads so promotionally. I don't think the articles were paid for, but they have a human interest element to them (a precocious Kashmiri teenager creating something techy to work around a ban by the big bad government in Delhi). KashBook is not a revolutionary piece of software, nor did it take Kashmir by storm (it was in the top 22 social media platforms in the valley alone - very far from the top), and Stalwart Esports are not some wunderkind team. Both of them derive their notability from the circumstances in which they were created. I think the repeated wording (which Perryprog references in their vote) is a sign of poor journalism, not payment – I've encountered the same in sources for other India/Pakistan related articles I've contributed to – and it indicates that they've all copied off of each other. But this is good enough reason for me to doubt that these articles generate notability value. I'm also uncomfortable with how the subject is openly using the Wikipedia page for self-promotion on his social media platforms. People who pass GNG on their own are seldom bothered by whether or not they have a Wikipedia article. I am not persuaded that he is notable yet. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Amended vote from "Delete or merge into KashBook" to "Merge into KashBook" on 00:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • I had expected that one of the original contributors to this article would have created one by now... but if not, then I am happy for it to be deleted or draftified and rewritten as an article on KashBook. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two of the deletion votes claim that references in third-party sources are just passing mentions. I checked four of the third-party citations and all of them were significant coverage.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst this deletion debate has been going on, the article has been expanded and improved. There are enough citations to good quality independent sources that an editor could even remove two of them on the grounds of WP:CITETRIM, and he/she was probably right to do so.
There have been dubious editors on both sides of the AFD debate; some of these have been blocked for sock/meat puppetry. Personally I wish a checkuser could be run on every account/IP address that participated in this AFD, as I am sure it would catch a few more. In addition, there is an editor on each side whose activity on Wikipedia consists mainly of participating in AFDs or editing articles subject to AFDs. The pro-deletion sockpuppets argued that there was no evidence of not significant coverage; this was untruthful. There is an argument that Shafiq's companies used press releases - and the Indian/Pakistan press used these to write articles (just like Western newspapers use press releases from government organisations and from companies). There is nothing wrong with the press receiving press releases, doing some fact checking and then using information from the press releases.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Toddy1 Personally I wish a checkuser could be run on every account/IP address that participated in this AFD, as I am sure it would catch a few more. this is pretty gross and egregious and I'd expect an editor of your tenure to WP:AGF. The implication here that anyone beyond blocked sock puppets are participating in some nefarious game is pretty disgusting on all counts. CUPIDICAE💕 21:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Strongly supporting the the comment of TheAafi. –Kammil ⟨talk⟩ 05:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I strongly support to keep this article live as the subject is covered in various reliable sources. The article was even on DYK section. An article that was in the Main page section of Wikipedia must be enough notable, as it made its way there, I wonder why is this discussion going on. I also came across a delete comment from a user who forgot to sign the comment. Peerzada Mohammad Iflaq (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must be deleted. I strongly support to delete this article . Because it like to be promotional. I follow up this person and find he use this wiki page for verifying social media. Is a simple thing is notable for news reference? Beside wikipedia should not promote any thing like that, which break countries law. . Do something by keeping national thing first.Some person acted like they connect to this article in any condition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.127.95.163 (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that Hums4r has been globally locked for xwiki spamming on multiple accounts. CUPIDICAE💕 17:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most indicative thing here is the wording repeated across multiple sources, which makes me think they were PR-campaigned articles—every single source that was published in 2017 seems to be a part of this. Just look at how many have incredibly similarly worded paragraphs on how they "learnt HTML tags by himself at the age of 11". The rest of the articles look similarly spammy, often with dubious red flags like image credits being from "special arrangement". The only source that could really possibly be considered reliable would be to Vice and Business Insider, neither of which are terrible good. The BI article also looks to be a part of the PR campaign due to its content. I'd encourage the participants to throughly read through some of the sources listed, as they all appear to be very sub-par. Perryprog (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my several previous analysis of the sources - this is a stellar PR job, but ultimately unencyclopedic as it's not organic coverage (it's paid for) and are regurgitated press releases and user submissions to shady media outlets. CUPIDICAE💕 19:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Shafiq is promoting himself, but so do many other people. If India Today, The Economic Times, The Times of India,[20] The Nation (Pakistan), Vice India, and Ravi Agrawal are all shady sources that publish for pay then we'd best bulk delete most articles about India and Pakistan. For the esports story there was an Agence France-Presse newswire,[21] which is how many stories find their way into the media. Fences&Windows 12:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fences and windows Actually, most Indian (and Pakistani) news sources indeed do exactly that, which is why a lot of them aren't regarded as reliable sources (the Times of India failed a discussion at RSN and editors are advised against using it, also see The_Times_of_India#Paid_news). Having said that, your link looks like an actual story as opposed to advertorial. Black Kite (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you're talking about this, Black Kite, that appears (to me) to be a regurgitated press release as opposed to organic journalism, which is par for the course for TOI. CUPIDICAE💕 14:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fences and windows, I trust @Praxidicae's judgement on sources & tbh I think I trust them on this also. @Black Kite is also apt when they say most Indian sources do just that(I would know, I’ve lived in India and I’m part Indian) The aforementioned sources you listed save for TOI are actually regarded to as reliable sources in India but we must keep in mind that reliable sources and reliable pieces aren’t one and the same & reliable sources also publish unreliable pieces(more prevalent in Nigeria though where I reside currently). Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have just removed a "Keep" !vote from the page as I have indefinitely blocked the user for threats against others, and attacking an editor who has commented "Delete" here. Black Kite (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The article has completely advertising taste and no doubt it’s a part pf a PR work. I checked the Zeyan Shafiq’s Social Media platforms and found that the article is a paid edit. Because on 14th January the user User:Fences_and_windows moved the Draft:Zeyan Shafiq from Draft space to main space. On the same date after the article done he posted screenshot of Wikipedia article on his story on Facebook. Also yesterday their Facebook page Stalwarts eSports connecting Stalwart Esports got verified and he shared it on his Facebook account. In my conclusion both of these Article Zeyan Shafiq and Stalwart Esports are well planned PR paid edit for social media branding and advertising. Also the edit history of both articles looks spam Ravishingstar (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I want to keep some question
1.If any one open a esports team which not yet participate in any notable competitive game even not win a compitision how may it notable?
2.If i issue some paid or free pr or news in this simple thing is it notable?
3.If everyone start to do this cheap thing like zeyan for verifying their social account in future it could be more bad.
4. If one create a app seeing youtube cheap course he is not a web develoer or else respective member said zeyan.
5.Last month i crate a video chatting app if i submit some news article by paying money can I will be eligible for wiki page.That's nit fair with the greatest person of the earth because :Wikipedia is the place where great people get approved.
Do something like this cheap thing.
In pubg championship many indian team won and perticipate but they don’t di this types of thing for social handle verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.127.95.163 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added multiple more reliable source references to the Zeyan Shafiq as per WP:RS and WP:BLPRS and WP:SIGCOV. It should meet the basic WP:GNG to fit in. Regarding paid release, Indian articles usually copy from other sources and post them. They're not likely to be paid and all the Paid Releases usually come with warning's or are labelled as brand posts so doesn't look like paid releases but they can be removed and the article could be edited accordingly and saved. Also via talk page this article has been nominated for DYK and shouldn't be removed on the basis of unreliable sources rather should be edited and those Unreliable sources should be removed or used as primary references to enrich the article. Subject's work has been widely covered as well can be checked by simple search over google. The esport organisation has been in print/TV news for their collaboration. I'm posting this to save the article because this AfD has been influenced by Bad-faith votes and Rivalry. If required I'll remove the unreliable sources. 2409:4050:E9B:4CE2:495C:1A7D:80DB:8083 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to redact your egregious personal attack, read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. CUPIDICAE💕 21:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attacks i just replied with my knowledge of organic/reliable and paid sources, why did you think it wasn't in good faith and it was a personal attack? Let the closing admin and the community decide and my response wasn't for anyone specifically it was general for the Closing admin.2409:4050:E9B:4CE2:495C:1A7D:80DB:8083 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Praxidicae. Your comment "this AfD has been influenced by Bad-faith votes and Rivalry" is at odds with WP:AGF towards other editors. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Commissioned sources are, at best, primary sources and as this is a biography such sources are pretty much worthless for anything. Whether or not the outlet has EiCs that do their job and disclose the paid-for articles is immaterial; if it's a commissioned article being cited for a biography, it needs to hit the bricks. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 01:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is this «notable for more than one thing - starting KashBook and Stalwart eSports»? Really? Perhaps the leading paragraph should mention what these two things are, concisely, then? In the current revision I am not convinced that the notability criteria are met. --Gryllida (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just dropping in to add that there is at least one reliable source: India Connected: How the Smartphone Is Transforming the World's Largest Democracy, a book published by Oxford University Press, that acknowledges the significant attention Shafiq received. It does so in this line: That evening, I met Zeyan Shafiq, who had become something of a tech celebrity in Kashmir. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment: This is WP:BLP1E, He can’t be notable just because of one event that has happened years ago. The reason for not voting Del is to confirm:- Since Kashbook has had extensive coverage, does it qualify as notability? Can someone explain? -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 16:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep or weak keep few sources about e-sport work , so isn't BLP1E. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 19:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge the biography for which it has received media attention is Kashbook (a non notable app with no historical records and popularity). The available sources do not discuss the app or its developer(s) independently, but they have covered Censorship in Kashmir for which the app has received media coverage. In general terms, it fails to satisfy WP:NSOFT and WP:BIO. None of the sources discuss the subject separate from government bans. I would also suggest merge the article to Censorship in Kashmir. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep requires some writing.looks to meet wp:gng wp:rs easily with many secondary sources,books and was on main page as per talk page.also wp:atd says if editing can improve the page,it should be edited rather then deleted. ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep under criterion 4, and there are enough arguments from banned editors here to make a consensus difficult if not impossible not to determine. There is no prejudice against speedy renomination if an editor in good standing wishes to renominate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes Public School and Junior College, Kottayam

Lourdes Public School and Junior College, Kottayam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass criteria set forward by WP:NSCHOOL. Not even a good reference. Bornfromashes (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2021 striking blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy makes a good point. I have struck my vote. This was created by a prolific vandal and we should not be encouraging their behaviour. If this school is to be deleted, the discussion should be started by a good faith editor, not someone with a clear COI who has had multiple accounts blocked for promoting a rival school to this one. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This has been a long running discussion - over five weeks now, though not many contributors, and little clear evidence of consensus. There are six !votes for delete, mostly citing guidelines or policies such as NLIST, NOTSTATS, FANCRUFT. There are seven !votes for keep, though the reasons vary. Three are in the form of "I like it", so hold little weight. Three point to the existence of FL as a reason to keep, though that in itself is not a convincing argument, and tends to fall in the "I like it camp". But one keep !vote, that of Deus et lex, directly challenges the assumptions of the delete !voters that the NOTSTAT policy cited is actually relevant to the articles listed. Though it is one vote, it is very convincing rationale. The arguments citing previous AfDs are not that useful as some article-lists were kept, while others were deleted. Each AfD should be taken on its own merits. The deciding argument that is left is if the lists meet WP:NLIST. And I note that the most recent discussions focus on this aspect. NLIST requires that the list topic be "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" - and it is emphasised that individual items on the list do not need formal citing for meeting the requirements as long as there is evidence from reliable sources that the set criteria itself has been defined by reliable sources. There is an argument that the lists do not meet this criteria, and a counter argument that the list do meet the criteria. On being asked to provide evidence that the lists are appropriately cited, there was response that there would be books that did provide such evidence. But the evidence itself was not provided. I checked the sourcing in some articles and agree with the argument that evidence has not been provided that reliable sources have discussed the criteria of five wickets taken in one innings on a particular ground. There are stats and occasional articles which provide evidence that five wickets were taken on a particular ground, but none of the ones I checked discussed that as a defining set, such as "this is the seventh time that there has been a five wicket haul on this ground". Given that there were two !votes and a solid argument put forward for the lists not meeting WP:NLIST, and that this argument was not adequately met by those wishing to keep, this is a delete decision. However, as the subject of merging the information into existing articles was proposed and not objected to, I will temporarily userfy any article on request to allow the contents to be merged into an appropriate article. SilkTork (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Irish cricket grounds

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Irish cricket grounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In continuation of previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at Carisbrook where we developed a clear consensus that such lists are not required as they fail WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Bellerive Oval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Australian cricket grounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Bangladeshi cricket grounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on English cricket grounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Indian cricket grounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Kenyan cricket grounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on New Zealand cricket grounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Pakistani cricket grounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Emirati cricket grounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on South African cricket grounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Zimbabwe cricket grounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on West Indies cricket grounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Sri Lankan cricket grounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Bangabandhu National Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Zahur Ahmed Chowdhury Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Green Park Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Punjab Cricket Association IS Bindra Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. Chinnaswamy Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Carisbrook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Seddon Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Dubai International Cricket Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Sheikh Zayed Cricket Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Sharjah Cricket Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Centurion Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Asgiriya Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at R. Premadasa Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Pallekele International Cricket Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Galle International Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket centuries on Indian cricket grounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket centuries at the Daren Sammy Cricket Ground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket centuries at the R. Premadasa Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket five wicket hauls at Multan Cricket Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international five wicket hauls at Arbab Niaz Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international five wicket hauls at Sardar Patel Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international cricket centuries at Iqbal Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international five wicket hauls at Iqbal Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks. Störm (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedurally I'd like to see List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at McLean Park (a featured list) and List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Lord's added to this list. If we agree to delete these lists then I think we need to agree to delete the featured ones and the Lord's one - unless someone can make a case for Lord's as an exception (which I think is doable fwiw). I've edited all of these lists extensively but have no great attachment either way to them - but if we're going to call these non-notable then we need to call all of them non-notable or make a decision as to where the notability lies.
I'd also point to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve from 2019 and the related discussions here, here and here - all on the same archive page confusingly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't we deal with those first? If those articles - particularly McLean Park - can become a featured list then any of these can. In fact, many are in a very similar state. Don't be scared of including a featured list first - if the idea of these lists isn't notable then the featured lists aren't notable either. Lord's you can argue about separately, I agree, because of the nature of the ground. There may be other grounds where this applies - SCG, MCG etc... - but not McLean. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Square Thing has basically said the same thing as I said on a previous AfD page, where do we draw the line on notability? There probably needs to be a consensus on whether there's a way we can keep and work on these lists to fall in line with the WPs or whether we should delete all of these types of lists, as I don't understand why some should stay and some should go. Also going to ping in Lugnuts who works a lot on WP:Cricket pages. Joalhe1997 (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. The fact that a similar, as BST highlights, is a Featured List, gives hope that ALL of these lists could become FL too. All of the articles I've got to FL status are in the same ballpark (see top of my userpage), so I'd support a Keep for these, as they all have WP:POTENTIAL. Worst case is that if someone wants to work on a specific list, they can get it restored (to their userspace) via WP:REFUND and work on polishing it up to a FL standard. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to mixed consideration at the moment, (currently) somewhat focusing on whether the existence of certain exceptions undermines the general reasoning proposed in the test case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should formally say that I would suggest keep for now, on the grounds that some of these lists are pretty close to the same standard as featured lists. I would have no problem at all if one of the FL were put forward for deletion to determine whether or not we should consider these articles to be suitable in terms of notability or not. I'd be happy to treat Lord's, the MCG and SCG as cases separate beyond that, but I think we'd be better off trying to decide if we consider any other articles in this series to be notable or not first.
There's a little too much range in the bundle for me to feel confident of any choice to delete as well - there are centuries articles and ones that should clearly be merged (Green Park, for example) as well as lists by ground and lists by country. For me that's rather too many things to try to decide on in one bundle if I'm honest. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Störm (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No point in deleting these articles / lists. One could debate them at an aggregate (across all sports, not just cricket and bowling), but, I do not see an issue in keeping. Value from these articles is nett positive, even if the magnitude is limited. Keep. Ktin (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Consistent with the previous AFDs, these are not meaningful ways to categorize such statistics. Just because similar articles are FL does not give immunity to these, nor do even the FLs have any sort of immunity. The FLC process tends to be based on the article's quality as it appears and is not necessarily a statement that the topic's notability or encyclopedic-ness overrides other discussions. Reywas92Talk 22:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - for a number of reasons: 1. the previous AfD does not establish some sort of precedent for every page - I note these discussions have been dominated by users such as Störm and Ajf773 who take particularly strong views (and in my view often incorrect, if you read previous AfDs) on the use of cricket statistics in articles, and I note the previous discussion wasn't properly shared with relevant deletion-discussion lists (particularly country-related ones) which would enable a broader range of users to have input (like this AfD does). It appears that a view has been taken that the individual AfD should be used as some sort of RfC for whether these types of statistics are notable or not - that isn't the case and it doesn't accord with Wikipedia policy on what AfDs are to be used for, there should be a RfC or broader discussion on the relevant WikiProject where proper consensus and consultation is done if that is to be the case; 2. The pages are NOT a violation of WP:NOTSTATS - that requires excessive lists of indiscriminate statistics, but 5 wicket hauls and centuries at particular grounds are, in many cases, things that have been covered by other independent sources, so they're not indiscriminate (also taking into account lists of centuries and 5-wicket hauls are fairly limited), and they're not excessive - the argument that they are just Cricinfo mirrors is simply not correct (and the Featured List articles metioned above prove that point); 3. The point about the articles being able to be improved is a valid and relevant point; 4. Even if (contrary to everything I have already said) there is a consensus that stand-alone articles shouldn't exist, none of the arguments put by the proponents of deletion show that it's not inappropriate to merge to the relevant cricket ground etc. articles that would override Wikipedia policy on alternatives to deletion - in the context of articles that are largely prose text, statistics about 5-wicket hauls and centuries (the summary achievements in a match for a bowler and batter respectively) are not inappropriate or indiscriminate and also don't violate WP:NOTSTATS. The mass nomination here, while in good faith and to avoid the mess of recent AfDs on individual batsmen and bowler centuries and 5-wicket hauls, doesn't give users the proper ability to analyse each article to determine the appropriateness of another option before deletion is able to be considered. All of the above show that these should be kept; if there are inappropriate entries in the above list, reasons should be put forward specifically on those pages to show why they are inappropriate. Deus et lex (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - there is something about cricket and cricket fans that leads to this kind of "cruft". I do not think any other sports goes to this level of detail. --Bduke (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People will find this valuable. Nexus000 (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep arguments are all very week and classic arguments to avoid but I don’t think we should delete all many articles without a stronger consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa there. My argument here is that the list of articles presented is far too diverse to be able to come to a conclusion here. There's nothing wrong with that argument. As I've argued above, this should probably be a keep and then I'd be very happy to see a proper debate on List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at McLean Park. If we can reach a consensus there that articles of that type are not notable, then we can move on from that. I've also listed three previous discussions where articles such as this were discussed and a consensus was reached that they are notable. I'm not sure that's a "weak" argument and one that could be considered one to avoid. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with @Blue Square Thing: here, @Spartaz: -- I think it's unfair to just write off some pretty valid comments made by users here and call them "weak", which have been made by reference to Wikipedia policy (including that a mass deletion doesn't take into account the diversity of articles, the fact that the articles don't in fact violate WP:NOTSTATS (despite the often-repeated claim that they do - and this has been accepted and has been the consensus of other users and closers in other AfDs), and the existence of appropriate merge or redirect targets for some of these articles (WP:ATD). I've also explained elsewhere that for some of these types of articles (lists of five-wicket hauls and centuries) have been the subject of independent coverage outside of Cricinfo. I don't have the time to research individual articles to find further sources given the large number up for AfD here but it's worth noting that. I think at best you can say there isn't consensus to delete at present. Deus et lex (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, similar lists for players are regularly deleted, redirected, or merged despite having featured lists. If we have featured lists that doesn't mean we can't delete other lists as these featured lists were promoted by specific mindset of people (I have no doubt that if we again discuss these lists will be demoted) who consider ESPNCricinfo and CricketArchive as secondary sources which they are not (they are database websites). Secondly, lists should meet WP:NLIST and their table are full of WP:NOTSTATS so aren't any useful. Störm (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should be clear that: a) the bundle here is mainly five-wicket hauls, not centuries - similar, but different; b) I've changed my mind and would now make the same points about centuries. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Störm:, I've already raised why you can't treat some of the other discussions as precedent, when (for example) some of them weren't brought to the attention of appropriate WikiProject Deletion Sorting lists, and the fact that they don't set a "precedent" as such - if you want to do that, the appropriate course is an RfC. Deus et lex (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: Per the previous AFDs, this is an arbitrary way to group, not supported by RS, and does not meet LISTN. The keep comments do not address guidelines that have been mentioned, and provide no sources or guidelines that support their position.  // Timothy :: talk  10:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment TimothyBlue, have you even read the lengthy replies that @Blue Square Thing: and I have raised? The articles are already sourced externally so that isn't true. Grouping centuries or five-wicket hauls at particular grounds is not "arbitrary" and has been covered in external sources in many cases - cricket statistics frequently reference centuries and five-wicket hauls. I'm not sure how they violate WP:LISTN, but you can't just assert it, you need to argue why. There are plenty of good, policy-based arguments about why the mass deletion of these articles is inappropriate. At worst they should be merged or redirected, because you're required to show that isn't inappropriate BEFORE deleting. No one has done that. The prior AfDs are NOT a precedent and should not be used as a quasi-RfC. These articles must be considered on their own merits, and as a group it is inappropriate to delete them. If there's a problem with a particular one then raise it, othewise it's just vague reasons given for deletion of all of them, and that's not the right outcome. Deus et lex (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deus et lex Please pick any article of your choice (in order to prove) and show reliable secondary sources where they discuss the centuries/fifers as a group (I have searched for all of them and they all fail WP:LISTN). But, if you can't, then don't brag about it as keep voters arguments don't make sense (Spartaz was right what they said). Störm (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Störm - did you check largely offline sources such as Wisden? Books featuring the history of particular cricket grounds that discuss centuries or 5-fors made at those grounds? Including for the Featured Articles? And even if you're right, none of that means a merge or a redirect isn't appropriate. There are some entirely valid arguments for keeping these articles that are grounded in Wikipedia policy, as Blue Square Thing and I have mentioned. The mass nomination should not have been made. It's trying to set an RfC-like argument, it doesn't give editors the proper opportunity to look up what sources might be available, and doesn't distinguish properly between the particular articles. I'm not "bragging", just trying to show up the ill-thought out reasons for deletion by editors who are obsessed with removing cricket statistic articles. Deus et lex (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 10:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Sikha

AfDs for this article:
Satish Sikha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable -- the references are PR, and so is the doctorate from non-notable university DGG ( talk ) 09:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
both those references are promotional interviews, the sort of interview where the interviewer asks leading questions, and the subject of the interview says whatever they please about themselves. We have for several years realized that these are not independent sources in any real sense--the paper simply prints whatever the subject (or the subject's PR people) tell it. Even otherwise good papers do this, and it essentially means we cannot trust as independent sources anything in a news source which does not clearly indicate independent reporting with editorial control. Even the NYT does this sort of promotion and even more blatant choice of products to include in its style pages. It always did, but they're harder to distinguish in the online version. To the extent they show anything at all, they show the work of the press agent. DGG ( talk ) 09:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:55, 25 February 2021 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Moore Vidyapith, Cherthala

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 procedural keep. Nominator blocked, no-one advocating for deletion, and improvements to the article render this discussion moot. Daniel (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avantika Hundal

Avantika Hundal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lack of reliable references which are independent of the subject. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG LucyLucy (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Nominator was also blocked as a sock. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roma Arora

Roma Arora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Resources are not enough to justify notability of the subject. LucyLucy (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chriselle Almeida

Chriselle Almeida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lack of significant and reliable resources that are independent of the subject. LucyLucy (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was able to find and add sources (in addition to what was already in the article about her starring role in a film) that indicate she has starred in two films and had what appears to be a substantial role in another film, in addition to her notable television appearance. Per WP:NACTOR, she appears to have had "significant roles" in multiple productions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shubhi Ahuja

Shubhi Ahuja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References do not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. LucyLucy (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niketa Agrawal

Niketa Agrawal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lack of independent and reliable references, fails Notability. LucyLucy (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD vacated due to sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 1. Daniel (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Astha Agarwal

Astha Agarwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. LucyLucy (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chettinad Group

Chettinad Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references to establish company notability. Advertisement. External links. Timberlack (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was weak keep. Daniel (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Induna.com

Induna.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. Timberlack (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A notable E-commerce / Online retailer of India, was launched long time back. Removed dead links and updated active links. Rajeshbieee (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salil Singhal

AfDs for this article:
Salil Singhal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Timberlack (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The account was created shortly before adding this vote. RationalPuff (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naman Y. Goyal

AfDs for this article:
Naman Y. Goyal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do not show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:RS Timberlack (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't soft delete since it survived its first AfD. Nom has been blocked as a sock anyway, so one relist for good-faith commentary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Freight Index in India

National Freight Index in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are not good enough. Fails GNG Jenyire2 06:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 06:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thilakam (2002 film)

Thilakam (2002 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG as nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE that I can find. PROD was removed with "de-prod. There are a lot of false positives for this name, but seems sufficiently notable not to go for prod" Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 22:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Obviously this is not the most notable subject in the encyclopedia, but after much-extended time for discussion, consensus is that it falls just above the scraping-the-barrel line. BD2412 T 05:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ayodhya

Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ayodhya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced article that doesn't meet WP:ORG, WP:SCHOOL. Google search didn't return a single independent source. RationalPuff (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my understanding is that sources for degree-awarding colleges can usually be found. I'm not finding anything myself, but perhaps someone fluent in Hindu or Urdu would be able to find something. I'd frankly be quite surprised if there really was nothing online. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be surprised if there was nothing on line, but also note that sources do not need to be online, they just need to be reliable, secondary and independent. Having seen today multiple articles on vocational colleges in the US that lack any source beyond their own website, I am not as sure as I once was that sourcing on all tertiary institutions is easy to find. Although I did no searches just moved on after adding a founding date category to those pages, so for all I know it is really easy to find sources and the article creator was lazy. My current example of this is that Dallin H. Oaks lacks any sources on his bio for the first 2 years it existed, and it has never been hard to find sources on Oaks. I still think we need to use a broader array of sources on Oaks' time as BYU presdient, but it has always been possible to find sources on him. Well, at any time after 1970.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution, as per-- User:Necrothesp There appears to be a disturbing trend that South Asian sites are nominated before any research has been done in Urdu, Tamil of Hindi, or in this case deletions are proposed quoting policys or essays that just don't apply. ClemRutter (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Degree awarding institute in India acceptable. Niceguylucky (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Unfortunately the article creator has been in the habit of creating new articles, getting them past draft, then adding promotional content. I have just blocked him temporarily for spamming - he's had plenty of warnings. Maybe it would be a good idea to draftify. Deb (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep accredited school, although sources light, it meets guidelines. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" votes suggest sources do exist without clearly supporting that view. Relisting to determine if a clearer consensus and notability can be determined.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Something of a close call, but there seems to be a consensus that he doesn't meet GNG such that subordinate notability guidelines are less relevant. Go Phightins! 20:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwas Patel

Vishwas Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of the chairman of a national body. The trouble is I’m not seeing any in depth coverage and I don’t think the awards are notable. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete , rather weakly, but a consensus does exist. No prejudice towards recreation (including any other administrator undeleting this article and draftifying) if the state of play changes. Daniel (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Kumar Chaturvedi

Santosh Kumar Chaturvedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the published work by the subject does not seems to have significant impact on the field of study. The subject has won some non notable awards. But he does not have recieved independent coverage from multiple sources to establish notability hence fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 Discuss 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While he's a bit above average in a few criteria in his field*, there's nothing demonstrating an exceptional career or scholarly impact.
*criteria

I compiled the average total citations, total pubs, h-index, highest citation, and highest first-author citation for Chaturvedi and ~100 of his coauthors (with more than 30 papers--people publish in this field a lot).
Total cites: avg: 2669, Chaturvedi: 2366.
Total pubs: avg: 94, C: 264.
h-index: avg: 18, C: 24.
Highest cite: avg: 351, C: 113.
Highest first-author cite: avg: 95, C: 87.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Passing WP:GNG isn't a requirement, as WP:NPROF may be the relavent criteria here. As per JoelleJay's analysis, I'm not convinced is suitably notable though. Might be some reviews of the recent books in due course, but perhaps too soon for that to be grounds for notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:JoelleJay, Inorder to pass WP:NPROF, the subject must satisfy atleast any of the 8 criterias mentioned there. I dont see he has passed any of that. His contribution doesnot seem to have made an impact in the field of study. Also he is not a winner of any notable awards. Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 17:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kichu, yep, I should have clarified that the criteria I was assessing were for NPROF C1, which seemed to be the NPROF criterion he was most likely to pass (but I don't think he does). JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 07:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 11:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Institute of Technology

Bharat Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of nobility. Completely unsourced and promotional article. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:ORG RationalPuff (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support 100% self-published sources Abcmaxx (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep a notable Engineering college which is affiliated to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. Niceguylucky (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify:Sources are not available and the present ones are self published hence definetly fails GNG. But the subject is a notable educational institute which lacks sources to establish notability. So moving to draft is recommended as interested users can work on the subject after finding suitable references of any kind. Kichu🐘 Discuss 10:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 20:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, leaning towards delete. Yashvash60, could you provide evidence that this instituition is particularly old (especially since it claims to be founded in 2001) or notable, therefore making it wp:NSCHOOL? I tried but I can't find any evidence of that by myself. Necrothesp, I do see that it awards degrees, but from what I can tell, their degrees are mostly trade certifications/industry group certifications, ie [amazon web services]] certified user, etc. There are many instituitions that grant these degrees, and I don't believe that any of them are by themselves notable per wp:NSCHOOL. I would appreciate your thoughts. Warmest regards, BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 03:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Changed my !vote to delete - searching for the instituition by name doesn't even show any coverage in newspapers or review journals. I can't imagine how a tertiary institution that succeeds under GNG or NSCHOOl could possibly have 0 coverage in unconnected sources. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 03:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled by what you mean. The article lists plenty of degrees up to PhD level! We have always kept degree-awarding institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Necrothesp, could you point out where it says that this institution grants research PhDs? From what I can tell, the closest thing they offer is a DPharm, which is certainly a professional degree, not a research degree. Warmly, BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 13:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The school also offers a Ph.D (Doctor of Philosophy)... But in any case, professional degrees are as valid as general degrees. They are not simply "trade certifications/industry group certifications" as you allege above, but degrees! According to the article, it grants BTech, BPharm, MPharm, MCA, MBA and PhD. Every one of those is a recognised degree, not a trade certification. These (plus others) are confirmed by the college's website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see the article makes such a claim, but the present website for the instituition has dropped that claim: [29]. At any rate, granting of degrees doesn't necessarily mean it will survive under GNG - pre wp:schooloutcomes, the most important thing that saves an instituition's notability is substantial secondary source coverage - which I simply haven't found evidence for. Warmly, BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 15:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Likely to be back at AFD if sources aren't incorporated soon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mridula Vijay

Mridula Vijay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

there is no reference that she played a significant role in listed productions joxinmcdaniel (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2.https://english.mathrubhumi.com/movies-music/movie-news/tv-stars-mridula-vijay-yuva-krishna-to-enter-wedlock-movie-1.5299849 3.https://malayalam.indianexpress.com/television/mridula-vijay-yuva-krishna-star-magic-video-451944/

These are only some sources I would like to attach here to establish the subject's notability. Its clear from the sources that the subject is a major actress in malayalam serial industry and has also appeared in some tamil movies. Source no 3 specificaly mentions that The actress is famous for appearing in several number of TV serials and shows. She is also a notable model and dancer as per the sources .Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 13:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 08:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Dia (film). While keep participants argue for notability, no policy/guideline compliant sources or criteria are mentioned. Redirecting as an alternative to deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kushee Ravi

Kushee Ravi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was previously AFD'ed and deleted for not satisfying WP:NACTOR. The subject has since worked in two films which have not been released yet. So its pretty much WP:TOOSOON for an article to be considered. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not have the multiple significant roles in notable productions we require as a minimum to show an actress is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Not Be Deleted the subject has been notable in the south Indian film industry. Very strong references have also been submitted to justify the claims. The subject's released films maybe just one at this point in time but she is in the limelight and working on a couple of films with renowned production houses. The strong references have been submitted to justify that as well. User:rangasn (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2021 (IST)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 19:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must Not Be Deleted Or Redirected The title looks to be notable in their respective field. The latest edit also shows that the individual has received some awards & accolades recently. It again proves the individual is actively involved in their respective field. The title deserves to be in the encyclopedia. User:Subashini_srini (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2021 (IST)
  • Keep has some good reliable sources, can be edited.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Goenka

AfDs for this article:
Bharat Goenka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable businessman who fails WP:BASIC, WP:BIO. Merely on the basis of awards nobility can't be established. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are multiple references in the article, many in languages I don't read/speak, the argument by the nom is very week based on existing references. Is this a drive by nomination, or does the nom have a point? I don't know, but a better argument the explains why those references don't meet WP:GNG would make for a more effective AFD, also addressing what is different between now and the AFD the resulted in Keep Jeepday (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus unclear. The comment appears to lean keep, while the keep vote is weak.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 February 2021 (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.

Proposed deletions

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Redirects for deletion

MFD discussion debates

Other deletion discussions

  1. ^ "Salesforce On The Breach: Consumers Fight Back After Their Data Was Sold On The Dark Web". Epiq Angle. Retrieved 22 February 2021.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/India&oldid=1009173801"