Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India

Shortcuts

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:

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.
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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Should you have India related questions, ask at, Notice board for India-related topics.

See also: Points to remember when debating in India related deletion discussions.
Note: AnomieBOT removes and archives closed debates from this page a few times a day, so there is no need to manually remove such pages.
Deletion sorting by state or union territory:
- Andhra Pradesh
- Arunachal Pradesh
- Assam
- Bihar
- Chhattisgarh
- Delhi
- Goa
- Gujarat
- Haryana
- Himachal Pradesh
- Jammu and Kashmir
- Jharkhand
- Karnataka
- Kerala
- Ladakh
- Madhya Pradesh
- Maharashtra
- Manipur
- Meghalaya
- Mizoram
- Nagaland
- Odisha
- Punjab
- Rajasthan
- Sikkim
- Tamil Nadu
- Telangana
- Tripura
- Uttarakhand
- Uttar Pradesh
- West Bengal

India

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haritha Gogineni

AfDs for this article:

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

Topic is not meeting WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 07:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Macbeejack ☎ 07:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails notability guidelines at WP:PRODUCER/WP:DIRECTOR. Redtree21 (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Redtree21, a search for coverage of her in reliable secondary sources in English and Telugu (హరిత గోగినేని) turned up only passing mentions and the usual Tollywood PR mill. At the last AFD, she had produced Lucky Lakshman. Now she's also directed Fear, which appears to still be in post-production. That's about it. Wikishovel (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC),[reply]
Delete. Not regarded well known who has produced a significant or well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent articles and reviews. There is not much on her in independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly failed WP:N, also WP:THREE. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Producers are totally run of the mill, and are not automatically notable, so the usual WP:SIGCOV, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:BLP apply. Arguably, the subject is notable because of two stories in the Times of India, a paper of record, but they are essentially interviews. I'm not convinced this is notable, but an argument could be made. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. For editors who object to Deletion, it all comes down to policy and having multiple, independent, secondary sources providing significant coverage. The same as every other article on the project. You can always work on a better sourced version in Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vishuddhananda Paramahansa

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, specifically WP:GNG's WP:SIGCOV aspect and has never been reliably sourced since it was first created in 2015. While some attempts have been made, no edits have stuck due to unreliable sources (blogs or wikiclones that clearly sourced past versions of this page which again, offered no reliable sources). Zinnober9 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Hinduism. Zinnober9 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to have a website and several facebook pages, about the extent of coverage I see for this person. Not meeting notability with a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable independent sources are found in Bengali or other languages.Mccapra (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page and simple search brings up blogs and Facebook pages. No independent reliable source I can find that can run parallel with what's on the page. Page fails notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete this page. He is a great spiritual master and was extremely influential in his era and has done huge amounts of service to humanity. We will update the page soon with all details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.47.72 (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After removal of CV, there is effectively nothing remaining. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 22:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont delete this page. Vishudhananda Paramhanshaji is a Jesus Christ like figure among his his followers. Below are some credible links that support his existence and contribution:-

Credible news reposts like indiatimes have quoted and acknowledged his contribution

1) Refer the below link in Hindi

https://www.indiatimes.com/hindi/trending/human-interest/gyanganj-math-land-of-immortal-mysterious-places-in-himalaya-614266.html

2) refer chapter 5 of this book 184.19.192.234 (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. AfD is not a place for accusing others of being Sockspuppets. I am closing as no-consensus due to the lack of policy-based discussion about the article. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Haidru (1828)

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete or redirect to Military campaigns of Hari Singh Nalwa. Out of the 5 sources on this page, only 2 are reliable; Hari Ram Gupta and Rishi Singh. The two other sources: "Journal of the United Service Institution of India" as well as "Selections from the records of the government of Punjab" are WP:RAJ era sources written in the 1800s, so under no circumstances can we use them. The last source is a Google books snapshot with no preview available either on Google books or anywhere else on the Internet. Such snapshots have been deprecated in the reliable sources noticeboard.

The coverage in both Hari Ram Gupta's and Rishi Singh's work, the extent of which are only small, singular paragraphs does not justify an entire Wikipedia article and fails Wikipedia's standards for notability-[1] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Islam, Sikhism, and Pakistan. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: if an event has 2 reliable independent sources with significant coverage that is enough to presume notability per GNG. I don't see what the issue is here. I'd also note that WP:RAJ is just an essay and that it refers to the use of certain Raj-era sources to source content on the caste system. It does not mean that all such sources are can never be used for anything.

Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Jtrrs0:, I think there's a misunderstanding, the two reliable sources (Hari Rm Gupta and Rishi Singh) do not have significant coverage, hence my nomination for deletion. Both sources only have one small, vague paragraph that provides no in-depth details about the battle.

Here is what Hari Ram Gupta says of the battle: "Having failed at Peshawar, Sayyid Ahmad planned to seize Attock fort from the Sikhs. Its possession by him would automatically clear Hazara and Peshawar from the Sikhs, and it would open the gateway for the invasion of the Panjab. Khadi Khan of Hund secretly alerted the Sikh commander of the fort, and the plan fell through. Sayyid Ahmad, in anger attacked the village Haidru, and put to the sword all the inhabitants, both Hindus and Muslims. On hearing this news Hari Singh Nalwa suddenly appeared on the scene and massacred nearly three-fourths of Khalifa's Ghazis. Sayyid Ahmad managed to escape to the west of the Indus."

Rishi Singh says: "It appears that even when he seemed successful, Syed Ahmad began losing his control over the tribal leadership. Many tribal chiefs began betraying him. For instance, at the time of taking over the fort of Attock, Khadi Khan of Hund alerted the Sikh commander, Hari Singh Nalwa, who with his 20,000 men attacked Syed Ahmad’s forces and killed three-fourths of the Khalifa’s Ghazis".

As you can see the coverage in both sources fall well short of Wikipedia's SIGCOV requirements.

The rest of the sources were published in the 1800s and are simply far too old to use. WP:RAJ is an essay, but it's essentially a de facto policy and widely accepted norm in South Asian topic areas, even outside of caste topics. You can see through the reliable sources noticeboard that WP:RAJ sources are thoroughly deprecated and disallowed on Wikipedia-[2]. @RegentsPark:, an admin involved in SA topics, could also clarify, or you could take it up with him to confirm. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the ping and the reply. I see. Re SIGCOV, I would agree. This doesn't necessarily seem like SIGCOV. Re WP:RAJ, I've had a quick glance at the discussion on the Noticeboard. To me it seems overkill to say that 1800s sources can never be used or must be used as primary sources. I accept that that should be the case re anthropological subjects but for everything? Seems excessive to me. Now, if the consensus is that they are never to be used for anything (would be grateful if RegentsPark could confirm) then I'll happily reconsider my position, but to my eyes that's excessive. Jtrrs0 (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtrrs0: I understand your concerns but sources authored in the 1800s are plain and simple not allowed in this topic area of Wikipedia. Even sources in the early 1900s are granted some leeway if they were authored by very prominent Indian historians, but the sources in this page were written British administrators in the framework of the British polity. RegentsPark has also stated: "In short, I would suggest discounting most Raj era texts regardless of who wrote them and be careful about using obscure or popular texts post-Raj. Sticking to modern academic writers is probably the safest. Context, to quote TB below, matters." and "Thanks Sitush. @Suthasianhistorian8 and Twarikh e Khalsa:, in short, the consensus is that neither McAuliffe nor Gurbilas Patashahi are reliable sources and you should not use them. In general avoid raj era sources entirely and, for historical content, use only recent sources since historiography is not static.". Keep in mind, Max Arthur MacAuliffe was a British administrator and historian who authored his works on Indian religion in 1909, the sources in this article predate that by 20 and 34 years. They're no where near being recent or modern scholarship.

Also can I assume that you have this page on your watchlist so I don't have to ping you everytime? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the in depth reply. Yes. On Watchlist. Will reply more fully tomorrow. I think I’ll be changing my position to delete. Jtrrs0 (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two reliables sources and others are all unreliable like Journal of the United Service Institution of India from 1890 and other by CAPTAIN P. L. N. CAVAGNARI, a British captain/administrator. The combination of two reliable sources by Gupta and Singh give the why, when, where and outcome of the battle, enough for passing WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: I've previously expressed concerns that RangersRus is a sockpuppet of HaughtonBrit, an incredibly pertinacious sockmaster who created dozens of sock/burner accounts ranging from early 2023 till present day, and someone who has been hounding and trying to sabotage me unceasingly since his sock accounts Javerine and Ralx888 were blocked. I most recently dealt with his sock account Dekhoaayadon who was blocked just a few days ago. His vote here is reminiscent of the frivolous arguments and WP:IDHT which HB frequently employed to frustrate me and many others to retain articles/edit which aggrandized the Sikh religion as much as possible- he is blatantly trying to sabotage me here. He has done this on 3 separate occasions. Once the current HB SPI report (which is closely linked to Dekhoaayadon) is dealt with I will ask admins to take a look at RangersRus' duck edits. Enough is enough. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Closer, this is case of WP:BULLY and revenge threat to stop me from voting. All editors have right to vote here and I have voted on AFDS by Suthasianhistorian8 before in his favor where I found the nomination to be right. When I vote against because I do not see the nomination to be right, he makes this sock threats. Suthasianhistorian8 filed SPI before for same reason that two admins @The Wordsmith: and @Drmies: found no connection [3]. Suthasianhistorian8 also filed incident of Administrator noticeboard against The Wordsmith for misunderstanding his SPI case and the incident was closed with closing statement "No consensus has or will emerge to find fault with TheWordsmith's or Drmies' SPI findings." [4]. Suthasianhistorian8 also did forum shopping and WP:OTHERPARENT to try to block me with revenge SPI case. Suthasianhistorian8 has no problem with my vote when in his favor but has one with not in his favor. RangersRus (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say to everyone involved is to wait for the SPI I will file. This time I will put much more effort into making it concise and thorough as possible; last time I made the mistake of writing things off the top of my head, I won't do that next time. Lastly, a CU check was never ran on RangersRus, only a behavioural analysis was done- HB's sock accounts like Finmas & Dazzem were previously also deemed unrelated, but were later blocked on the grounds of duck edits with HB's IPs, proxies and SPAs. Historian2325, another suspected sock account, was also checked last year and was found to be unrelated, but since then he's made numerous duck edits and will likely also be blocked. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It is not appropriate to accuse an editor of being a sockpuppet in an AFD discussion. If you have concerns, file a case at SPI. If there is no confirmation of sockpuppetry through an SPI, then you are just trying to tarnish the reputation of an editor which is a personal attack. Please conduct a discussion elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, above users are correct. Two reliables sources is enough. Definitely doesn't warrant deleting a article. Deletion nominator has behavior of targeting only Sikh victory battle articles.

UnbiasedSN (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SIGCOV. The combined coverage in both sources doesn't even exceed 200 words, and they're both virtually identical to one another.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 19:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K. R. L. Thangavel

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

Candidate for the upcoming election in India, fails WP:NPOL. No other apparent claim to notability. There has been a general consensus that Wikipedia is not a publicity forum for election candidates. AusLondonder (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Tamil Nadu. AusLondonder (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The only coverage I could find of him online in English or Tamil (கே.ஆர்.எல்.தங்கவேல்} was passing mentions of him in routine coverage of candidates, and not even an interview with him about his candidacy. Wikishovel (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Karthick (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete Karthick (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

@Iamakarthick we are all only allowed one vote. She was ^afairy 02:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of his positions nor his candidacy hold notability, and nothing substantial for sources was found on my search. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SportingFlyer T·C 16:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds Are Forever, So Are Morals

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

Primarily, this page was created by an editor who has been banned for engaging in undisclosed paid editing. Subsequently, it has been modified by a group of editors who have recently created and edited an article related to the subject, attempting to exert influence on this page and also at Solar power in India, where they were actually discovered. Conflicts of interest and undisclosed paid editing are prevalent issues across all these pages. Charlie (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and India. Charlie (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Conflict-of-interest editing isn't grounds for deleting the article itself, but for rewriting/rewording it. Deletion discussion should focus on whether it's notable per WP:NBOOK. Crystalholm (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably enough book reviews to keep it. I also find [5] and [6]. Indian Express review, which is a RS [7]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw and Keep as per the reasoning presented by Oaktree and others. COI and UPE can be addressed in alternative forums. Charlie (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) 🍪 CookieMonster 04:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Govind Dholakia

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

Does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia's Notability of Politicians guideline (WP:NPOL). Nominated to the Rajya Sabha but not elected, and has not yet taken on the role. Remaining content is promotional in nature (WP:NEWSORGINDIA), including his autobiography. Charlie (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Charlie (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Gujarat. Skynxnex (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Members-elect to an WP:NPOL-passing office pass NPOL. This source confirms he was elected. Curbon7 (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, we can make MP-elect articles per NPOL clause. Read this, Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 00:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a member-elect of the Rajya Sabha, so obviously meets WP:NPOL #1. The article needs improvement and cleaning up, not deletion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw and Keep Passes WP:NPOL criterion 1 for the member-elect. Also, the reference from The Hindu, shared by Curbon7 and added by me, satisfies the requirements of WP:THREE; which also dispelled my uncertainty regarding his appointment through election, as I had previously assumed it was merely a nomination. Charlie (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raagini Sutradhar

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

Not yet notable WP:NACTOR, only minor roles so far. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, just routine syndicated movie promotion, and a few brief articles about her wedding to a director. This Times of India article cited says she was cast in Lage Prema Nazar in 2021, but I can't find a reliable source to verify that she appeared in the released film. Unsourced claims about her early life (now removed) and improperly sourced promotional photo suggest undisclosed paid editing. Wikishovel (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, Odisha, and West Bengal. Wikishovel (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.The actress is not regarded well-known who has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent articles and reviews. Fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed WP:NACTOR, even WP:BASIC. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Tehonk (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koustav Bagchi

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

BLP of politician who has not held elected office. Coverage relates to his switch from one party to another. Article does not detail any other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. AusLondonder (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Politician left one party and joined another. This is all we know about him. Politician is not notable, significant, who has received any great attention to be recorded. Fails WP:NPOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added that he served as a congress leader. More of him is known apart from the recent switch, for instance that he was arrested previous year. I added it to the article and a bit more. More information could be found. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep due to the edits that 82.174.61.58 (talk) made I believe it might make sense to keep, but it still seems like the person might not be quite notable. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed WP:NPOL, i searched a lot, but found nothing special. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess changes to article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick Google search shows entirely nothing from Independent sources, apart from press releases. Does not convince much of WP:NPOL. -- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, NN politician, fails WP:NPOL.Sk1728 (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramco Cements

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, and India. Theroadislong (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite trying to find more sources for the article, I only found one that was useable in a sea of investment news articles and that's not nearly enough. I've added the information to the article regardless. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not enough to contemplate a separate page solely dedicated on this subject even after some changes by CommissarDoggo. I cannot find sufficient coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Per nom fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little evidence of notability. The first source is just a listing, the second is the subject's own web site, the third establishes that it moves crushed limestone from one site to another, and the fourth does not mention the subject. I've tried to find something better (though only in English-language sources), and failed. Maproom (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to establish notability; seems to have been an obvious promotion when it was first created, it's no longer promotional, but still has no reliable secondary sources. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badly fails WP:NCORP. Almost meets WP:MILL and/or WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Mairpady

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

No coverage in reliable sources. Remsense诉 23:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One source from Manglore Today looks reliable and the others are not secondary or independent but I do not find this banker notable to warrant a page on him. The person is not regarded as an important figure. I cannot find this person's work of any significant monument or widely recognized contribution. Fails WP:ANYBIO. RangersRus (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough secondary sources which go into enough detail to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and for additional reasons. This person hasn't done anything notable; there are literally thousands of similar business persons around the globe. Unless you can convince me otherwise, this has all the hallmarks of spam disguised as an article. In 2024, everyone knows, Wikipedia is not a place to post a resume. 18:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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. Nomination withdrawn following the improvements of the article. Commendable job by DareshMohan. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nangal Puthiyavargal

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

Can't find any third-party source. Fails WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Tamil Nadu. Skynxnex (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List_of_Tamil_films_of_1990#Released_films. Per nom, fails WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sources. Disappointed with this nomination please do not nominate Murali's films in future if sources exist. DareshMohan (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Per WP:HEY. Good work DareshMohan. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thanks to the improvements made and the withdrawn nomination. (Ineligible for a speedy close thanks to !vote prior to improvements.) 2pou (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Michni

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

None of the sources comply with WP:HISTRS. Rattan Singh Jaggi is a litterateur active in the Language department of his institution, with no educational background in history, and primarily specializes in the literary analysis of Sikh holy books and writing hagiographies based off them, as well as translating texts into Hindi and Punjabi. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/gurmat-scholar-dr-jaggi-chosen-for-padma-shri-8405050/ He is also used as the inline citation for the infobox which makes an astounding claim that 100 Sikhs defeated 5000 Afghans. Bobby Singh Bansal is a self proclaimed historian, with no educational training/credentials in history nor any peer reviewed books or journals or scholarly reviews of his work; his work was also self published (Hay House). The Punjabi Kosh is a vernacular source which also seems to be a hagiography. Autar Singh Sandhu is a WP:RAJ era source as it was written in 1935 and Sohan Singh Seetal is a poet and lyricist; both sources were also deprecated by an admin involved in South Asian topics. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Autar Singh Sandhu's book was explicitly deprecated by an admin here in the reliable sources noticeboard-[8]. "As Acroterion and Springee indicated, assessment of a source's reliability should take into account a multitude of factors. For example, the Nalwa book is likely an unacceptable source because of its age (1935), publisher, and lack of academic reviews and peer-reviewed articles written by its author (at least I didn't find any on a quick search). The author holding "only" an MA would be the least of the concerns because during the 1930s the PhD degree was not as well-established as it is now and many recognized experts and academics lacked it." Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Afghanistan, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After relinquishing sources that are either poor or fail WP:V and in non-english language, two sources by historians Autar Singh Sandhu and Bobby Singh Bansal look OK to me where both pass WP:HISTRS. I cannot tell if Bansal is self proclaimed historian from what little quick research I found on him. Raj era is if it's written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators. Some of these are like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. I found a source by Autar Singh Sandhu published in 1987 that too has coverage on this event on page 79 of book [9], General Hari Singh Nalwa: Builder of the Sikh Empire. Many other historians like Tahir Kamran, Ian Talbot, have depended on Autar Singh Sandhu's secondary works where they used his book General Hari Singh Nalwa: Builder of the Sikh Empire (New Delhi: Uppal Publishing House, 1987). Bobby Singh Bansal has too been depended upon by same historians and more like Himadri Banerjee and William Dalrymple, including academic professors of social sciences and Humanities, Anjali Roy and journalists like Anita Anand. RangersRus (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expected as much from you. Bobby Singh Bansal by no means passes WP:HISTRS, he has zero educational background or training in history, nor does he have any peer reviewed books or journals to his name. His books were all self published. In fact, his current profession is a city councillor. This article makes it abundantly clear that the term "historian" was a self conferred title based on interests as opposed to any educational background.

Autar Singh Sandhu did not publish any book in 1987, the Google Books link your provided is not Autar Singh Sandhu's original work, but rather a reprint by a different publisher. Google Book links are also known to be notoriously unreliable with publication dates. And it seems exceedingly unlikely that someone who wrote a book in 1935-[10], would then write another book on the same subject, 54 years later. There is hardly any information available about Autar Singh Sandhu, apart from the fact that he wrote one book in 1935 about Hari Singh Nalwa; thoroughly unreliable. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historians like Tahir Kamran, Ian Talbot, have depended on Autar Singh Sandhu's secondary works where they used his book General Hari Singh Nalwa: Builder of the Sikh Empire (New Delhi: Uppal Publishing House, 1987). Bobby Singh Bansal has too been depended upon by same historians and more like Himadri Banerjee and William Dalrymple, including academic professors of social sciences and Humanities, Anjali Roy and journalists like Anita Anand. RangersRus (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anjali Roy commented on Bansal's documentary, which was not related to historical claims, but rather on the Sikhs in Afghanistan who recently immigrated to the UK. Himadri Banarjee cited a newspaper column written by Bansal, not his books-[11]. You must also be aware that even if a source is used as reference in a reliable secondary source, it does not automatically make that source reliable by association, it must be judged on its own merits; Khafi Khan is cited hundreds of times in various books, but he cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia for example. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
don't know who Khafi Khan is but if not a secondary source or from 20th century and beyond then inarguably Khafi Khan would be unreliable but not the ones in discussion here. RangersRus (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read WP:HISTRS carefully. "Historical scholarship is generally not: Popular works that were not reviewed, especially works by journalists, or memoirs" as well the section "What is "recent" scholarship in history?". In the case of Autar Singh Sandhu, an admin has already determined that 1935 is far too old coupled with the lack of academic reviews and scholarly works by the author. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jadunath Sarkar sources are used that are as old and its because historians today depend on his secondary work and it is same case with Sandhu. RangersRus (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few cites in later books is nowhere near a mitigating factor since scholarly books cite a large corpus of all sorts of work nor does it prove that historians relied on him in any substantive manner. If that was the case, entering Autar Singh Sandhu's name on the Internet would return far more in depth details and reviews of his work as is the case for Jadunath Sarkar who has an entire Britannica article dedicated to him, as opposed to one Internet archive link to a book. If you insist he is reliable; please provide at the very least one actual scholarly review of his work or at least one other book he authored outside of Hari Singh Nalwa.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sandhu is in bibliography and notes of other historians. Maybe not wide known like Jadunath Sarkar but in wikipedia you can use scholarly works where possible and if scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works can be used. I have my vote and let's give others space to weigh in with votes too. RangersRus (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions in bibliographies is not included as a factor in WP:HISTRS, things like the educational background of the author, whether the work was published by an academic/scholarly institution, and scholarly reviews of the book (regardless of whether the source is an academic or popular work) are. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Tamil films of 1999#October — December. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mudhal Etcharikkai

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Can't find in this source. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List_of_Tamil_films_of_1999#October_—_December. Per nom, fails WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Tamil films of 1999: Film does exist but the sources aren't enough to warrant a separate article.Sk1728 (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Tamil films of 2008#July–September. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azhaipithazh

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

Cannot find reliable secondary which are needed for articles to exist. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources#Not reliable -- Filmibeat is unreliable. 2 sources about director dying. Needs 2 reliable reviews -- bharatstudent.com is likely unreliable (no link on Wikipedia). DareshMohan (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The corresponding article at ta:அழைப்பிதழ் (திரைப்படம்) has six references. You might want to add any that are from a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Tamil Nadu. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Eastmain: That page is a direct translation of the English one and does not contain any extra or reliable references. DareshMohan (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List_of_Tamil_films_of_2008#July–September. There is no coverage and reviews in reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN film with no multiple reviews from independent and notable reviewers.Sk1728 (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 19:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramm Bogadi

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

No evidence of notability. Sources are generally trivial or from social media or IMDB. Draftified twice to allow improvements to be made but returned to mainspace immediately by its author. No evidence for WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think IMDb is a trivial medium. How do you say there is no evidence of significance? Take a look at the IMDb page. I collect content from standard, official websites and wrote this article. Thelakyanaik (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not an acceptable reliable source on Wikipedia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability guidelines with pretty no reliable source coverage. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The artist or actor is not regarded well-known who has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent articles and reviews. Sources like imdb and bookmyshow are not helpful. Fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything that suggests notability --Devoke water 12:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery of Chittorgarh (1321)

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

Can't see any WP:RS explicitly records the event as "Recovery of Chittorgarh". Many forts has been captured and recaptured several times in the military history. Seperate articles are made whenever they are notable. As seems, the article is poorly written, taken the reference from broken lines from the sources. No in-depth description about this in any of the reliable sources. Fails GNG, and the title is a fabricated one. Imperial ^[AFCND] 11:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How could you call a historical battle fabricated? It was a turning point in history of Mewar State. I don't think it's Necessary to remove the article Sinsilal (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are very poor and unreliable. The battle segment has source by a writer who was a pilot and that too does not draw any parallel with any battle. Fails WP:HISTRS, WP:V and WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok I'm moving the article to draft again and I would add more sources and extend the article Sinsilal (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sinsilal, do not move an article being discussed at an AFD to Draft space nor remove the AFD tag. If you persist, you could lose your editing privileges for disruptive editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails notability guidelines with no reliable sources on Gbooks and Scholar. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- The creator of this article is found to be a sock of a common POV pusher.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 12:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One source cannot be found, another does not entirely support the narrative, such as it is, the others are difficult to search for lack of page numbers. Brief, poorly written. Written by sock of a POV pusher, unreliable. I agree with the previous commentators. Donner60 (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somnath Khara

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

Soccerway stub on a footballer that played two matches before disappearing. My own searches yielded nothing better than Telegraph India, which mentions him in the title and an image caption but only once in the main article prose (so it's not WP:SIGCOV), and TOI, another match report that mentions him, this time his performance wasn't so good and the article mentions some mistakes he made but doesn't go into any depth about him as an individual. From the second article, we can perhaps make a presumption as to why his career was so short (although this would be WP:OR) but having a bad game, on its own, is not enough for WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG and I don't see any actual direct significant coverage of Khara. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. One poor source with stats and no coverage on the subject. Fails notability and WP:BIO. RangersRus (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above—one poor source, no other coverage, and no trackable stats over a four-year career certainly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 21:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MicroWorld Technologies

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP, though it's WP:LISTED. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only press releases, obvious sponsored content like this in WP:NEWSORGINDIA and on computing news websites, and passing mentions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, and India. Wikishovel (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page for promotional and advertising purpose. Fails WP:N and WP:NCORP. No evidence and sources on this company makes it not notable enough to justify an article on Wikipedia. RangersRus (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This company is born in 1993, their main products line is nammed eScan (existing in 3 wikipedia languages, (eScan [nl] and eScan Corporate Security [id]), type it in any search engine of the web and you will understand they don't need Wikipedia promotional nor advertising purpose. --Dadu (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Dadu (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete – Shouldn't there be an article on eScan? mpany article fails notability guidelines as the sources are all unreliable in the articles as well on a search. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo page with no reliable sourcing on the company --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radhika Piramal

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

Non-notable, no WP:SIGCOV apart from her coming out of the closet as LGBT. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 07:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, India, and United Kingdom. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 07:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG and is the Vice Chairperson of VIP Industries s India's largest luggage manufacturing company.Tame Rhino (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have sustained significant coverage, like this Forbes India (staff writer) bio, this in the Economic Times, this in the Business Standard, and so forth. Admittedly many Indian news sites are sometimes dubious, but this much coverage across lots of different major news sources still seems like enough for notability.— Moriwen (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Subject was on Forbes list and had coverage in sources like Bloomberg. Per Moriwen, much coverage in reliable news sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Adani

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating this page for deletion again because it has remained overtly promotional and lacks merit of its own. In the last deletion discussion, some IDs might have been paid to submit a keep vote. Several of those accounts are either banned or inactive now. Notedolly2 (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Notedolly2 (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am leaning keep for now, though I haven't yet dug deep into the huge amount of sourcing online, but a note to editors looking for sources, we need to ensure there is no inheriting as the son of billionaire magnate Gautam Adani.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Eyeing on his achievements, Karan Adani has much coverage in news media like Business Standards, NDTV, Economic Times, Bloomberg, New York Times, on his personal life and career achievements. Passes WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Karan Adani's entire image is promotional because of his status as a wealthy heir of Adani Group. Any mention of him, even in reputable publications like the New York Times, tends to focus trivially on his connection to his father and the Group. Most coverage highlights things other than his achievements, which are not portrayed neutrally across any form of media. Notedolly2 (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mangal

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

All WP:RAJ era sources (apart from Sharma). Nishant Shashikant Sharma's work was published the International Journal of Research which has been deprecated as a predatory publisher as per here-[12] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Pakistan. Skynxnex (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many sources on Google and some are in Hari Singh Nalwa. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources in the page Hari Singh Nalwa pertaining to this battle are reliable. Could you list specific sources which meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability rather than referring to nebulous sources on Google? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in Hari Singh Nalwa are Sharma's IJR source which cannot be used on Wikipedia, a source published by the Sikh Missionary College-[13], an organization judging by its nomenclature and website meant only to propagate the Sikh religion; by no means is this a salient educational institution nor has it published any peer reviewed books or journals. The last source is a Google snapshot-[14], again from a organization that publishes hagiographies as opposed to rigorous scholarly works. The book cannot even be found anywhere on the Internet apart from that Google snippet. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 16:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rohilla

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

Negligible mention of the battle in the acceptable sources listed here. Most of the article appears to be written from the Gurbilas Patshahi, which is a primary source and has been explicitly deprecated by admins-[15]. The two other sources, Hari Ram Gupta and Fauja Singh's work, make only passing mention of this battle; both are short paragraphs, and are identical to one another. Tony Jacques' source is a tertiary one, with thousands of short entries related to thousands of battles spanning fom Europe to the Americas to Africa to Asia which took place over hundreds of years. It too only contains a few sentences about this battle. This event clearly does not deserve an entire Wikipedia article since it fails WP:SIGCOV-[16]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Asia, India, and Punjab. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the source by Tony Jacques? UnbiasedSN (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is a tertiary source which includes a very short summary of thousands of battles which took place around the world, from Europe to South Asia to North America to Africa, spanning hundreds of years. While the source could be used to bolster reliable, secondary sources with a strong focus on South Asian history, on a standalone basis, it is quite weak and only serves as a complementary, auxillary source. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One unreliable source and three reliable sources. I cannot verify Gurbilas but little search proved its primary source and sure shot unreliable but looks like the parallels from this source is focused on the belligerent names in infobox. Reliable sources have particulars with enough coverage to have this battle considered notable. RangersRus (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source being reliable is not the be all, end all for content creation, the sources actually have to mention the event at hand in a substantive manner; a short paragraph isn't going to cut it. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain how the listed sources have "enough coverage"? How are two sources with the same identical paragraph adequate enough to make an entire Wikipedia article? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. UnbiasedSN (talk) 06:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: I updated the article, removed the OR and the content sourced from the deprecated primary source, Gurbilas Patshahi. The current state of the article is a reflection of the coverage from its sources. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Chandana Dasari

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

Does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN nor the GNG. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, India, and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed WP:NPOL nor the WP:GNG, also created by a 'Digital Media Company' so there are high chances that this article has been made with paid. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noizbloc

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable record label. Fails to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. I could not find any sources on Google, and nothing has changed since the last AfD. – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possibly speedy) again no sign of notability of any flavour, just like at the previous AfD. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also thought about applying CSD A7, but I wondered if it had already been rejected for speedy deletion before, which might be why it was nominated for AfD. So, I concluded that AfD would be the best course of action. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unable to find anything else usable online. Here is an analysis of what we have right now.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.thecompanycheck.com/company/noizbloc-private-limited/U59201TN2023PTC165258	Provided by company.	I suppose it's just factual data?		✘ No
https://www.planetexim.net/indian-company/noizbloc-private-limited/cin/U59201TN2023PTC165258.html				✘ No
https://aeroleads.com/list/top-music-label-companies-in-india			~	✘ No
https://fox40.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/689077362/breaking-boundaries-kadhal-kadamaye-emerges-as-a-musical-masterpiece/	Press release.			✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001wppt				✘ 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}}.

TLA^tlak 12:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that profiles like in the first citation are often unreliable at least. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to satisfy the GNG, none of their artists appear to be notable either, so coverage feels unlikely to be found... Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still fails NCORP.-KH-1 (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has essentially no notable artists and is less than 2 years old, so it fails against the WP:MUSIC suggestion of an important indie label. Pretty clearly spam. Chubbles (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Case of WP:PROMO, Promotion, advertising. Company fails WP:N and WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly failed WP:NCORP basic WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Shouldn't this be G4'ed instead? Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Snacks

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. WP:PROMO. Charlie (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage of listing on the stock market, including from major national newspapers, indicate notability. Per WP:LISTED "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." Examples include Fortune India, Economic Times newspaper, Business Today magazine including analyst comment, Mint business newspaper, another Economic Times article. These are just a handful of examples I found in a few minutes. The article is not irredeemably promotional. AusLondonder (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if there are any reports from independent analysts available yet since the company was just listed recently (48 hours ago). Also, this company being listed alone might not meet the criteria set by Wikipedia for notability. When we examine the references provided, they appear to be same IPO news repeatedly published in multiple Indian media outlets; WP:CHURN, WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Charlie (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Gujarat. Skynxnex (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all coverage is based on press releases around IPO, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGTRIV. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as what seems to be the case here where most of the references are cut-and-paste jobs from the company's IPO prospectus and the rest is mere commentary on their stock market performance with no in-depth "Independent Content" *about the company*. Perhaps in the future some analysts might publish something as suggested above, but I cannot locate anything on this company that meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Highking lacks in depth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There was some debate over the question whether becoming a CEO at the age of 14 is an event. Regardless, the achievement received a sufficient amount of significant coverage in mainstream, national news outlets over several years so as not to fail the third prong of BLP1E, as the Keep views correctly argued. I see no basis in policy that coverage has to be international, and don't find WP:NOTWEBHOST to be relevant here. Owen× ☎ 00:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close amended to no consensus with no prejudice against immediate renomination per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 6. Daniel (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhuja Rajaraman

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

non-notable WP:1E, WP:NOTWEBHOST Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 04:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, India, and Tamil Nadu. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 04:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline- As the event she is reported by multiple newspapers was about her acheivement. Changeworld1984 (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – biography only notable just because she is the youngest CEO, so BLP1E applies. I do not see anything that violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 15:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. WP:1E does not appear to directly apply here - what is the event in question? How is being 14 an event? ~Kvng (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Her contribution to animation seems minimal, and all the coverage of her company (Seppan) only seemed to highlight that the CEO was 14. I would like to know if there are sources in foreign-language media that comments on her or Seppan's contribution to animation. Otherwise, delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 3 and 10 are in RS, not an overwhelming keep, but we have enough confirmation of her notability. A Guinness record isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the sources are are more like an interview with the topic and doesn't seem independent. Bhivuti45 (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as I checked, the sources are either dead or churnalism and sponsored posts. Bhivuti45 (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I feel that WP:BLP1E shouldn't apply all that well to age. Especially because we have sources starting from 2011 and spanning to 2019. I agree that there is likely churnalism for some of the sources here, but there is at least 3 generally reliable sources that can be used. Part of the sources do contain interviews, but some either do commentate or introduce the subject before the interview, which constitutes just enough WP:INDEPENDENT for me. TLA^tlak 10:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Achievement is that she is the youngest CEO and that is all we know from one or two reliable sources and this was news in 2011. I do not see sources where the coverage was an international recognition. I did not find articles where her achievements were highly notable. Simple search now also takes you back to Indian news media links from 2011, 2013 and one from 2016 by hindu.com. I do not find her notable because there are many other young CEOs who are and can be considered notable because they were listed in Fortune 500 magazine but Sindhuja made into no such list. Maybe a page like List of youngest CEOs where I could have decided to redirect or merge to but I did not find any such page here. RangersRus (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. While the Keep arguments were weak, we do not delete a page based on one contested !vote. Owen× ☎ 00:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Fields (Indian festival)

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

non-notable, no WP:INDEPTH SIGCOV. WP:ROUTINE coverage Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 03:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Karnataka. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 03:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, several dozen hits on ProQuest, but I'm having difficulty finding coverage that is secondary and in-depth. Still, the festival has been around for over 25 years, so it seems likely there are good sources in music magazines and the like that I've missed. Mach61 06:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said in nom, no WP:INDEPTH SIGCOV. WP:ROUTINE coverage as mandated in all criterias of WP:NEVENT. There are various subjects with the very same name, so not sure about the results you got. @Mach61 Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 10:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User4edits My argument is that even insignificant coverage over a long time period is enough to show that the festival is of some repute, and since it has been around for a few decades, it is likely that sources I have not or cannot find have covered it in depth; for example, in an offline source that I could only read if I went to a library in India. Notability is not based on if sources are currently cited, it is based on if sources exist.

Of course, the presumption of coverage only goes so far. If the Festival got very few hits online, I would have no reason to assume it was prominent enough to receive offline coverage, and if it was founded more recently, I would assume that almost all sources discussing it would be online. But neither of those things are true in this case. Mach61 11:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is collaborative and well-referenced, and reports a significant regional cultural event; the large number of relevant and pertinent wikilinks to notable bands and performers demonstrates the significance of the festival in related articles.Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 15:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
significant regional cultural event ^{[according to whom?]} wikilinks to notable bands and performers^[relevant?] ^{[weasel words]}. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 10:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying one more relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to National Law School of India University. Star Mississippi 13:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Journal of Law and Technology

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

Non-notable per WP:NJOURNAL Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 03:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Law, and India. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 03:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its publishing institution, National Law School of India University. The most significant claim of notability, as I read it, is that it is "one of top ranked law journals in India", but checking the cited reference shows that there are only 13 such journals. Mathematically, almost all of them are in the top ten! IJLT is squarely in the middle at number 6. TJRC (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' per TJRC. BD2412 T 01:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to National Law School of India University. Star Mississippi 13:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Law School of India Review

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

non-notable per WP:NJOURNAL Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 03:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Law, and India. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 03:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Law School of India University, its publishing institution. There's no real claim of notability here. That the "journal has been cited in various publications" and "the only student-run journal to be cited by the Supreme Court of India" are misleading; it is not the journal that is being cited, but the article published in the journal. This might suggest notability of the authors whose work is cited, but not the publication where the articles were published. Further, in that respect, "student-run" is irrelevant, since it is the author that is being cited, the fact that he or she published in a student-run journal has no bearing on its notability.

It's worth a paragraph in the law school's article, but lacks notability for a free-standing article. TJRC (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect' per TJRC. BD2412 T 01:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anannyaa Akulaa

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

Fails WP:NACTOR (one sort of lead role with five others and one supporting role). Notability not established. All sources are passing mentions. The greatandhra source about Ajastos sounds like an ad and is unreliable: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines on sources.

Best to redirect to Hostel Days. Also, WP:TOO EARLY. DareshMohan (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the original creator of the article, I would like to recommend Strong Keep, as I believe this new age of actors and upcoming film makers would become more and more relevanth with digital age and media, hence if the concensus reaches delete, i would rather have it drafted than merged to any other article. bɑʁɑqoxodaraP (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as TOOSOON: Have appeared on basically two films per WP: NFILM doesn't signify WP: NACTOR. This is clearly WP: TOOSOON and may meet notability in the future. The sources were not significantly treating th subject and almost if not all dependent on the film Hostel Days and if possible, Redirect.All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’Delete’’’ : Too soon to be here in Wikipedia. Fails WP:BIO & WP:NACTOR. DIV IN E

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a divergence of opinion. If his was Redirected, what would the target article be? Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't currently pass WP:NACTOR. Suonii180 (talk)
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bahraich (1034)

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

The article depicts a legendary tale involving two figures, devoid of any historical basis. It fails WP:GNG, and there are no reliable sources referring to it as the "Battle of Bahraich." The title is a fabricated name, and reputable sources do not classify it as a battle. Instead, numerous sources, including the parent article, refer to both figures as part of a legend. Failure to meet GNG criteria and its lack of connection to actual historical events, it is worth noting that no historian identifies it as the "Battle of Bahraich." Imperial ^[AFCND] 13:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Skynxnex (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreliable sources. Old folk tale sources used in the books like one writer Sri Purushottam Singh Yog, graduated in Civil Engineering, that fails WP:HISTRS. Religion professor Hiltebeitel makes a one line mention calling the death of a 19 yr old martyr a legend. Other sources are from founder of India's only open government non-profit trust that fails WP:V. The Page has no scholarly work available that can give some coverage with methodology, jargon and theory. Page on such history needs work from scholarly historians that is worthy through a disciplinary practice and none can be found on this page. RangersRus (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not list myths as if they're real, do any RS treat this as a real battle? Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I appreciate the concerns raised regarding the historical authenticity of the "Battle of Bahraich (1034)" article. However, I would like to provide some additional context before a decision is made.

While I understand that some sources may classify the events described in the article as a legend or myth, it's essential to recognize the cultural significance of such tales. The story of the Battle of Bahraich holds deep cultural and historical value for many communities, even if it may not align with traditional academic standards of historical evidence.

Rather than outright deletion, I suggest considering alternative approaches to the article. Perhaps it could be revised to include a section discussing the legendary aspects of the story, while also acknowledging its cultural importance. Additionally, efforts could be made to find scholarly perspectives that analyze the narrative from a cultural or folklore studies lens.

In conclusion, I believe that outright deletion may overlook the broader cultural and historical context surrounding the "Battle of Bahraich (1034)". I encourage us to explore alternative solutions that respect the cultural significance of the story while also upholding Wikipedia's standards of verifiability and neutrality.

Thank you for considering my perspective.

Sincerely, Sudsahab (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Sudsahab (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

I don't understand how this argument makes a point to oppose the deletion. Myths cannot be mixed with history. And most importantly, it is not accepted to invent names for military conflicts, whether it is real, or mythological. I apologize if I'm mistaken, but your comment appears to resemble an AI-generated essay rather than a genuine argument.Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding myths and history, Wikipedia's policy on verifiability WP:V states that all information must be based on reliable, published sources. However, the policy also acknowledges that myths and legends can be significant aspects of cultural narratives surrounding historical events. Therefore, if there are reliable sources discussing the mythological aspects of the Battle of Bahraich and their cultural significance, they can be included in the article with appropriate context and attribution, as outlined in the reliable sources guideline WP:RS.Wikipedia's naming conventions for events WP:EVENTN recommend using the most common name for the event as determined by reliable sources. If there is a commonly accepted name for the Battle of Bahraich in reliable sources, it should be used in the article. However, if no such name exists, a descriptive title that accurately reflects the nature of the conflict can be used, in accordance with the policy on article titles WP:AT. I want to clarify that the sources I have added to the article support and verify the title "Battle of Bahraich." Each citation I have included discusses this specific event, providing historical context and supporting the use of this title. Therefore, it is not an invented name but rather one supported by reliable sources. Sudsahab (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again an AI generated essay with no point of valid arguement. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an AI generated arguement Sudsahab (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination has been withdrawn, sources added to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poo Vaasam

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

The film is obscure, undersourced and fails WP:NFILM. In fact the producer's son said, "even I don’t remember much of that film". Kailash29792 (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Tamil films of 1999#January — March, where it is listed.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List_of_Tamil_films_of_1999#January_—_March. The page has three sources where two are unreliable, one is a blog and the other cinesouth.com is not a registered domain. Thehindu.com has no coverage, simply that R.K. Suresh's father, an ex-producer, made a Murali-starrer called Poo Vaasam. Fails WP:N and WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which seems enough for a redirect, given its notable cast, don't you think? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is ok here too. RangersRus (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film is praised in two sources that were published in 2021 and after giving notability to this 1999 film. At first glance, I thought that mentioning this film was a typo for Pudhu Vasantham but realised that the sources mentioned another flop film Pasakiligal so it is not likely an error. Cine Samugam and Cineulagam are not listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Not reliable and each of the sources has an author byline. DareshMohan (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Per WP:HEY. Good work DareshMohan. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, nominator has withdrawn their nomination but there are still a variety of arguments over what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !Vote to OK with Keep in view of sources added.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karthik Naralasetty

AfDs for this article:

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

Karthik Naralasetty has some sources on his life and company, a 30 under 30 article and some promotional content, he won an award 13 years ago, I don't think it provides SIGCOV or establishes GNG.

I was going to PROD this article until I found that it not only has been PROD'd but has had two previous AFDs, one closed as Delete, the second as No consensus. The article on his company, SocialBlood was Soft Deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialblood. I thought it was time to reexamine this article and consider whether it meets the stricter standards of today's Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and India. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The 30 under 30 description is here [17], that's about the best one find. We don't consider them as a RS. I don't see anything else we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Andhra Pradesh, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Not notable yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep – No need to salt for sure. Forbes India appears to be written by a staff, but the publication as a whole doesn't have the strongest reputation? There's also some coverage from the Business Journals and Dawn I found – they include interviews but there is just enough that is useful. Also some information from Entrepreneur. TLA^tlak 13:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Struggles for WP:GNG and isn't helped with WP:SPIP

GoggleGoose (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Tamil films of 1999#January — March. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adutha Kattam

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

Can't find any third-party sources. Possibly fails WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Tamil_films_of_1999#January_—_March, where it is listed.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List_of_Tamil_films_of_1999#January_—_March. Per nom, fails WP:SIGCOV from sources. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tamil films of 1999#January — March: Per above. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indiawin Sports

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

WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because they own a bunch of cricket teams, that doesn't mean that the company itself is notable enough. I don't see enough independent coverage of them (i.e. other than just saying they own these teams) to pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Cricket, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as they have a lot of coverage, including these ones that I just have found: sportskeeda, crictracker, indiatoday and Business Standard.Maxcreator (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of those look like WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to me. Sportskeeda is not a reliable source, as per WP:SPORTSKEEDA, Cric Tracker is a rehashed press release (and the 2 paragraphs about the company looks like something the company has written about themselves), India Today source is just stating how much they paid for a WPL team, as is the BS source (from what I can see, as it's paywalled). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm with Joseph2302 on this one. Of late, we have seen some very low quality sources used to demonstrate widespread coverage. I think that is also the case here. AA (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: some of the sources make no mention of Indiawin, others are not reliable and the rest are churnalism based on a press release, including the Business Standard. S0091 (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The company holds various teams across the world. Many times, instead of referring to the brand as ‘Indiawin owned,’ they simply say ‘Mumbai Indians owned’ (the biggest franchise under the brand). This lack of distinction is the reason it didn’t receive enough coverage. Additionally, it is clearly mentioned on the Mumbai Indians website that it is owned by Indiawin Sports. So, if we remove ‘Indiawin Sports’ and need to mention that the franchise is owned by Indiawin, how can we accurately refer to ‘Mumbai Indians’ when it itself is not a standalone brand but rather a franchise within the Indiawin brand? ‎Gorav‎Sharma 08:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the coverage is about the Mumbai Indians cricket team, then it's not coverage about the company. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here- just because the cricket team is notable, that doesn't mean the company that owns them are. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The brand is also notable and came into the limelight after purchasing teams in SLT20 and ILT20. That's why I created the article to simplify everything. The sources I added are trusted sources in the cricket field. Still, if the article goes against Wikipedia policy, I have no problem with its deletion. However, I will still vote to keep this article.

Have a nice day ahead! ‎Gorav‎Sharma 17:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gorav Sharma might be better to make List article, like List of cricket teams owned by Indiawin Sports. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not one of the sources mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria and I'm unable to identify any references that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shayamal Vallabhjee

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

The available sources include passing mentions, interviews, and profiles, although some lack reliability. Notably, there's insufficient substantial coverage from reputable third-party sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Consequently, it fails to meet the criteria set forth in WP:GNG and WP:BIO. It's crucial to remember that notability isn't inherited, meaning that having notable clients doesn't automatically confer notability. GSS ^💬 04:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and India. GSS ^💬 04:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sportspeople, Health and fitness, Medicine, Psychology, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails notability and the sources are mostly unreliable that are blogs and another with error. Even personal life segment does not have any coverage from third party sources. It also fails WP:BIO. RangersRus (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and for the reasons that I stated in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alister_De_Bellotte. Doctors, coaches, and other staff on teams are not automatically notable. If they fail WP:SIGCOV, they fail WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify and merge to the existing draft, which I will carry out now. BD2412 T 03:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salaar: Part 2 – Shouryaanga Parvam

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

Nominating per WP:NYF. Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Prabhas seems to have 3-4 unreleased films before Salaar 2, WP:NYF. Fails GNG at this point. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Case of WP:TOOSOON. RangersRus (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as Draftify only to find that there is a similar draft version.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: TOOSOON. Not yet for mainspace. Maybe after the official announcement and trailer/first look is out. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I implied Draft:Salaar: Part 2 – Shouryaanga Parvam already exists. So, we need to know which version of this article do you prefer, keep the current Draft version or move this main space version to Draft space and delete that version. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and merge – the two pages have different content, and it feels that the two be merged together while keeping it in draftspace. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 09:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Keep Draft:Salaar: Part 2 – Shouryaanga Parvam and delete the subject in question here in AfD. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - It appears too soon to belong in mainspace even though the subject could be notable in the future. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 11:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hansraj Raghuwanshi

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

Failed WP:Artist, also WP:GNG, it has only WP:BLP1E. No in-depth article.Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, India, and Himachal Pradesh. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. There is somewhat plausible coverage in media about the subject but the page with poor sources makes the page unjustifiable. I would recommend creator of the page to use more reliable sources that have more coverage about the subject. The subject was praised by Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi for his devotional song , 'Jai Shri Ram,' based on Shri Ram Temple in Ayodhya. RangersRus (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there other supporters for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant independent regional language news coverage with some articles covering their biography. Article in it's current state is indeed in a bad shape, but a quick search turnsup good coverage from reliable sources. Passes #1, #4, #5, #7, #10 of WP:MUSICBIO. Jim Carter 18:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Article isn’t well written and doesn’t help establish notability of the subject, but there may be a case there if the article gets some extra work. Because the sources provided are mostly national to India, the article needs to show somehow that these sources indeed demonstrate national coverage as opposed to local coverage.Contributor892z (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: There seems to be a large number of sources, both from my search and what others have listed. Could let it incubate in draft for a bit. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ without prejudice against early REFUND if SIGCOV is found. Owen× ☎ 19:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Attri (diplomat)

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

Ambassador who doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. The citations in the article do not appear to pass WP:GNG, and the closest I could find with Google search was this one newspaper article, which looks a bit short and routine. It is my understanding that diplomats/ambassadors do not auto pass WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, Oman, Denmark, United States of America, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. I can't find enough for WP:GNG. However, I consider this a pass of WP:ANYBIO#2 because he's going to come up in writings about relations of India with Oman, Denmark, Zambia. And he passes ANYBIO#1 as a recepient of one of Oman's highest civilian honours. Someone's going to write who all have received that award and there, write something about who he is and what he did to get that award. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And he passes ANYBIO#1 as a recepient of one of Oman's highest civilian honours. Got a citation? I don't see it in the article. If Ashok Attri received the Order of Al-Said, I'll withdraw this AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Novem Linguae, This is what I found. I don't think this is that. That appears to be for heads of states; this appears to be for diplomats. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae. Ashok received Wisam al-Na'Oman, or The Order of N'Oman per TOI. This is the highest Omani honor for diplomats, which was started by Sulatn Al Qaboos in 1982. You may wish to see Honor's description in this book by Guy Stair Sainty and Rafal Heydel-Mankoo from 2006.
World Orders of Knighthood & Merit - Page 1439.

Maliner (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Attri has served as India's ambassador to Denmark and Oman and a high-ranking member of its missions in Zambia and the US, and took up his last post c. 2010. So it's likely that much of the available sources are a) in Arabic, Danish, Hindi and other Indian languages, and b) in print newspapers. A simple Google search isn't going to find any of that up, and as such I don't think this nomination presents adequate grounds for deletion. Searching just in Danish turns up dozens of sources, especially with regard to the Niels Holck extradition, a diplomatic dispute between Denmark and India in 2011 in which, as the Indian ambassador to Denmark, Attri was obviously a key figure.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] This case was also covered in the English press[26] and doubtless even more so in Hindi and Bengali, but I don't have the language skills to search for those. – Joe (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't find any significant coverage in Denmark. How are the above hits about Ashok Attri? I know from Denmark's neighboring country (Norway) that the only foreign ambassadors who attract media attention about their person are those of the US and Israel. Having a key role in an "affair" is an argument for merging with said affair. Receiving orders is common for diplomats. Geschichte (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say there was significant coverage (there might be, I wasn't really checking). My point was that offline sources and sources in languages other than English are very likely to exist and that, unless those are checked, we can't properly assess the level of coverage. I take the fact that five minutes of searching, in a language that I only have limited proficient in, produced eight additional sources as a strong indication that significant coverage is probably out there.

A merge would only be appropriate if Attri had a key role in one event. Given the he was an ambassador or high-level diplomat to multiple countries over at least two decades, I find that implausible, but you never know. – Joe (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This whole premise gravitates to "there must be sources out there" and "He's bound to be notable in other languages", both of which do not amount to much. -The Gnome (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that a banned account has created the text is the least of its problems. There's a breath-taking dearth of source-supported notability. All the sources proffered above are about the case of activist Niels Holck where our subject is perforce name-dropped in passing, e.g. here, here, here, here, and so on. We are left with listings such as this irrelevancy, typical announcements by the Ministry of External Affairs, such as this, or, worse, a commercial event which our subject attended. Truly nothing to prop up even a modicum of specific, individual notability. Ambassadors and diplomats are not, as such, notable in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the Gnome's assessment. Ambassadors are not inherently notable and routine coverage does not meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's College, Thoothukudi

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

Cannot find anything of note online. The College may have relatively poor rankings (151/200 according to Collegedunia.com). No indication of interesting history or connections Newhaven lad (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST 75 year old college founded in 1948 added references there bound to be offline sources in English and Tamil.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sparsh Srivastav

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

I can't find any Independent sources and the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR yet. Rydex64 (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rydex64 (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly meet WP:NACTOR with lead/significant roles in multiple notable productions. Added a few things to the page for verification.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No Independent sources and the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR , also failed WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why you state that he does not meet WP:NACTOR? He had various lead roles in notable productions that received coverage and that's the requirement. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to IDBI Bank. ✗plicit 11:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IDBI Capital

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

Unsourced, written like a LinkedIn page, can't find anything on Google BrigadierG (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and India. BrigadierG (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Searches about this subsidiary operation find little beyond announcement coverage [27] which is insufficient to establish specific notability. A redirect to the article on the IDBI Bank parent might be an alterative to deletion? AllyD (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IDBI Bank: I suggested above that this subsidiary lacks evidence of specific notability. Despite coverage in recent days of a case settlement with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (e.g. "IDBI Capital Markets & Securities Settle Case With Sebi; Pays Rs 13 Lakh As Settlement Fee"), I don't see that as amounting to substantial coverage. A redirect to the parent seems the best outcome. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The delete arguments made their case. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R. Indira

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

non-notable per WP:NPROF, and does not seem to be meeting WP:GNG. Mentions in secondary source such as Indian Express are running. Also, Chairs/Positions held are non-notable, with multiple department heads/chairs in a single university, mostly on a rotational basis. Publications are journals and chapters(as done by virtually all professors), not full books. Secretary position in said society is below president, and is organisational in nature. User4edits (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, India, and Karnataka. User4edits (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she did receive the Indian Sociological Society Award, although I'm not sure how prestigious that is. Broc (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might at strech be slightly prestigious, but surely not highly prestigious academic award. The subject has previously served as the Secretary of the same society. User4edits (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - according to her website, she is the author of books in English and Kannada, and the award from the Indian Sociological Society in 2022 was a Lifetime Achievement Award. Beccaynr (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are WP:PRIMARY sources. Secondly, almost all professors and academicians have written books. WP:NOTINHERITED. I have said about the award in my above comment. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was the president of the ISS (primary sources here and here). The lifetime achievement award seems prestigious to me. She has had two Festschrifts in her honour, according to this non-independent source; that meets NPROF 1c. I agree the evidence could be stronger, and it doesn't help that the current version of the article reads promotional and has had CoI edits, making it hard to separate notability from promotion, but for me it's over the bar. I think we are likely not finding secondary coverage in Kannada; for example, apparently she is a long-term newspaper columnist, but I'm not finding those online, and could not read them if I did. Realise those are SPS, but if they are not coming up in searches then other secondary coverage may also exist but not be coming up. Tacyarg (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said previously, notability of ISS is not demonstrated in secondary sources. Least of the president of ISS. Next, this "non-independent" source is merely a profile of post-doc visiting scholar on a 19 year old university -- These texts put on profile-page are usually provided by the individual themselves only. Not sure that university conducted such an extensive research on her without mentioning any sources or even that is a researched profile. Which makes this "non-independent source" more of a WP:SPS. And hence does not meet WP:NPROF C1 also, as every post-doc/visiting scholar in every university has a profile page of his/her on university domain. User4edits (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Festschrifts that take the article over the line for me. 1c says The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1, except in the case of publication in vanity, fringe, or non-selective journals or presses. Do you think the two publishers, Concept Publishing and Roopa Prakasana, are vanity / fringe / non-selective? I don't know anything about them. Tacyarg (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Publishing certainly resembles a vanity publisher, considering the very wide range of topics it publishes on, including basically illiterate pseudoscientific treatises on homeopathy. I can't tell what's going on with Rupa Prakashana since its "About Us" and "How to Publish" links don't load for me. JoelleJay (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. She holds the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Chair at the University of Mysore. This is a named chair dedicated to research in sociology; see https://ambedkarfoundation.nic.in/dr-ambedkar-chairs.html. This satisfies #C5 of WP:NPROF, and satisfaction of one criterion alone is sufficient. Qflib (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qflib The reference reads: She currently holds the Visiting Professorship of the Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Chair at the University. That means she does not hold that chair. Nonetheless, chairs are far more numerous in Indian Univs than in the US or Europe, and professors could be appointed chair by rotation or mere seniority in the department. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 13:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Given that, I have to change my recommendation to Delete; does not satisdy WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) 🍪 CookieMonster 13:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarowar Jhumko

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Previous AfD ended in no consensus. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a very popular series. Sources that are currently linked are clearly WP:NTV and WP:GNG pass sufficient WP:RS on this page. Nilpriyo (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These sources on this page have enough coverage and It is a popular TV series. 103.121.36.12 (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - apparently this is a real, and popular, TV show, in a nation of 100+ million people. We are not arbiters of taste. It needs extensive editing, but not so bad as to rate starting from scratch. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TIDEL Park Coimbatore

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

Nominating for deletion under WP: NOTDIRECTORY. The article consists almost entirely of a list of companies that have offices in the complex. The only source about the complex I could find was this, which isn't nearly enough to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neither notable nor written as an article. I can do stuff! (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Draftify, update and submit it for review. Charlie (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per NOTDIR. Draftify might not be a good option since the IT park per se in not notable and I couldn't find any sources with SIGCOV for the park itself. In future, if any notability arises, a draft can be created, but no point in keeping a directory entry of the buildings present in the IT park now, most of which are just uncited non notable OR or random entries. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aa Bhi Ja O Piya

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

Fails WP:NFILM Tehonk (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added 2 refs. ~~Not opposed to keep, but~~ opposed to deletion. ~~If coverage is judged insufficient, redirect to List of Hindi films of 2022~~.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--->changing to Keep in light of 2nd review (see below).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First added link is a press release as it can be seen from from URL structure, writer name as "ANI PR" and the disclaimer at the end: "This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content." These press releases can't be used to determine notability. Its "strong box office start" claim also contradicts the second link's "opening: very poor" statement. Tehonk (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, don’t use it, then, and feel free to remove it from the page. It’s a mirror of a link I did not manage to format properly. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC) PS- I took the liberty to do it myself and put the original ANI link mentioning the contradiction you have noted.[reply]

See comment below, Mushy Yank. -The Gnome (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saw it. I consider the film meets GNG. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Redirection from editors, especially nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of deleting per NOTDIRECTORY, apart from insufficient coverage, the "widely distributed" part of the criterion doesn't seem to be met either. Tehonk (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost all sources are listings and announcements. Nothing to truly support notability in general or filmic terms. Wikipedia is a not a collection of random information nor a directory of film titles. -The Gnome (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added a second review that saves the article, per WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFILM requires reviews from nationally known film critics and not just any review in any publication. Pankaj Pandey, the author of the text in Raj Express, does not satisfy aforesaid criterion. We still only have about one half of a review-cum-advertorial. -The Gnome (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Delete While Raj Express is an independent and reliable source that can be used because of its editorial oversight, the other source from Film Information cannot be considered an independent review. It was posted by Film Information desk without any specific author, and these types of posts are generally part of press releases and paid branding. So, this film does not meet WP:NFILM with only one review. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see why Komal Nahta's FIlm Information should be considered unreliable nor not independent. As for the general assumption that these types of posts are generally part of press releases and paid branding., applying it to the present case does not seem exactly obvious.... just look at the review. If that is a PR data copy-paste, with such PR who needs enemies?:D -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No matter who owns Film Information, but for Indian films, I believe the review should be from a named critic because there are many websites that publish paid reviews and articles. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which does really not seem to be the case here but thank you for your reply. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List_of_Hindi_films_of_2022#October–December. I could not find top critics reviewing this movie or any major known websites with any coverage on the film other than the synopsis. RangersRus (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm seeing No consensus right now. This might be time for a source analysis table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: most of the sources are press releases/announcements. ANI is marginally reliable at best and neither article was written by them. One is attributed to SRV which is a digital marketing agency and the other to NewsVoir which is a press release service. I share DreamRimmer's concern about Film Information insofar as there is not a named author and it is not a widely used source so does not appear to meet "nationally known critic" per WP:NFILM. That leaves maybe one critical review which is not enough. No issue with redirecting though. S0091 (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The Film Information and Raj Express reviews both look usable to me. In particular Film Information describes itself as "the most widely read film trade magazine in the film industry and is known as the industry’s Bible since 49 years. Founded by late Shri Ramraj Nahta, it is being run by his son, Komal Nahta, since 1993 when Shri Nahta passed away." That is as something at least trying to be a reliable source and not a fan site. Note also that the review is negative enough that it is pretty clear not a paid ad. Also, the Bhaskar.com source looked probably reliable to me as reportage of rather than copying a press release, but I can't read the whole thing. In short I would rate the sources as just over rather than just short of the WP:NFILM line. If there is no consensus to keep the article, a redirect to List_of_Hindi_films_of_2022#October–December is certainly a reasonable ATD. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable short. The sources are not impressive. Even the better sources fail to establish notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The two reviews cited in the discussion appear to be enough. Komal Nahta, the writer of Film Information, appears to be a subject matter expert in film because he is relied upon by RSes, for example: [28] and [29]. Raj Express is an RS that appears to circulate in several major cities in India. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka Forest Service

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

Zero secondary sources, no evidence of notability AusLondonder (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Karnataka. AusLondonder (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. No sources on the page. RangersRus (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RangersRus Try searching for "Kannada Forest Department" instead— the article is misnamed. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the article is intended to be about the department. It seems to be about a role, it says the Karnataka Forest Service "is awarded to a person who is selected in the KFS exam conducted by Karnataka Public Service Commission" AusLondonder (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but that's clearly a content issue, and Afd is not cleanup. Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I thought about it and you're right. Not one sentence in the article as written is actually about the department as such; it would be better to nuke it and rewrite. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I previously argued for a !Move vote thinking the article could be salvaged if refocused to talk about the Department, but upon further examination, not one sentence in the article is actually about the Department right now, so better off nuking and rewriting. Move to Karnataka Forest Department. This appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME of the agency, and there is plenty of coverage of it in reliable sources (though the article needs to be revised to actually reference them), including books like Forestry in Karnataka – a Journey of 150 Years, Reorienting Forest Management in Karnataka, and various news articles: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. The article is definitely in need of heavy revision, but famously, AfD is not cleanup.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Karnataka Forest Department per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have changed my vote. I agree an article should exist for Karnataka Forest Department, but this one isn't even pretend to be about that. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's what I'm saying. The department itself may very well be notable, but this article is not about the department. It's barely clear what it's about. AusLondonder (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. See my latest reply to your comment. Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a review of recently found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source eval would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayadhar Swain

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

No proof of notability, no reliable sources that back up claims. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Literature. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. Poorly written page and the sources have no significant coverage about the subject. No particulars about background, early life and education in any source. One source is an unreliable blog, second has him shown as member of faculty and third shows bare image url. The subject is known to be a popular science writer but only in Institute of Philosophy of nature where he is an executive secretary. Reliable sources have to be independent, free of influence. RangersRus (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mayadhar Swain has one of the nationally acclaimed writer for popularisation of science and technology,recently awarded by Govt of India,in addition to several awards.He has contributed more than 70 books and hundreds of scholarly articles and newspapers for several years.He is presently editor of Science Horizon,published by Odisha Bigyan Academy.His contributions are original and highly laudable.Article on him deserves very much.His works and enviable merit of his contributions have not been considered. JAMKUM (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Has been actively edited recently so do not want to close as soft-delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree.The overwhelming merit and scholarship of his books and articles have been widely acknowledged.Article on him is very much worthy.His works are in public sphere.Reasons for deletion will amount to travesty of justice to noted original writer and apparently not tenable. JAMKUM (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JAMKUM, if you want this article to be kept, you're going to have to show some good sources. See WP:RS. -- asilvering (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayadhar Swain a very popular science writer of Odisha for last three decades.His books and articles are of great scholarship and originality.It should be expanded further highlighting his works.It should not be deleted at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.222.186.29 (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Those editors advocating Keep would be advised to offer some reliable sourcing that could be used in the article instead of just making claims. I think there is enough objection to this deletion proposal that Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing meeting WP:NBIO in the article, google search doesn't show anything useful. Unconvinced by those arguing keep, since no sources are provided. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 12:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaffar Aazim

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

Poet doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV thus fails WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 12:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Poetry, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Macbeejack ☎ 12:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough coverage about the subject in the sources. Greaterkashmir.com talks about his background, early life, and career. I find that it passes notability and warrants this subject to have a page of his own. RangersRus (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is tricky to evaluate without the ability to read Kashmiri, but this article mentions a close founding association with Adbi Markaz Kamraz, and the number of news organizations running obituaries describing him as a major poet seems suggestive.— Moriwen (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No wp:rs, wp:sigcov QueerEcofeminist🌈 16:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sporadic mentions in Indian Literature over a few decades, which means that offline and/or Kashmiri language sources are likely to exist for someone who primarily wrote in Kashmiri. Mach61 06:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Muzaffar Aazim is a distinguished writer of the Kashmiri language. There are enough offline sources like The History of Kashmiri Language and Literature initially published by the Kashmiri Department of the University of Kashmir that can verify the notability of the writer. Munajikhan (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC) — Munajikhan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
weak keep: Moriwen makes a good point, as does RangersRus. I think this squeaks by on GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolkur Sadashivapet Indian Railways

Proposed deletions

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Redirects for deletion

MFD discussion debates

Other deletion discussions

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]