Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Teemu.cod (talk | contribs) at 06:19, 23 April 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avinash Chate.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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

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

Purge page cache watch

India

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! 06:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash Chate

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. All sources on the page are regurgitated paid PR articles. A Google search brings up more such paid PR publications. Teemu.cod (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - These sources appear to be paid, yet there is no conclusive evidence confirming them as such, as they lack disclaimers and are not featured in the "brandspot" section. The suspicion arises due to the absence of credited authors and the promotional nature of the articles, which deviate from typical news formats. Grabup (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Very PROMO with flowery language in multiple sources. Non-notable corporate communicator person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every news story cited here reads like paid placement. Per WP:NEWSORGINDIA, Indian news sources require careful consideration due to weak controls on advertising and sponsored content, and almost all of the stories would trigger caution (for example, their lack of a bylined author). We should not use the available sources to validate notability under GNG or BIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:11, 23 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 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. ✗plicit 01:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandhan Mutual Fund

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

Trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. Citations are collections of paid news which are highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The primary issue arises from the editor's attempt to pass off two financial products (exchange traded funds), namely BANDHAN S&P BSE SENSEX ETF (BSE:540154) and BANDHAN NIFTY 50 ETF (NSE:IDFNIFTYYET), as company's own stock market listings, which they are not, thereby failing to adhere to WP:LISTED. A comparable effort was observed in the AFD discussion of Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance, wherein the company tried to be part of NIFTY 50 without proper validation. In a nutshell, the company falls short when it comes to meeting WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. To put it mildly, they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a banjo and their depth is about as shallow as a puddle in the Sahara. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 11:20, 6 May 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 delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. Complex/Rational 23:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jishnu (Actor)

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

Salt evasion of Jishnu (actor) and Jishnu Raghavan. Article needs to be moved to either of these titles if kept. CycloneYoris talk! 04:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The subject pass WP:NACTOR which says “ The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions” He has worked on numerous films, many of which are notable. Also, he pass WP:GNG as there are multiple reliable secondary sources availble which talks about the subject. It should be moved to Jishnu (actor) .Grabup (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with @User:CNMall41. Grabup (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not agree PUPPYMANG (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Keep this article there are valid reasons to keep this aricle because he has good recognition and fame in film industry, Notable actor, Acted more than 20 films in Malayalam including one Tamil and Hindi film.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
PUPPYMANG (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Example: Janhvi Kapoor article first of all it has been deleted then again deleted and multiple times recreated and redirected. Finally the Particular editor Protected that page into Extended Automated Confirmed user indefinitely due to Persistent Sockpuppetry. So, why can't you do for Jishnu also. PUPPYMANG (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - In addition to this being a clear WP:DUCK and G5, it falls under everything that Wikipedia is NOT. The number of socks and UPE attempting this page is unbelievable. I previously started notifying projects globally of the abuse but looks like that effort needs stepped up as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPI for reference is here. Looks like simultaneous filings since it is a clear DUCK. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I support Delete. Grabup (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking duplicate vote. Please keep in mind that each participant is only allowed to !vote once. See WP:!vote. CycloneYoris talk! 03:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Actor Jishnu Raghavan dies; celebs offer condolences". www.ibtimes.co.in. 25 March 2023.
  2. ^ "Actor Jishnu Raghavan still an inspiration". ritzmagazine.in. 25 March 2016.
  3. ^ "Karma Games is my tribute to Jishnu: Aadarsh". The Times of India. 11 December 2017.
  4. ^ Bureau, Kerala (27 Mar 2016). "A promising career cut short by cancer". The Hindu. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help)
  5. ^ "Jishnu returns, after the break". timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 3 October 2012.
  6. ^ "Last film of director Rajesh Pillai and actor Jishnu : Hindi version of Traffic got released today". onlookersmedia.in. 6 May 2016.
  7. ^ "Cine world shocked over Jishnu's death". english.mathrubhumi.com. 25 March 2016.
  8. ^ "I used to love housework: Jishnu Raghavan". The Times of India. 24 January 2017.
  9. ^ "It is difficult to believe Jishnu is no more: Raghavan". timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 27 April 2016.
  10. ^ "Jishnu Raghavan Leaves the Stage Mid-show". newindianexpress.com. 27 March 2016.
  11. ^ "Buddies' tribute to warrior pal Jishnu". Deccan Chronicle. 27 March 2016.
  12. ^ "5 memorable faces of Jishnu". www.onmanorama.com. 25 March 2016.
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 05:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Thrissur

List of tallest buildings in Thrissur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A collection of random buildings in the city and doesn't meet WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. The sources used are either dead or primary, with no SIGCOV in any independent reliable sources justifying the existence of any such list. Except one, none of the buildings listed aren't notable by itself, and hence WP:SALAT is not justified. WP:NOTDIR applies too. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:47, 22 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of dog breeds from India

List of dog breeds from India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's already a category for this and no other specific dog breed lists exist. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this list should be kept. It helps us who are from india to look up indian dogs. 2409:4071:DBA:E3E9:8848:14F:71D3:A287 (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a category for this: [1] Traumnovelle (talk) 07:48, 1 May 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shreyas Puranik

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

Fails WP:GNG, appears not notable. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of the article i would like to suggest keep, as it passes WP:MUSIC. The musical artist have received full fledged coverage from independent media sources for his work such as [2], [3], [4].[5]. Further the artist also passes one of the criteria of winning or being nominated for a notable award, as he won the notable Filmfare R. D. Burman Award in the category of upcoming music talent.[6][7]

Hineyo (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above references are either paid placement or Press Releases. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Note - This account (Hineyo) is blocked. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were blocked for 24 hours. That doesn't invalidate their opinion on that basis alone. Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pass WP:MUSIC, Also, there are significant reliable sources availabe which talks about the subject. Grabup (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please share best three references ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakhtar40 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 3 May 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 11:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mutta (tribe)

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

I couldn't find sources to show notability - I am aware this isn't my area though or language. Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Mutta tribe definitely exists, i've been able to find some mentions of them on JSTOR and Google Scholar. Samoht27 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 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) 05:27, 5 May 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! 07:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No sources on the page and a simple search did not show result on a Mutta tribe. I did find a Google book that talks about Muttadari System of Bhagatha tribe but that is different than the tribe on the page. Some more sources about Muttas in Australia. I did not find any source that would give an option to draftify the page for improvement. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't pass general notability guidelines. Based Kashmiri TALK 10:06, 19 May 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 23:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P. J. Sudhakar

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

Most sources in the article either mention him in passing or are articles or blogposts Sudhakar has written, which do not count towards notability.

This brief webindia123 article mentions that he won a Raja Ram Mohan Roy Award, but I am unsure if this is significant with respect to WP:NBIO

The only sources discussing him in any detail are about his claims of having received over 100 different degrees from these three articles from DNA IndiaNews 18 and The Hindu. The Hindu article asserts that he has over 15 PhDs, which they say he obtained by "distance learning". The Hindu article, also asserts that he has a record from the "Gunnies Book of Records" [sic], but he is not in the Guinness database at all [9]. These claims are very obviously self promotional and the "degrees" are probably from diploma mills, but as the sources are completely uncritical there's nothing that can be written about this. I note that the DNA India and News 18 stories are only available by archive and you cannot find them on the current versions of the websites, I don't know if that is because the news organisations deleted them because of concerns regarding the reliability of Sudhakar's claims or for some other reason.

Overall, I just don't think it's possible to write a neutral, non-promotional biography about this individual, given the uncritical nature of the sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:51, 19 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. Owen× ☎ 15:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pala invasion of Kannauj

Pala invasion of Kannauj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An event that does not meet the threshold for notability of WP:NEVENT as it is not covered significant or extensively in the sources. Doesn't even have a true name, this is clearly WP:OR as it was previously at the title of Dharmapala's invasion of Kannauj. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 13:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles created by the same author for the same reasons as above:

Chola raid on Rarh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pala invasion of Odisha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thank you — microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 13:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudsahab (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Malik Kafur (talk) 15:15, 19 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 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! 23:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwajit Singh

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

Heavily WP:REFBOMBed with sources that barely even mention him. Most statements in the Early life and Career sections are not supported by the corresponding references, so the page suffers from massive WP:OR, WP:V and WP:PROMO concerns. There are similar issues with his company page which has also been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPE Global Limited. Teemu.cod (talk) 22:53, 17 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 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. ✗plicit 14:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for India & Global Business

Centre for India & Global Business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nn. No independent sources - Altenmann >talk 15:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 14:46, 22 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 23:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oliyum Oliyum

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

Undersourced. Tagged for notability for over a decade. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:37, 22 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. ✗plicit 04:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pala Tibetan War

Pala Tibetan War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • To begin with, there are no reliable sources that mention a war between the Pala dynasty of Bengal and the Tibetans. Neither has any historian referred to it as the "Pala Tibetan War" nor have they mentioned such a conflict in any way.
  • The background section of the article fails to address the relationship between the Palas and Tibetans. Additionally, the WP:SYNTH has been consistently disregarded throughout the entire article, including the background section. Moreover, sources have been presented suggesting the submission of the Pala ruler to the Tibetans, but there is also a source provided that contradicts this claim.
  • The section "Dharmapala's Conflict with Tibetans" doesn't actually discuss the conflict between the Palas and Tibetans; rather, it focuses on Dharmapala's victory against the Nepalese forces. This marks the first instance of major synthesis of sources in the article. The background section deliberately states that Nepal was under Tibetan suzerainty. Therefore, the editor synthesized that the conflict between Nepal and the Palas was distorted into the "Pala Tibetan War," which is nonsensical as it combines two distinct contexts. For instance, if one source states that "X is a vassal of Y," and another source mentions that an entity called "Z successfully campaigns against X", an original research is conducted, leading to the conclusion that "Z defeated Y", despite Y's lack of involvement.
  • The pattern continues in the section "Devapala's Conflict with Tibetans," where synthesis of sources occurs, often with poorly sourced content, including reliance on primary records. Similar to Dharmapala, Devapala is depicted as engaging in a war with the Nepalese, which is then distorted into a conflict with the Tibetans. The article contains sparse and scattered information, especially if we disregard the synthesis part, where the context is barely mentioned in the sources and consists of scattered lines, primarily based on Pala dynasty's primary records. Moreover, none of the Tibetan or Chinese records mention any conflict between the Tibetans and the Pala dynasty. Fails WP:GNG, and the article is completely built on WP:OR, including the title. Imperial[AFCND] 07:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Imperial[AFCND] 07:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Imperial[AFCND] 07:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have misunderstood the article. There are reliable and contemporary sources that point to a conflict between the Palas and Tibetans. Tibetan records specifically mention a war with the Pala Empire. The Pala records also mention conflicts with Tibetans. Furthermore, Dharmapāla's contemporaneous records indicate that he seized the throne of Nepal from the Tibetan Empire. Even the Nepali tradition states that Dharmapāla had subjugated Nepal. The conflict between Dharmapāla and Tibetans is supported by Devapāla's inscriptions.
  • The same sources mention the submission of Palas and exaggeration of Tibetans. The sources cited, which state that the Pala Empire was subjugated by the Tibetans, tells that Tibetan claims are exaggerated as they lack proof, so there is no contradiction with WP:SYNTH.
  • Still, it is incongruent with the Tibetans as the Palas conquered Nepal from the Tibetan Empire. However, if this is the sole flaw in the article, it can be resolved by altering the title to 'Pala-Nepalese conflict'. Thus, I request that instead of discarding the article, the title be changed to 'Pala-Nepalese war'.
Based Kashmiri (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend reading WP:SYNTH. "Contradiction with WP:SYNTH"? Coming to first point, none of the sources cited here, directs to a Tibetan source, and even lacks scattered lines in 21st century, from both sides. Seizing the throne from Nepal neither mentioned in the article. However, even if it is present in WP:RS, that gives noone the right display that as "Pala Tibetan War". The second point doesn't make any sense to me. The third point actually points out how the article entirely fails. It cannot be changed as "Pala–Nepalese War", as the attempt to show Tibetians as belligerents have failed here. I am sorry, but WP:MILHIST articles doesn't suit for you as two of such articles created by you, this and Draft:Pala invasion of Sindh, both are miserably made upon original research. Now, the suggestion to move it to "Pala–Nepalese War", I would oppose it because it too fails WP:GNG, with some scattered lines mentioned in some sources. As it is already covered in the article of Dharmapala and Devapala, there is no need for a seperate article. Imperial[AFCND] 09:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed some issues in the article, but I still request for the article to be moved into the draft space instead of deleting it. Allow time and space for its improvement until it is ready for main space. Based Kashmiri (talk) 14:00, 15 April 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) 13:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems like what the article is saying is:
  1. Dharampala of Pala dynasty may have conquered Nepal.
  2. But Nepal was likely under Tibet's control around that time.
  3. So, there must have been a war that won the Palas Nepal from the Tibetans.

I am seeing too many ifs, buts and maybes. But is that what the article is saying? If so, exactly which of those premises are we reasonably sure of? Does the conclusion follow? And isn't the conclusion too weak anyway to present at "Pala-Tibet war" as though it were fact? Looks to me like the author is conjecturing the existence of a war based on circumstantial evidence. That's no way to write a Wikipedia article. There are other ways to gain territory. If you have a big enough force, you may walk in unopposed. The previous occupying force may have withdrawn before the next conquerors got there. There may have been dialogue and treaty to cede control in exchange of something else. Assuming, Nepal was even under Tibetan control, and assuming Nepal was even conquered by the Palas. Please tell me we are basing our article on better evidence than that, ideally providing freely accessible sources to support your argument. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author in the above comment says that The Palas conquered Nepal from the Tibetan Empire. However, none of the cited sources support this claim. Some sources suggest that Nepal was under the suzerainty of Tibet, while others indicate that Nepal was conquered by the Palas. Therefore, the author fabricated a narrative by the synthesis of these sources and invented a non-existent conflict known as the "Pala Tibetan War." Imperial[AFCND] 01:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The author in the above comment says that The Palas conquered Nepal from the Tibetan Empire. However, none of the cited sources support this claim." ??
  • The statement that Nepal was not under Tibetan rule is not supported by any sources cited. Specifically, the fifth, sixth, seventh, and ninth sources cited suggest that Nepal was indeed under Tibetan control and was subsequently conquered by the Pala Empire. Additionally, there are no sources indicating that Nepal was not under Tibetan rule when palas conquered them.
  • The Pala Empire fought not only in Nepal and the Himalayas, but also in Kedara, Gokarna, and Northern Bengal [Mentioned in the article with Reliable Sources]. This is enough to showcase the Pala Tibetan Wars or the Pala Tibetan Conflicts.
Based Kashmiri (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, combining two sources to make a conclusion, thats what you did, and we call it WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed here. Imperial[AFCND] 18:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess you don't know what WP:SYNTH is, do you? The article does not solely focus on the conquest of Nepal by the Palas against the Tibetans. It also covers the conflicts and clashes between the Pala Empire and the Tibetan Empire in Nepal, the Himalayas, Kedara, Gokarna, and Northern Bengal. The previous sentence was a bit blunt, but you seems to be focused on only Nepal ignoring everything else in the article
It would be better to provide a more inclusive perspective on the topic and be more open to different points of view. Good luck trying to find a logical and valid reason to remove the article, Thanks. Based Kashmiri (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, you stated that the article was solely focused on Palas conquering Nepal, and you claimed that no source mentioned that Nepal was part of the Tibetan Empire, however, every source discussing that topic indicates that Nepal was indeed under the control of the Tibetans.
  • The fact that you have only been focusing on Nepal is evident, as you stated that the article was solely concerned with the conquests of that particular territory. However, considering that the article also covers their battles in the Himalayas, Kedara, Gokarna, and Northern Bengal and their overall conflict with the Tibetans, it's enough for the title to be "Pala Tibetan Wars" or "Pala Tibetan Conflicts."
  • You have also wrongfully accused the article of violating Wikipedia's policy on synthesis content, which it does not. I'm inclined to believe that you either do not comprehend what that policy entails or are merely using it as a false pretense to have the article removed.
You're welcome. And I urge you to PLEASE familiarize yourself with the definition of WP:SYNTH before claiming that this article contains synthesized material :) Based Kashmiri (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please pinpoint a source for me that talks about the Pala-Tibetan wars/conflicts? Please quote the relevant material if the source is not freely accessible online. If we don't actually have details about the war/s, then the material is better convered in discussions of the extent of the Pala domain or the same under a particular ruler. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable sources provided in the background section, and Dharmapāla's conflict with Tibetans and Devapāla's conflict with Tibetans. Here is one of them:
The ancestors of these 'Niwads' (Nimars), while living in Nimar of Central India, seem to have been hired as mercenaries to fight with Tibetan occupation armies either by Dharma Pala (770-815 A.D.) or his famous son King Deva Pala (815-855 A.D.), who had liberated entire Himalaya from the Tibetans. In the opinion of Dr. R.C. Majumdar, King Dharma Pala had already driven away the Tibetans from 'Kira Pradesh' (present day Kangada and Kinnaur of Himanchal Pradesh near Chandra-Bhaga and Nêyar country of Gadhwal). [In Munger Inscription, Deva Pala is credited to have liberated entire Himalayas from the Hunas (Tibetans).] Rahul Sanskrityan on the basis of Chinese historical records, writes that the Tibetans had lost their control in Himalayas during 839-848 A.D. (i.e. during the life time of Deva Pala).
* Source: Ancient Nepal. The Department of Archaeology Number 176. 2005. p. 16 [10th reference in the article] Based Kashmiri (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Devapāla came into conflict with Tibet, there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Räjä Dharma- påla to submit. Devapāla also may have come to clash with them and defeated them.
* Source: 1. Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages. p. 312.
2. Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2. pp. 252–253. Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have sources mentioning their conflicts/wars as "Dharmapāla's Conflict with the Tibetans" (Regmi, D. R. (1965). Medieval Nepal: Early medieval period, 750-1350 A.D. Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay. p. 88.) and "Devapāla's Conflict with the Tibet"(Chowdhury, Abdul Momin (1967). Dynastic History Of Bengal. p. 39.), I think it would be more appropriate to change the title of the article to "Pāla Conflicts with the Tibet".
What do you think about it? Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still not notable. If you need something to get added into Wikipedia, add those into the parent articles;if they fails WP:GNG. Imperial[AFCND] 12:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's lots of discussion here, but some concrete !votes are needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:29, 30 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Battle of Lahore (1759)

First Battle of Lahore (1759) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources provided on the page show no mention for a battle in "August 1759", the sources only show that Ahmad Shah even began his campaign in September 1759, reaching Lahore and then taking it in November. [13] Noorullah (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "Sabaji maintained his position with great valour and strength, inflicted a crushing defeat upon Jahan Khan, who was severely wounded and lost his son in the action. Jahan Khan’s return to Peshawar in discomfiture so roused the fury of the Shah." Excerpts from New history of the Marathas vol 1. p-408
  2. "Dattaji Sindhia progressed slowly through Malwa. He appointed Sabaji Sindhia to occupy Lahore ( March, 1759 ). The Sikhs did not check the Marathas, but co-operated with them in driving away the Afghans under Jahan Khan across the Indus. Sabaji’s forces penetrated as far as Peshawar." Excerpts from A Study Of Eighteenth Century India Vol. 1. p-342
  • Additional comments- Renaming the article to the Capture of Lahore or even the Maratha occupation of Lahore (per sources) would be better. Though these sources are enough for keeping this article still additional sources would be appreciated.
Sudsahab (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't even seem to be a battle at all.
Per Sarkar, it states that the Afghans had evacuated Lahore, meaning that there was no "battle" for the city in April 1758. [14] Also corroborated by Hari Ram Gupta: [15]
The Afghans returned in October 1759 and re-occupied Lahore. [16]
There's no mention of a battle in August 1759 whatsoever.
Jahan Khan's battle per this source: [17] Doesn't seem to be mentioned at Lahore at all, nor do the sources you've shown imply this, but rather is "Thereafter the invaders overran Attock, then crossed the Indus, and threatened the historic fort of Rohtas on the left bank of the Jhelum. By that time, Sabaji Patel (Schinde) reached the place with fresh troops and a large number of Sikh fighters, who had made common cause with him against the Afghan infiltrators. The Afghans were defeated by the combined forces of the Marathas and the Sikhs in a pitched battle, in which Jahan Khan lost his son and was himself also wounded."
So again, this shows this was not a battle at Lahore. Noorullah (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[18] Does not show a battle at Lahore, but mentions Jahan Khan's defeat at an undisclosed location, and only later talks about how Ahmad Shah re-occupied Lahore (presumably in his 1759 October campaign). Noorullah (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I proposed renaming this article, either it should be Jahan Khan invasion of Rohtas or Battle of Rohtas. Coming to Sarkar's reliability which is questionable. Also see WP:RAJ, we can't rely on him as long as we have better sources for the notability of the Battle of Lahore (Battle of Rohtas?).
You do realise [this|https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.98175/page/n361/mode/2up] work of Hari Ram Gupta (published in 1944) is relatively older than his cited work in the article Marathas and Panipat. (published in 1961)? It would be obvious that older sources might not contain more information around this certain event, this is WP:AGE MATTERS.
  • In Marathas and Panipat. p-101 tells us: Jahan Khan rushed to Peshawar, captured Attock, and then advanced towards Rohtas. Sabaji sought help from the Sikhs. The united forces marched against Jahan Khan, whom they encountered on the other side of the Jehlam. In a fierce engagement the Afghan general suffered heavily. He lost his son and a large number of troops, himself receiving several wounds
  • [19] p-260, It also propounds: Thereafter, the invaders overran Attock, then crossed the Indus and threatened the historic fort of Rohtas on the left bank of the Jhelum. By that time, Sabaji Patel reached the place with fresh troops and a large number of the Sikh fighters, who had made a common cause with him against the Afghan infiltrators. The Afghans were defeated by the combined forces of the Marathas and the Sikhs in a pitched battle, in which Jahan Khan lost his son and was himself also wounded. Note Rohtas,Pitched battle and fierce engagement in both of the quotations.
Sudsahab (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why have a separate article for this at all? It doesn't seem that the sources are discussing it in that way. They're describing it as part of an overall campaign. That tells me the best place for this information is somewhere like Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, or whichever other article might fit better. -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already quoted the sources which discussed it thoroughly. And no it's not part of Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, not to be confused with Capture of Lahore which occurred in 1758 by Raghunath Rao. If merging is an option then I'd suggest merging it to Afghan-Maratha War. But my vote is still keep until someone gives more inputs. Sudsahab (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sudsahab, if it isn't part of Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, you should fix the infobox, since that's what it says. -- asilvering (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Sudsahab (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:HEY and to allow further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 22 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! 06:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janaratna

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

Non-notable neologism. No evidence of any usage beyond a single conference presentation. WP:BEFORE reveals no potential sources. Tagged for notability for a decade. Jfire (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 21 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 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! 10:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim Israel National Convention

Ephraim Israel National Convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely fails GNG. Indeed, "The existence of the party is unclear, the only reference found is at.[1]". Flounder fillet (talk) 18:18, 14 April 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) 18:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 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. On balance, the Delete arguments carry more weight, but they do not rise to the level of a rough consensus to take any action, including redirecting. Improvements in sourcing made to the article during this monthlong AfD bring hope that by the time the page is eligible for renomination, that would not be necessary. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chashni (TV series)

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

Notability issue. It's not even runed for 6 months. Xegma(talk) 07:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You included one reference which squarely falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Byline is "web desk." Not sure how much clearer I can make this. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These references [24] [25][26] [27] are primary sources and also have bylines. These also do not have any churnalism. Kindly check. @CNMall41 Imsaneikigai (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interview with the actress about the actress and only mentions her role, This is an interview with the director which is not independent nor does it have editorial oversight, This is a brief announcement about it losing a time slot, and This is about an actress and only verifies she plays a role in the show, not in-depth about the show itself]. As previously stated, there is enough to verify its existence but WP:ITEXISTS couldn't be used as a valid argument. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This [28] interview is of the actor (hero) and not director, also can you explain what do you mean by "editorial oversight" because this article is based on the interview taken by the media house itself with the actor. Thanks. Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Editorial oversight is about fact checking. Interviews like this are not. Similar to you asking me a question and me answering, there needs to be editorial oversight where there is not in this case. I could say that I am a billionaire but without editorial oversight, there is no way to verify that. Regardless, it is not indepdnent and none of this is significant. AGAIN, it only VERIFIES the existence of the show, not establishes notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but how can you say that there is no reference that denies WP:NEWSORGINDIA? because there are personalised interviews of the cast with the specific media house like Times of India and The Tribune! Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I understand what you mean by "no reference that denies NEWSORGINDIA." The references you just pointed out are not independent and only brief mentions so there is no need to even evaluate them under NEWSORGINDIA because they couldn't be used to establish notability regardless. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to tag the articles/references i was talking about. This [29] the interview of one of the main cast about the track with The Tribune, second [30] this tells about the development a particular cast member has put to fit in role. Also this reference [31] tells us about the production phase of the series and is reliable as per WP:ICTFSOURCES Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming ad nauseam and seems to be grasping at straws at this point. I realize you have a passion for this as the creator the page, but these have already been addressed. Interviews are not independent - PERIOD - It does not matter that they verify. One of the references is about an actor losing weight for the show. It only mentions him as having a part in the show, not anything about the show itself. The BH articles clearly falls under NEWSORGINDIA if you look at the byline. This I know you are familiar with as you talked about bylines above. Not sure what else to tell you at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:22, 20 April 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) 08:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Me Da Wikipedian:, I fixed it. Two letters were transposed. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A number of the 'keep' !votes are on the weaker end, and I think CNMall41's question 6 days ago is a reasonable one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, can you point out the significant coverage that does not fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The series only ran for approximately 2.5 months. Despite being featured on a notable channel with a notable cast, the main issue with this article is its references. While it may meet WP:NTV, it certainly does not pass WP:GNG. & I agree with CNMall41's viewpoint, as it raises a valid point. ManaliJain (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @ManaliJain, I have just updated and sourced the plot as well as cited the cast with sources which I feel are sufficient to determine significant coverage and verifiability. Also I have removed no bylines references as well. Please check. Thankyou. Imsaneikigai (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First, I dont think duration is the parameter for notability because there are many Indian Series which have lasted lesser than the series or similar than the series like Pracchand Ashok (39 episodes), Sherdil Shergill, Lag Ja Gale etc. Secondly, I feel the article has enough reliable sources and has constantly been updated with regards to the problems suggested above by User:CNMall41. There are enough sources with bylines like these[32] [33] [34][35] [36] and also there is no churnalism because every media portal has taken separate interview with the cast or have written unidentical content on the series with establishes verifiability. Thirdly, if we look most of the Indian tv articles are mostly similarly referenced and I have searched Bollywood Hungama articles and every article has the same byline "Bollywood Hungama News Network" thereby certainly ensuring that not all articles are paid articles. I think every region has its own policies of journalism and litter leverage can be given on these aspects. Imsaneikigai (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last comment I have to this AfD. As stated previously, these only verify the existence. Verifiability is not notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I couldn’t find reliable evidence of WP:SIGCOV for a notability claim. Contributor892z (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to an article listing the channel's original media. Having reviewed the citatitons identified by Imsaneikigai, none of them include significant coverage of the subject itself, comprising either softball interviews with actors or promotional pre-release coverage. What we need are critics' reviews, or articles that otherwise comment on the substance and significance of the show; this is lacking after three relists. signed, Rosguill talk 15:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No objection to a consensus Redirect to StarPlus. Sources show the subject exists, they do not have WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth from neutral non-promotional reliable sources addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found primary sources, name mentions, nothing meeting SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  17:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:HEY, article substantially improved since nomination, with bylined articles published in rather reliable media covering the production, so that deletion is quite unnecessary in my view. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:36, 12 May 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 05:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doonga

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

PRODed in 2019, removed without explanation. 100% unnotable surname failing WP:NNAME and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Of the sources in the article, one does not seem to mention the name at all, and one is an unreliable user-generated website/database that means nothing in terms of notability. No other sources were found in my search that would help its case. Also appears to have been created by someone who has the surname. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 19 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 12:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filmfare Award Bangla for Best Supporting Actress

Filmfare Award Bangla for Best Supporting Actress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sourcing. FilmfraeFilmfare awards is owned by The Times Group, disqualifying both ET and TOI. Sohom (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by independent sourcing? Citations are from official site of Filmfare, why is it not permissible? Sahajitbro (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that to attest of notability of the award, independent sources are needed. For verification, they should, however, be permissible imv (if the page is kept or redirected). (note; tiny typo in the rationale that you might want to fix Filmfrae-->Filmfare (as it is a key word, in case someone copy-pastes it).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sahajitbro Take a lookWP:INDEPENDENT. You need to have independent coverage to show notability, not coverage from official potentially biased sources. Sohom (talk) 22:32, 16 April 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) 18:48, 18 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 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! 22:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahabharat (animated TV series)

Mahabharat (animated TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under SNG or GNG. Series that is only on YouTube and and a streaming service. Not only does it not have GNG sources, it really has zero sources. Of the two references, one is to it's sales page and the other is a link to one of it's youtube videos. North8000 (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any support for Draftification which is what the creator seems to want. Their participation here would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 17 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 consensus to delete or redirect. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kunguma Kodu

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

Yet one of many articles created in a spree by Rajeshbieee in violation of WP:NOTDATABASE. Although this film has a notable hero, I can't find third-party sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is an unusual AFD discussion as the nomination has been withdrawn but there is more support for Deletion than Keeping the article. Please review recent improvements to the article that have occurred over the past two days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist for an evaluation of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this still under discussion? I already said withdraw, per WP:HEY. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the withdrawal, there are extant deletion !votes. Personally I'd have closed it with another week having passed without input but a relist is a viable call. Star Mississippi 02:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If the consensus isn't "keep", then "redirect" is better. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kailash29792, there is also more than one redirect target article suggested which might result in a No consensus closure. Closers shouldn't be deciding which target article is more appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 3 May 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. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 02:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exotel

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

Under notability I think this qualifies for deletion. There is not significant coverage of this company. Moritoriko (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The company meets the notability criteria and the article can be expanded with these sources. 49.37.249.147 (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to get into one by one source and why its not establishing the notability, I can do it. But for now MC is feature and features are paid pieces on MC its declared on their content policy. AnkkAnkur (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Can you link to the content policy that you are talking about? Also care to elaborate your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5ire where you curiously voted keep? 49.37.249.247 (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll do it. Anon IP added some references above but, other than a bald "meets the notability criteria" Ta-Da! assertion, hasn't gone into any detail as to why those references or any other references meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria. Here's the analysis on the sources above:
  • This from Moneycontrol is a profile that relies entirely on information provided by the company and a phonecall with the founder. There is insufficient in-depth "Original Content" and it fails our criteria. In reality, this article fits into the category "puff profile" beloved of many tech columnists.
  • This from Business Line suffer from precisely the same shortcomings. It is also a "puff profile" that relies entirely on information provided by the company and an interview with the Founder CEO and also fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
  • This from Fortune India is another example of a puff profile that relies entirely on regurgitating information provided by the company and their CEO/investor. Also fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
  • This next one from Business Line is an early puff profile from 2013. Same failings as the others. No Independent Content, no independent in-depth analysis/commentary/investigation/etc of the company, etc. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
  • This also from 2013 from Times of India is YAPP (Yet Another Puff Profile) from the company was a start-up and the article simply regurgitates the company's own messaging from that time. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
  • This from The Economic Times is "part of a series of interviews" - fails ORGIND
  • This next from Moneycontrol is the earliest yet from 2012, and is another puff profile relying on info from the company/CEO with no content that meets the criteria for establishing notability, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
  • Finally from Inc42 in 2016 comes YAPP which is entirely based on an interview and fails for the same reason.
No doubt these references were originally removed from the article because they're Company Marketing. This is what companies do, they help papers fill their editions by making themselves available for being interviewed as "The Next Big Thing", everyone loves a success story, etc, but these types of articles are precisely the types that fail our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 11:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only trying to rescue the article from deletion, so please spare me the snide remarks.
The references were originally removed by 103.10.119.68 (with promotional edits like this) and User:RN.IN (who is known for adding copyrighted material and writing purely promotional articles). There is no indication that these references were removed because "they're Company Marketing".
According to you, every single source on the page is a "puff profile". Can you please share a few examples of media articles that do satisfy ORGIND and CORPDEPTH but do not fall under your definition of "puff profile"? Preferably for privately-held startups of comparable size. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that I have linked all have bylines and are attributed to staff who are unaffiliated with the subject. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't get past the paywall on The Ken
  • A 230 page book that mentions the company and founder several times could be good but again I can't access it
  • The Entrackr article is trivial as per NCORP, just profits and losses.
  • I don't think the TechCircle article establishes anything notable about the company either.
If there is some way that I could read the book I would be more than happy to add to the article. Moritoriko (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for being unable to access the first two sources, see WP:PAYWALL/WP:SOURCEACCESS. I have access to the book and it contains a full chapter on Exotel, I can provide the text if you need it. I don't have access to the Ken article but it is a "16 min read", so I expect it to be an in-depth dissection of the company like all other Ken articles of that length. Combining the book source, this Ken article, the 2022 Moneycontrol story and the 2016 Fortune India feature, I believe there is sufficient significant coverage and independent analysis. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not discounting the source because of the paywall, I was merely stating the reason why I didn't give any other opinion on it. Highking has already noted why the Moneycontrol and Fortune India stories are both insufficient. You asked under HighKing's comment about what an appropriate article would look like and I did some searching all the start ups of comparable size that I found didn't have wikipedia pages.
That being said I know I am more deletionist so I'll let everyone else decide what to do. Moritoriko (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant that all startups of comparable size don't have a Wikipedia page. I asked for examples of media coverage of those companies that do satisfy ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Whatfix, for instance, is a startup of comparable size which has also been covered in a chapter in that book I've cited. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Several sources added to the page appear to contain promotional content. Some of these sources were previously removed due to concerns about their promotional nature. However, they have now been restored by User:49.37.249.147 in an effort to safeguard the article from potential deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RN.IN (talk • contribs) 06:27, 23 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 keep‎. There is a consensus that the articles have sources that establish notability. Behavior in this AFD has been poor. I think the first mistake was nominating this article just two hours after it was created. It probably should have been kept in Draft space until the fim was released and another solution, rather than coming to AFD, would have been to draftify the article. But after this AFD discussion was started, some editors let emotions dictate their comments which has the potential to derail a civil discussion. Then we get threats against the nominator which is totally out-of-line. Although I think it was premature to start this AFD, editors are required to assume good faith with all editors, especially those you disagree with. No one comes out looking good here and if I see behavior in an AFD descend into insults again, blocks will be issued. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silence 2: The Night Owl Bar Shootout

Silence 2: The Night Owl Bar Shootout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page says filming is complete but the reference used to support fails verification. Cannot find anything outside of WP:NEWSORGINDIA that would count towards notability. CNMall41 (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Filmyworldwiki who is the author of this article, left a message on my talk page asking for advice. Inasmuch as this is not my area of knowledge, I would like to invite all who see this to help the author before trying to delete. They are genuinely looking for editorial guidance on this. — Maile (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66:, thanks for the comment. Is the !vote yours or the creator's? Just wondering if they had policy based reasoning for why it meets notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a long day on these various AFD noms. I put the Keep here, but I am not sure why at this point. Let's just leave it there for a day or so, and see how things go. — Maile (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Fair enough. Get some rest. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to ping me later if nobody else chimes in, and mine is the only comment here. — Maile (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to Comment. — Maile (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And as anticipated, IP has decided to remove maintenance templates without explanation. I would expect them to show up in the discussion next. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, are those templates needed if you take the page to Afd? The Notability template documentation even says: "The template must not be re-added. Please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.".... Emphasis mine. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even it film is released, notability is based on sourcing. If there is no current sourcing to support notability, draftify would be an WP:ATD until there is. However, many draftified film pages wind up right back here AfD when creator or another SPA moves it back to mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12 days. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 12 days is not a guarantee of notability. Policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: This Afd comes either too late or too early. Draftify until announced release could be a solution but do that 6 days before the release of a film seems unfair when sources cover production. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Tons of coverage" does not make something notable. That coverage must meet guidelines for reliable sourcing. The Hindu piece is under NEWSORGINDIA and I have removed it. The other with India Today is an announcement of the trailer. Hardly the coverage needed to make a film notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your removal, sorry. I couldn't find anything against The Hindu and India Today is not mentioned (in some threads of the noticeboard, the magazine is mentioned but consensus is not clear). Was your concern the fact that these sources were based on primary sources? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: you cannot at the same time reinstate the Primary sources template, remove primary sources mentioned in reliable sources and take the page to Afd, that's too much at the same time in my view. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your refusal to adhere to NEWSORGINDIA and your refusal to take part in the linked discussion to overturn is concerning. I reverted as it is clearly against the consensus that decided NEWSORGINDIA. I am trying to AGF here but if you want to overturn consensus, you shouldn't try to do so through edit warring. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What refusal????? What are you talking about????? The Hindu is mentioned as RELIABLE in the link you provide. And India Today (the magazine) is NOT MENTIONED.....Oh, after all, I give up. Do as you like. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last time...because this is getting into DE territory...these sources fall under NEWSORGINDIA and were added to show notability. They CANNOT be used for notability based on NEWSORGINDIA. You were asked to take place in a discussion at WP:RSN but stated you would refuse to do so. If you don't like the consensus that is NEWSORGINDIA, feel free to opine in the discussion but please stop being disruptive. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final reply:
Where did I "state" I would "refuse" to take part in any discussion? When did I want to overturn any consensus? About what? (These are rhetorical questions, don't feel obliged to reply).
I DO like the current consensus, yes; not sure where I said I did not, and the said consensus (to which you yourself provide the link) says The Hindu is (very) reliable and does not mention India Today. If you want to change that, feel free. As for the 2 references you removed, sure they're not enough to attest notability if that's all there is, but why remove them from the page? I've asked this twice (here and on the page (edit summary), but instead of explaining what precisely you thought was wrong with them and clarifying, you preferred another approach, which leads us to the last point.
.....As for me being "disruptive"/"edit war", if you have anything of the kind to say, this is not the forum to do so, especially when it's not based on anything specific except the fact that I am clearly not sharing your opinion about what should be done with the page. Anyway, all is well, I won't visit nor edit it anymore, and, there too, feel free to add and remove anything that you want. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel I am casting aspersions, ANI is that way. I'll gladly take my medicine if it is determined as such. Consensus would govern that just like it has with NEWSORGINDIA. As far as refusal, here you state "too much time spent on this for me and I find it pointless for me to argue any further about the sources" despite being provided to this discussion link. Note that another user who also agrees with the interpretation of NEWSORGINDIA pinged you in that discussion and have not seen you respond. You have also been told in other replies about the discussion both at the RSN and the Indian film taskfoce and have not taken the chance. Remember that process is important.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a blatant misuse of a quote taken out of context, as everyone can verify ...my statement is about 3 sources on that page and nothing more and it comes after a long discussion (that took place on at least 3 different pages!!!! So much for refusal of discussion!!) Full quote: "Now please excuse me but I won’t reply nor comment here anymore: again, too much time spent on this for me and I find it pointless for me to argue any further about the sources. Remove, replace anything you wish; after all, it probably won’t be harmful and I am sincerely sure you will do it in good faith anyway." (emphasis mine on my own words) And a few lines above, I even said I would have a look at your proposal(s)!!!! As for being pinged in an ongoing discussion about the TOI, sure, maybe, but was urgent active participation compulsory? I am satisfied with the current consensus, as I said multiple times to....you. Nevertheless, I actually have read one of the discussions you mention and did not know there were 2 venues. I'll have a look when I have more time. This is really my final reply here. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing misused. I provided the full link to what you said. I took the part about you saying its pointless to discuss the references anymore. This was after I provided you with the link to the relevant discussion. Please, if you want to accuse me of not assuming good faith, please go to ANI as this has become ad nauseam. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The film has already been released and has reliable reviews (see reception section). @CNMall41: I feel that @Mushy Yank: is right in this case. Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA does not mention The Hindu and the fact that The Hindu requires subscription doesn't mean that specific article was paid for. Several newspapers like The New York Times [37] require subscription but that does not make them unreliable. Since the film has been released and has been the subject of reliable reviews [38] [39] [40] [41] [42], any further discussion is a complete waste of time.
Before you say that The Times of India is unreliable, remember that Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable. [43]. DareshMohan (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are reading NEWSORGINDIA wrong. It does not need to mention The Hindu. The publications it lists are EXAMPLES. Just because one is not listed as an example does not mean that NEWSORGINDIA would not apply. Again, refer to the linked discussions and feel free to opine if you feel it needs changed. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 is this too unreliable? Or you want just all to be US Media only? Just to be WP:CIVIL, I wanted to know what more you need to demonstrate notability of the subject that you have AfDed? Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have already crossed the line with lack of civility so here we are. What is the date of that reference and what is the date of the nomination? This isn't about US Media or Indian Media so don't even go down that road. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based discussion. Just because it has been released and there are reviews does not make it notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, actually. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't, actually. The reviews need to have SIGCOV in order to be used. Even if 1,000 reviews were released, if all of them are just a few sentences, they can't be used. Additionally, paid reviews don't count either (I think). Industrial Insect (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
THEN READ THE REVIEWS ON THE PAGE....seriously....this relist is ...unnecessary .... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have made your case. Please allow others' voices to be heard @Mushy Yank Star Mississippi 03:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the second time, my input is the only thing you seem to notice in this discussion. I confess that I find this a bit strange. Anyway, you yourself had asked for "policy-based input" and, as I told you was very much expectable, now that the film was released, you have it. "While having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for potential editors.", says the guideline. Especially when a film is so clearly meeting various requirements. I have indeed no further comment and will not even bother changing my comment to Keep. If everyone else thinks we are not wasting other users' time and disheartening potential contributors or confusing the reader with that completely unnecessary deletion notice on the page, then, by all means, let's go for at least another round of policy-based Strong/Speedy Keep votes and more or less relevant general considerations about sources and guidelines. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP -I don't understand for what this AfD is? CNMall41 is an experienced editor. Why this AfD? What more needed when tons of full length reviews are there?? This is really weird. And I don't believe that anyone with good understanding of WP:NFILM would come with a DELETE vote. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One more "final" comment :D. To be fair, the Afd was initiated when those reviews hadn't been published yet (12 days before (:D)). But you are right, withdrawing would have been appreciated (especially when the release made the rationale totally moot); then it was relisted (which was after release and publication of the reviews....; but I was accused of BLUDGEONing when I mentioned that reviews were more than enough (!))), so unless someone has the good idea to close this as SNOW, here we are.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This AfD is no different than this AfD. I could close this AfD as KEEP with WP:SNOW as non-admin closure. But I won't. Let this AfD to be an example of WP:CIR of the nominator. Probably they would end up at WP:ANI someday, someway. Twinkle1990 (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just stop. If either of you feel my conduct is in any way nefarious, please take it to ANI. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 I assume this "Just stop." isn't per WP:CIVIL. Why? Had you? Even after 18 days? It is more than enough for you to withdraw. Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to assume, I will make it clear. You made a comment about conduct instead of opining a rationale for keeping. Not civil, and in fact more of WP:BAITING. You obviously didn't based your comment on policy as you would see this was nominated before any reviews were added. And now, you make an accusation of incompetency. So, if you have an issue with my actions, take them to ANI. I would advise you to WP:DTS here though. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 21 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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of a consensus for deletion. Discussion revolves almost entirely around the volume and usability of sources for this article, and while it can be said to hang on by the barest of threads in terms of quality of sources, it is not clearly established that it relies solely on impermissible sources. This may be revisited in the future, if sourcing improves, or if it becomes clear that sourcing cannot be improved. BD2412 T 20:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sohag Chand

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

mostly run of the mill coverage that does not confer notability Sohom (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are more under WP:NEWSORGINDIA - non-bylined churnalism - unreliable to use for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation of the guidelines here. One of the primary reason the use of Times of India is discouraged is because it is known to accept payments from individual/companies in return for positive coverage. The Indian TV series business is well known for using money to prompt positive coverage (see the multitude of sock puppet rings surrounding this topic area). If this was indeed a actual full length film review, I would have happily accepted your argument. However, the sources are very short article that reeks of WP:CHURNALISM and paid coverage, which is something that TOI is well known for doing. I thus don't think the TOI sources are admissible from a notability POV. Sohom (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my interpretation of the guideline, that's the current consensus on two project pages and an exact quote that you can verify if you want. I know nothing about sockpuppets in the present case. As for all the sources being "very short", not sure you can say that. Anyway I wish to stand by my !vote, if you allow me, and will leave it at that. Also, a redirect to Colors Bangla or to the original series, should be considered anyway (both mention the series). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Entertainment4Reality regarding sockpuppets. Regarding the rest, I'll probably bring this up at WP:RSN. Sohom (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the interpretation that was reached by consensus. Relevant discussion if you choose to participate is here.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What interpretation? What consensus? I quoted (not interpreted) the current consensus (just open the links). Again, your link is to an ongoing discussion in which you both are (very) involved: nothing so far can be considered established by that other thread except the fact that the opinions you express here too are indeed your personal interpretation of the current consensus and/or the fact that you would like to establish a new one! How could that be of any weight concerning what should be decided here? It’s like wanting to change a guideline in real time so that you can delete a page that’s being debated... not really fair imv. Last words here: feel free to remove the sources that are judged unreliable if the page is kept and don’t forget to consider a Redirect if a standalone article is not deemed suitable. Again, here too, consider this my final reply. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing I linked to in this discussion is WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Is that not something that was determined through consensus? Seems to be unless there is something I missed. I went ahead and evaluated all the sources and listed in my !vote below.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Bengali One India, Bengali One India is part of OneIndia and pursuant to this relevant RSN discussion, “OneIndia and all its derivatices like Filmibeat, Gizbot, Etc, are content farms.”
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with your vote in the other deletion discussion, it is based on sourcing that falls under NEWSORGINDIA. I would invite you to take part in that discussion linked above. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only one of those with a byline is the first and only covers an outing that cast had, nothing in-depth about the show. The rest is clearly NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is coverage in the Bengali Language the ABP Live Bangla example has covered the serial extensively have listed 22 articles.12 345 6 7 8910111213141516171819202122.Hindustan Times Bengali 3 articles 123Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:59, 23 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. Owen× ☎ 17:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saira Shah Halim

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

Failed WP:NPOL, even WP:BASIC. No in-depth articles, she presents her point of view on national media every day. But this does not prove notability. Only one article is better from India Today. Rest of the news is also non reliable. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article. WP:NPOL isn't the only criteria, I have already told you on another article. She handily passes WP:BASIC of WP:BIO. The criteria needs multiple reliable independent secondary sources. In the absence of any source with in-depth coverage, the criteria also accepts combination of multiple sources with limited but not insignificant coverage.
In here, there is presence of multiple sources with decent in-depth coverage so even the supplementary point isn't needed. The main WP:GNG requirement itself is met. I had added four of them. Indian Express, The Wire, The Print and News Click.
But someone had changed the article completely and turned it into a resume kind of page. That someone had removed all these references and replaced it with an article in
India Today which was written by her and some other things like TedX and "enewsroom.com" but I have fixed it now. MrMkG (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That someone is User:Cikisshpedia who made an account just to do this, I don't know why. MrMkG (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article has a good writing. It covered the cause of her notability for being "involved in social work and activism through 2014 to 2018, and eventually came to the limelight during the CAA-NRC protests". It just need a little bit of cleaning i guess. Hi Bree! (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC) (Removed per WP:SOCKSTRIKE)[reply]
  • Strong Delete part of an big sockpuppet campaign, and clearly fails WP:NPOL.
Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus/per the request on my Talk
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not an expert in NPOL or NEWSORGINDIA but there does seem to be decent coverage of this person in RS. However, these are all from spring 2022 and WP:N requires sustained coverage. Perhaps @MrMkG could find coverage from other time periods? JoelleJay (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay Sure. Most of her coverage is in Bengali media and newspapers. Some recent ones are these. Sangbad Pratidin, News18 Bangla. MrMkG (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Additional input regarding the sources presented herein would be beneficial toward establishing a solid, guideline- and policy-based consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Donating blood isn't notable, details on her husband aren't notable... I only see routine election coverage. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doctor that ran for public office, raised their vote count for the party, but no coverage beyond that. Coverage of political candidates is usually done to keep the public informed, but doesn't help here if they are no different than any other of the hundreds of candidates each year around the world. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What did you read? She isn't a doctor who donated blood.
    Please explain to me, how full length profiles as articles can be called routine coverage? The hundreds of politicians or candidates don't get that. MrMkG (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 7 in the article. Please review again. Full-length articles are significant, but she's only known for being a candidate, which isn't what's needed here for notability. Extensive coverage of a non-notable person doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a post-poll coverage of her, this can't be an informational bit on candidate for voters to consider for an upcoming election, can it? Unless you say this is also to "keep the public informed" then any coverage of anything is to keep the public informed and no politician can be notable if they don't have a legislative office but the guidelines don't say that. Here is another source, not in the context of any particular election. It talks about her impact in relation to the sitting CM from the rival party. Is this also routine coverage? If so what isn't routine coverage? MrMkG (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine, but she's only known for being a political candidate, that's not notable here. Unless she wins a seat in the legislature, I don't see notability as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But that means she passes the criteria then. Politicians can be notable according to the criteria even if they don't have a seat.
    It is also less so that she is known for being a candidate but that she is a known politician, being candidates in elections is just what they do and what gets discussed a lot. MrMkG (talk) 20:33, 23 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.

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/India&oldid=1220346811"