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 Shakakarta (talk | contribs) at 16:16, 12 April 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Raigarh (1689).). 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. The cited sources were deemed not to offer SIGCOV. There was no support for the proposed merge. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Raigarh (1689)

Battle of Raigarh (1689) (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)

Another failed redirect, later contested by the author of the article. My reasoning is- why doesn't this have coverage around the battle itself? There's no need for aftermath without a substantial coverage of "Battle". Shakakarta (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the merge to Deccan Wars suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Raigarh (1703–1704)

Battle of Raigarh (1703–1704) (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)

My reason is that the article receives no coverage beyond two lines in Jacques Tony's source, and doesn't pass WP:NEVENT. It remained a stub for years with no improvement at all. Shakakarta (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Midnapur (1746)

Second Battle of Midnapur (1746) (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)

reason-

Is this even a battle? Mir Jafar won a decisive battle against Mir Habib. That's all I found for this conflict. No coverage as previously deemed by redirects [9]. Moreover the article was created by a sock who had a history of creating messy articles. Shakakarta (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Asia, Bangladesh, India, Bihar, and West Bengal. Shakakarta (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete little or no significance for an article. Hionsa (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as the main section "battle" part of this article is very short so the necessary parts can be easily merged within any article related to this subject. And notably this article is also created by a sock as well. Imwin567 (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "Battle too short" or "messy, messy, messy", could be sort of weak arguments for deletion. However, notability is an issue. Other than Wikipedia, I found a supposed official source on (Medinipur) that is confusing. It begins, "...conflicting accounts of how the name Medinipur came to be". This apparently includes the spelling. This article uses the spelling "Midnapur". The source uses the spelling "Medinipur", "Midnapore district" and Midnapore (apparently an alternate spelling), using that later a few times. At first, I assumed the author was either mispelling or confused as the opening sentence uses "Second Battle of 'Midnapore'". On that note: How many "Second Battles of "whatever place" was there to include the year in the title? More confusion and no links or mention of the "first battle". Without some etymology source, this article just advances confusion. The article jumps from the "Background" section to the "Battle" section but has some missing links. Conclusion: The article is messy beyond repair, the battle section is too short to impart any actual knowledge, and notability is an issue because of the lack of sources (two sources on the article may or may not be relevant), so there is nothing to salvage or merge. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the analysis and conclusion. RangersRus (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The name and spelling of the location not matching. Poor sources with no significant coverage about this "second" battle that lacks Notability. RangersRus (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Paranda

Battle of Paranda (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)

Barely had coverage. Not more than 2-3 lines of coverage. No information of how this "Battle of Paranda" went through, clearly not salvageable. Shakakarta (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have a source to expand the article, which is Chhatrapati Rajaram and the Maratha State by Jaisingrao Pawar. It mentions Bidar Bakht's campaign against Rajaram from pages 245 to 247.[10] I can add it up in the article and expand it.
عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I just expanded the article, let me know what you think? عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@عبدالرحمن4132: the problem lies here-
"Both armies met once again in the fields of Paranda. Rajaram dispatched Dhanaji Jadhav to meet the prince while he encamped 12 miles east of Paranda. A fierce battle happened, and the Marathas were once again defeated and forced to flee towards Ahmednagar in November."
This is not what we call significant coverage. It barely talks about the battle. Shakakarta (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a legit reason for an article deletion. The article has enough coverage regarding the whole thing from beginning to the end.
Plus, you could've add notability tag for the article instead of direct deletion to alert that the article requires additional work. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCO is not a valid reason for deletion? Enlighten me. The source you have given never mentions "Paranda" at all. No need to place templates when one is sure that the problem can't be fixed so avoid WP:SNOW. Shakakarta (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what do you mean Paranda is never mentioned. I think you should bother to open the sources I provided (Link is given). Care to explain more?
And nobody is engaging in WP:SNOW. Arguing against why the article should be deleted is not WP:SNOW. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, thanks for the contributions and effort expended. It might be advisable to add a "keep" !vote instead of just comments of support and advocacy. I love history but sometimes, if there is something worth keeping, it is better to cover such an event within another article. I just don't see a HEY.
  • The "Battle" section states, "The prince received the orders while on his way to Panhala". This is not only a new paragraph but a new section. Someone unfamiliar with the history would have to investigate (possibly stop reading) to see that Bakht (introduced simply as Bidar Bakht) is a general---and a prince. Dhanaji Jadhav seems to have dropped in by the first known use of a parachute. Turns out he is a general also. He went to "meet" the prince. It seems the meeting went badly because a "fierce battle" ensued. The same wording is used for both battles.
  • ---And--- In the "Aftermath" section: "He led his remaining troops back to his territory. The prince attempted to chase him but abandoned him and returned to Aurangzeb, where he would reward him for his actions." While good practice in using a lot of pronouns, it can be hard to follow, trying to determine which "him" is being discussed. The last "him" is incredibly confusing.
  • Serious issues: Out of three sections, there are three sentences on "the second battle" which is the title of the article. 12,000 men marched against two armies with an untold number resulting in two "fierce battles", and the subject of the article gets three sentences? Inquiring minds would wonder how many men were in the two armies against Rajaram and far more details of the battle.
    • There is nothing that shows the subject battle to be any more notable than the "fierce battle" that occurred "in the region between Baramati and Shrigonda", or that the title actually fits the article. Note: The Fierce battle is covered in Bidar Bakht#Defeat of Rajaram. WP:SIGCOV is a criteria of the General notability guideline: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notability for a standalone article is the issue-- Otr500 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi thanks for these notes and apologies if you found any grammatical mistakes, I'll go ahead and fix them. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You fail to understand that it's not only about grammatical and chronological errors which the article seems to carry but mainly about the coverage of at least 2 pages, for only telling us the crux of the event (Battle section), which is evidently unfounded. Heraklios 17:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per عبدالرحمن4132, significant coverage exists for the battle. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You think a few 4 lines of coverage is significant coverage? Heraklios 16:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the thorough analysis done by Otr500: That we don't have words beyond "A fierce battle was fought", It evidently lacks the coverage which is obviously required for even a start class article. Heraklios 16:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the below source assessment. For those unfamiliar, the right column is the one that matters. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table prepared by User:AirshipJungleman29
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes No The source is a dissertation submitted for a PhD. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, dissertations should only be used if they have been widely cited in scholarly literature. This has not been. Yes The most amount of detail in the cited sources. ✘ No
Yes Yes No This source does not discuss the battle at all. ✘ No
Yes Yes ~ The source contains three sentences on the build-up to the battle, just one sentence on the battle itself, and one sentence on its aftermath. ~ Partial
Yes No The source is another PhD dissertation, not widely cited in the literature, and thus not suitable to confer notability per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. ~ The source gives three sentences on the build-up, and one on the battle itself. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samad Khan's expedition against the Sikhs

Samad Khan's expedition against the Sikhs (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 is no significant coverage for the battle in the sources.

Surinder Singh Johar (2002) only provides a paragraph worth of coverage to the actual conflict. Same thing with Kharak Singh (1996), Harbans Singh (1994), G.S. Chhabra (1960) and Surjit Singh Gandhi (1999). The sources do not consider this conflict as a standalone event or even call it by the name it is created under, they discuss it in the broader context of conflict between Mughals and Sikhs. This topic therefore fails WP:N and WP:GNG. The relevant parts can be covered at Nawab Kapur Singh. Koshuri (グ) 15:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Burdwan

Battle of Burdwan (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)

Other than the single short blurb in the source in the article, I cannot find any other in-depth information about this battle. Many mentions, most of which are mirrors of this Wiki article, but nothing in-depth. Contested redirect. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:06, 12 April 2025 (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 14:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Gwalior Khasgi Bazar, Kala Gopal Apartment fire

2025 Gwalior Khasgi Bazar, Kala Gopal Apartment fire (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)

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Incident isn't notable enough for a standalone article. CycloneYoris talk! 08:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a notable incident that was widely covered in reliable sources like Dainik Bhaskar, Times Of India, ANI etc . It has received media attention and public support, including statements from elected officials. It meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for events and deserves to be retained. Michael Fernandes2007 (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a notable incident that was widely covered in reliable sources like Dainik Bhaskar, Times Of India, ANI etc . It has received media attention and public support, including statements from elected officials. It meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for events and deserves to be retained. Michael Fernandes2007 (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The article meets the notability criteria under WP:EVENT and WP:NOTE. The Gwalior Khasgi Bazar, Kala Gopal Apartment fire has been covered in-depth by multiple reliable, independent sources, including national and regional media (Assam Tribune, Daijiworld, Wikipedia-cited articles) which reported not only the fire but also the legal aftermath, public safety discussions, and community impact which makes it suitable for WP:RS

This is not a routine local incident — the scale of the event, the involvement of illegally stored hazardous materials, the injury of emergency personnel, and the legal and civic consequences demonstrate lasting notability. The article is verifiable per WP:V and written in a neutral tone in line with WP:NPOV.

Arguments about the article being "recent" WP:RECENT or local WP:LOCAL do not apply here, as the coverage goes well beyond routine reporting and the issues raised are of broader social concern in India.

Unless substantial evidence is presented that this is not a notable event, the article should be retained.

Thanks VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. No enduring significance to be seen here. "Government officials are reviewing permit records and considering stricter enforcement of building codes" - so nothing has actually happened yet as a result. Astaire (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deete A very sad story, but this is routine news coverage of a local fire with a standard response at this point (with the authorities 'shocked' at what happened even though they approved it and then 'cleaning' up the mess; sadly, the standard script for 'Indian workplace in a place it was never approved to be in' fires) with standard reporting in national sources. And Michael, if you respond to this vote, please do it in your own words and not with a copied macro shortcut to the same script. Nathannah • 📮 20:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, per WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as textbook WP:NOTNEWS per WP:ROUTINE. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:42, 22 April 2025 (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. RL0919 (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vaniya Agrawal

Vaniya Agrawal (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 don't see it, I don't see how this passes WP:GNG, feels WP:ROUTINE. I just don't see anything special here. Govvy (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2025 (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. Kudos to HilssaMansen19 for their work to improve sourcing. However, consensus here is that even with the improved sourcing, the subject still doesn't meet our guidelines for inclusion. Owen× ☎ 06:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Anandpur (1703)

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Anandpur (1703) (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 is fundamentally no WP:SIGCOV about this battle. The sources that mention it say that it occurred and what its result was, but there's essentially no more information than that. Much of the coverage uncovered at previous AfDs is either unreliable, or relates to different battles of Anandpur, of which there were many, including in the previous and following years. The topic is better covered as two sentences of background or aftermath in those articles. There is nothing to merge or redirect, as the only meaningful content was a copyright violation, and the title isn't a meaningful search term because of the parenthetical. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(TL;DR)  The available material is so thin that wikipedia risks creating a chimeric historical event with dubious details in trying to write a supposedly encyclopedic article on the topic, as is seen in the current wikipedia article and the previous AFD discussion.
Details: The two cited sources treat the subject of the wikipedia article as the fourth battle of Anandpur, and the latter source combines discussion of the fourth and the fifth battle (which also was in 1703), devoting less than two sentences on the former (in a 1000+ pages tome). Other sources call it the Third battle of Anandpur, while again covering it cursorily. Yet others combine discussion of the numerous skirmishes around Anandpur in 1703-04 under the rubric of "The second battle of Anandpur" in a single sentence summary. I should note that all these sources are pretty borderline wrt WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
Grewal (2019), likely the only WP:HISTRS-compatible source among those listed so far, discusses the battle in 3 sentences without giving it a name and his description of the battle result (... many fighters were killed on both sides. On the following day, no one dared to attack.) contrasts with the "Sikh victory" declared by the wikipedia article. The battle date and strength of forces reported in the wikipedia article are also unsourced and dubious. That's illustrative of the risk we run when we scrape the barrel for material and try to write an article in a tertiary publication that is an order of magnitude longer than the space any reliable secondary source devotes to the topic. Abecedare (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having checked the sources, I agree with the nominator 's assessment that there is no significant coverage about this battle, the first source only provides a single paragraph of coverage, and the second one refers to both the battles in one page while providing most coverage to the other battle and not this. Azuredivay (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check the article, I am working to add more sources and details. I haved added many references with each covering a few details about this event.
    It is notable as it was the second attack planned by Raja Ajmer Chand of Bilaspur who did not have to try next as Mughals first open declaration of capture of Anandpur was happening. They were previously aiding others attacking and seeking help from them. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator Hionsa (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check the article, I am working to add more sources and details. I haved added many references with each covering a few details about this event.
    It is notable as it was the second attack planned by Raja Ajmer Chand of Bilaspur who did not have to try next as Mughals first open declaration of capture of Anandpur was happening. They were previously aiding others attacking and seeking help from them. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93 Greetings, can you kindly check the article again. I read about this battle specifically when I was in school and thus, I wish to keep this article here. We can do changes as I have also worked on ensuring proper dates or none, references, details and people involved including notable events that include a folklore about this battle that is still sung around the region to date. I hope I have added enough and I can add more. I wish to work with you to make it credible as per all criterias.
It is less of a stub now with atleast 11 sources total against total of 2 before. Do share any advice you have on how to expand it more and have it listed as a notable article. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is about one of the continuous series of battles fought in Anandpur. It is important to note that, warriors/groups fighting have also changed.

The article itself has only 2 references which is not significant but it can be improved. Also the name must be changed to a number once there is consensus on it. There must be series properly mentioned as this battle had significant role in part of history.

This specific battle was continued after 2 years by Hill Chiefs against the family of 10th Sikh Guru, Guru Gobind Singh forcing him to evacuate Anandpur Sahib.

There is significant coverage available in other languages.

There must be series decided to name these battles but we can go with 1703-05 too for both significant 3rd and 4th battles.

Example - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Tarain

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Tarain

Some links - https://books.google.co.in/books?id=vZFBp89UInUC&pg=PA822&dq=battle+of+anandpur+1703&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK95WZo9mMAxXCyzgGHb4JI-kQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=battle%20of%20anandpur%201703&f=false

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ghlfDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT25&dq=battle+of+anandpur+1703&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK95WZo9mMAxXCyzgGHb4JI-kQ6AF6BAgEEAM#v=onepage&q=battle%20of%20anandpur%201703&f=false

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=YPPIEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA172&dq=battle+of+anandpur+1703&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK95WZo9mMAxXCyzgGHb4JI-kQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=battle%20of%20anandpur%201703&f=false

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=gqIbJz7vMn0C&pg=PA42&dq=anandpur+hill+chiefs&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQ_qqFp9mMAxVSm2MGHUtMPdE4KBDoAXoECAUQAw#v=onepage&q=anandpur%20hill%20chiefs&f=false

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=AojXAAAAMAAJ&q=anandpur+hill+chiefs&dq=anandpur+hill+chiefs&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjpl7GuptmMAxWizDgGHcy9O7A4FBDoAXoECAQQAw#anandpur%20hill%20chiefs

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZG4MycGdpjAC&pg=PA24&dq=anandpur+hill+chiefs&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiX2ciSptmMAxU5yzgGHUyoO2o4ChDoAXoECAYQAw#v=onepage&q=anandpur%20hill%20chiefs&f=false

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=MIL4xwcCmxkC&pg=PA69&dq=anandpur+hill+chiefs&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj4x9fApdmMAxVY1TgGHdp0BxMQ6AF6BAgEEAM#v=onepage&q=anandpur%20hill%20chiefs&f=false

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=nMWSQuf4oSIC&pg=RA2-PA215&dq=anandpur+hill+chiefs&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj4x9fApdmMAxVY1TgGHdp0BxMQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=anandpur%20hill%20chiefs&f=false

There are more references available in Punjabi, Hindi as well as English too.

I can rewrite the article if approved/allowed by admin.

HilssaMansen19 (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin I am adding sources and details which are available about the battle. There is no insignificant battle as the records might not be having full details but there are numerous mentions with much content available.

Kindly check the article first, and then relist it for another discussion as I will add more details within a few hours. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have added more content, expanded the article and added references with clear details.
Kindly, relist. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HilssaMansen19: I have looked through the references you list above or have added to the article, and none of them are reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. Some don't even even discuss the particular battle at all afaict and at least five are non-RS self-published books ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15]). Instead of refbombing the article and this AFD with indiscriminate citations, it would be more helpful if you could simply present the three best sources that you believe establish notability. Abecedare (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These references do help as they contain mentions of the war. The confusion is when and which one. This one can be helped with mentions of war initiated by Ajmer Chand with help sought from Mughal King Aurangzeb. The ones who on orders came to his side were administrators and generals including General Mamman Khan and Sayyid Beg who returned to attack again.
Mentioned as I wrote in 5 sources including one that was there before I expanded the article.
I can add Punjabi language references too as well as Hindi.
Can you help in this by evaluating which references are better and can be used? I will search for similar ones. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • These additions bear out my nomination statement. The substantive additions are all about the background to, or the aftermath of, this battle. That a battle occurred isn't in doubt, but there isn't any detail available. It ought to be covered as part of the sequence of Hill States–Sikh wars, but for that someone needs to write an article that isn't full of original research and dreadful sources. I fully endorse Abecedare's concerns about sourcing above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right but these are continuous battles happening in Anandpur at that time with different people, supporters, background, outcomes and impact. Each battle was basically different. This one specifically led to the Mughals open declaration of war which resulted in big losses. (A huge part of history)
    • I have added English sources that are used and are similar to those used in atleast 4-5 dozen battle record articles.
    • You can check them too. If we don't have properly dedicated book or multiple pages of context, at least we can decipher it from what is available.
    • I have put efforts to expand the content to not let it be deleted and would seek help of others too to rather contribute in it.
    HilssaMansen19 (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2025 (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 00:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Khanna

AfDs for this article:
Subhash Khanna (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)

My comment in the last AfD discussion was "Subject is middle author on a couple of highly-cited, highly-coauthored papers. I'm not seeing a pass of WP:NPROF C1. The journal editorship is of a new journal [1], which does not pass WP:NPROF C8. Little other sign of notability, and WP:TNT is relevant." I am less certain of TNT, but the rest still holds. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check out some research papers authored by him, please, guide me if I am wrong in quoting it, thanks a lot. IQR (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2025 (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. The consensus below is that there are sufficient sources to demonstrate notability via WP:GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Meenal Choubey

Meenal Choubey (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)

Mayors are not inherently notable under WP:NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 07:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5][6][7] [8] [9]

References

  1. ^ Bajpai, Shashank Shekhar (4 March 2025). "रायपुर महापौर मीनल चौबे ने संभाली कुर्सी, शहर के चहुंमुखी विकास का किया वादा". Nai Dunia (in Hindi). Retrieved 1 April 2025.
  2. ^ Marut raj (28 March 2025). "रायपुर में 4 नए फ्लाई ओवर और कामकाजी महिलाओं के लिए 3 हॉस्टल बनेंगे". Sootr (in Hindi). Retrieved 1 April 2025.
  3. ^ "RMC's 1.5k crore budget prioritises urban devpt". The Times of India. 29 March 2025. Retrieved 1 April 2025.
  4. ^ Hitavada, The (6 February 2025). "BJP's Minal Choubey pledges to prioritise basic amenities". The Hitavada. Retrieved 1 April 2025.
  5. ^ "Raipur: जानें कौन हैं मीनल चौबे, जिसे बीजेपी ने रायपुर नगर निगम से मेयर प्रत्याशी के लिये चुनावी रण में उतारा". Amar Ujala (in Hindi). 27 January 2025. Retrieved 2 April 2025.
  6. ^ Mallick, Avdhesh (28 March 2025). "Raipur Mayor Meenal Chaubey Presents ₹1529.53 Crore RMC Budget, Focus On Women Empowerment & Infrastructure". Free Press Journal. Retrieved 2 April 2025.
  7. ^ Behera, Partha Sarathi (1 March 2025). "Develop public facilities based on citizen input: Raipur mayor Meenal Chaubey". The Times of India. Retrieved 2 April 2025.
  8. ^ "Raipur mayor's oath-taking sparks debate over religious slogans". cgkhabar.com. 28 February 2025. Retrieved 6 April 2025.
  9. ^ तिवारी, पवन (15 February 2025). "raipur news people choose us for development know what meenal choubey said after the victory". Navbharat Times (in Hindi). Retrieved 6 April 2025.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meenal Chaubey is the currently serving Mayor of Raipur, which is the capital city of Chhattisgarh, India. Holding the mayoral office of a state capital is a position of significant political importance and public interest. Her election has been covered by multiple reliable and independent news sources such as The Times of India, NDTV, and Hindustan Times, which establish her notability under Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (GNG) and WP:POLITICIAN. Furthermore, her political career, public engagements, and influence on local governance are well-documented, making her a notable figure in Indian municipal politics. Deletion of such a page would remove verifiable and encyclopedic information about a currently elected public official.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesurajsahu (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: India Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NPOL also states mayors do not inherently fail to meet notability either. WP:POLOUTCOMES notes that regionally significant mayors tend to survive. Raipur is a capital city of a province, the 45th largest city in India, and in 2025 (at the time of her election) has an estimated population of 1.5 million. Honestly, this would be like arguing a 21st-century Mayor of Boston is not notable.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A 21st century mayor of Boston is not inherently notable. NPOL#1 makes provisions for international, national and state-level (for countries that use that system). Nothing there is made for cities or local government areas. The mayor of Aba or Lagos (both in Nigeria) are not inherently notable. Now, for NPOL#2, the sources here are not independent of the subject neither do they give in-depth coverage of him, so, it fails that too. If population of a city is now the basis of notability, an RfC should be opened for it, until then, I don’t think that this !vote is policy based. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 21:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider much of this to be a non-sequitur, but I will assume good faith. My response was primarily meant to be additive to what others have said. I don't need to be the Xth person to type the words "meets GNG" when I can point out HOW I agree with people who have made this point (in this case she as a regionally important local official can meet GNG as most in her position are able to). I perhaps could have made that clearer that I find the sources found by others to be sufficient combined with the probability of even more such coverage existing. Also, in my experience, these kinds of replies to everyone with whom you disagree in the same AfD tend to backfire. --Mpen320 (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the mayor of a city of 1 million people. That, combined with the coverage, make it highly likely that this person is notable. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearian, Well? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:09, 12 April 2025 (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× ☎ 15:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khyati Madaan

Khyati Madaan (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 subject does not fulfill the criteria given in WP:NFILMMAKER. Insufficient in-depth coverage from credible sources. She has only experience in marketing campaigns. Bakhtar40 (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The article has been updated with multiple independent, reliable sources including coverage in mainstream publications such as Times of India, Bollywood Hungama, and News18. The subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for creative professionals. Additional improvements have been made to ensure neutrality and verifiability. Vishky786 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep — Respectfully, the article has been updated to reflect Khyati Madaan's transition into film production. Independent, reliable sources such as Bollywood Hungama and News18 have covered her launch of Not Out Entertainment and her upcoming production slate. Her notability is not limited to marketing campaigns; she now independently leads projects as a producer. Sources have been added to verify this in accordance with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Vishky786 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update — Following the discussion, marketing-related details have been reduced to focus more on production work, and additional independent sources have been added. The article now better aligns with Wikipedia’s neutrality and notability guidelines. Vishky786 (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can only vote once. RangersRus (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. Poor sources just about launch of production company. The subject has not originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique or created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. RangersRus (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of all the sources in the article only the Times of India source counts toward the GNG. The rest are either likely paid pieces, an interview, or some kind of online education website. A web search only turned up more puff pieces without bylines. I also think the above comments by Vishky786 are likely LLM-generated. Toadspike [Talk] 14:41, 18 April 2025 (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. Article was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G4 by Ponyo. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Stonex India

Stonex 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)

The sources cited here lack WP:CORPDEPTH. Lack significant coverage from reliable sources. [20], [21]. These are Indian Business Listing Directories. Others are either self published or not reliable. Bakhtar40 (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2025 (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 from detailed source analysis indicates independent, SIGCOV reliable sourcing not available. Goldsztajn (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coinswitch

Coinswitch (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 company does not meet the notability criteria per WP:CORP due to a lack of significant coverage as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sources mentioned are trivial mentions and promotional in nature, failing to provide the depth needed to establish notability. Veeranshi Jha (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with the nominator. I have found no in-depth coverage of coinswitch in reliable sources. Largely seems to be another generic crypto exchange this time focused on the market in India.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Saying 'no in-depth coverage in reliable sources' is incorrect, what is true is that this is crowded by routine coverage, press releases and sources under WP:ILLCON. Money ≠ notability, though this is India's largest crypto exchange. Along with Coinswitch mainly being known for its products which have received sustained coverage meeting WP:NPRODUCT, there is much coverage to support NCORP criteria. Forbes article, The Economic Times, Mint, are some examples. Hmr (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep: The three articles in the comment above are ok, Forbes is a staff report, second one is about the company, Mint is an interview with the CEO but has some other info. These look okl Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the [Reuters] article is pretty good arms-length reporting on results annouced by the company (e.g., talking about competitors, saying they can't confirm some claims). Agree with Oaktree b that Forbes is good and independent, and Economic Times has its heart in the right place. Mint is borderline puff piece, not just a press release but not very independent either, but the first three are sufficient to meet WP:NORG Oblivy (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Forbes India article listed above relies pretty heavily on comments from company founders and is part of a list of interviews/commentaries for "tycoons of tomorrow". It is not offering much in the way of significant secondary coverage. Interviews with CEOs are considered primary under WP:NORG so the article from Mint cannot be considered for notability. The article from Reuters appears to be independent + secondary, but it largely reads as routine coverage of the company's valuation after receiving venture capital funding. With the practice of opaque paid-for coverage in India, including Times group properties, I am also concerned whether the article from The Economic Times can be considered reliable as portions read like puffery. It also includes many comments from the company's leaders, though not as many as the Forbes piece. I stand by my earlier assessment that there is a lack of notable coverage in reliable sources and believe this article should be deleted unless additional significant coverage from well-established reliable sources can be found.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the above comment, none of the references provide sufficient significant in-depth "independent content" to establish notability as per NCORP criteria. The Forbes Indian article relies entirely on information provided by the company and via interview, fails ORGIND. The Economic Times article is another example of a company profile which relies on the same methodology and has no "independent content", also fails ORGIND. The Mint article is a straight-up interview, fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 14:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I think the Reuters article is good but the Forbes and Economic Times articles comments about the company are basically only in the form of quotes from the founders. Depending on the future of crypto in India this very well could be a notable business soon but don't think we have enough independent coverage of the business now. Moritoriko (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Kapoor

AfDs for this article:
Vikas Kapoor (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)

This article was previous nominated and deleted. It was then recreated. However the issue still seems to be there. Cannot find independent significant coverage about the person himself to indicate he is anything more than a run-of-the-MILL CEO. Imcdc Contact 06:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The Council on Foreign Relations has 5,353 members. He's a member of the Met Opera board, which is not quite as large and includes my former member of Congress, Carolyn B. Maloney, who I've met several times and is of the old "kiss babies and shake hands with everyone else" school of politics. I was just at the Opera on the 4th. All this is to say that I'm not !voting but please do consider the facts. Bearian (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2025 (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 01:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Tandon

Atul Tandon (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 only significant coverage I'm seeing does not appear to be independent. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:10, 10 April 2025 (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 merge‎ to Air India. The principal argument against keeping was that the sources are not sustained over a period of time to show lasting coverage. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air India data breach

Air India data breach (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:NEVENT. Should be merged to Air India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Lots of businesses have experienced data breaches that have been covered in the news, a separate page is not needed for just a few short paragraphs. Reywas92Talk 18:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The Air India breach, while affecting 4.5 million customers, resulted from a 3rd-party vendor compromise. It lacked novel attack vectors, named actors, or lasting impact. Coverage was brief and consistent with WP:NOTNEWS. This is better suited for a broader article, such as Air India or a list of cyberattacks. HerBauhaus (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2025 (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 has been minimal input, but some editors have specified the article can be improved instead of deleted, and indeed have done that during the discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Neha Hiremath

Murder of Neha Hiremath (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 NEVENT, not enough sustained or in depth coverage to prove notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 16 April 2025 (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 12:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Santa Cruz, Diagnosed Homesick

In Santa Cruz, Diagnosed Homesick (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)

WP:GNGThe poem gets no in-depth discussion. It only gets mention on one website as having won a prize (no indication of what the other prizes were for) and all other mentions of it online mirror this article. The author herself may well be notable and I mentioned her poetry awards there, with a cited source. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:35, 9 April 2025 (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 03:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahroos Siddiquee Nadim

Mahroos Siddiquee Nadim (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 football player. Sources appear insufficient for establishing notability, and there's no indication that subject is notable enough for a standalone article. Fails WP:NATHLETE. CycloneYoris talk! 02:48, 9 April 2025 (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. After two relists, the conclusion is that nobody cares if this article stays or goes. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Nahar

Vijay Nahar (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)

Orignal creator of this article was blocked for WP:COI and WP:PROMO. This persons fails WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR, due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Also most of the sources on this article are not about him, hence checked carefully. It may be created for undisclosed payments because this article creator also created articles on his multiple books which are also nothing more than promotion. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep
    The article on Vijay Nahar should be retained. There is sufficient coverage in a wide range of independent and reliable sources, satisfying Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline for authors, historians, and public figures. His work spans historical biographies, political commentary, and education-focused literature. Below is a list of significant sources that discuss his contributions:
    === Media & News Coverage: ===
    === Literary & Historical Commentary: ===
    === Library Catalogs & Book Listings: ===
    ----These references clearly demonstrate both the coverage and influence of Vijay Nahar’s work. While the Wikipedia article might benefit from improvements in structure, formatting, and inline citations, the subject himself meets Wikipedia's notability threshold. Therefore, the article should be improved, not dele Gujjar.rudraa (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost all sources are not about this subject. Some are about maharana Pratap, or other are about modi or vasundra raje, also the #2 TOI article is a reliable source but that talks more about the book written by him. And please remind that online listing of books for purchase like Amazon doesn’t confer notability. TheSlumPanda (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Vijay Nahar is an Indian author and historian known for his biographical and historical works on notable Indian political figures and Rajput kings. His book Swarnim Bharat ke Swapndrishtha Narendra Modi has been referenced in multiple media outlets, including The Sunday Guardian, for its early commentary on Narendra Modi’s developmental vision and personal life aspects, including his marriage, which was highlighted during political discourse (The Sunday Guardian, Amar Ujala).
    Nahar’s biography of Vasundhara Raje, Vasundhara Raje aur Viksit Rajasthan, is among the first dedicated publications on her political career and is noted in news profiles (Jansatta). His contributions to historical research include books on Samrat Bhoj Parmar, Mihir Bhoj, and Rao Akheraj Songara, which have been cited in literary platforms such as Sahitya Kunj and Sahitya Nama, and are among the few comprehensive modern works available on these historical figures (Sahitya Kunj, Udaipur Kiran).
    In the context of Maharana Pratap, Nahar's writings have been used in regional discourse to support the view that Pratap was born in Pali, Rajasthan—challenging the traditionally cited location of Kumbhalgarh attributed to Colonel Tod (Bhaskar, Samvad). His contributions have also been recognized through awards and coverage in local media outlets, emphasizing his role in historical interpretation and education.
    While online listings like Amazon do not independently confer notability, they help identify the range and accessibility of his publications. Furthermore, his books have been featured in school libraries in Rajasthan, according to a report by The Times of India (TOI). Gujjar.rudraa (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    His book on narendra modi got media coverage like 1, 2. While the sunday guardian have only passing mention at last which is not enough. But if we talk about notability of this subject them i am still inclined toward deletion because of lack of Significant coverage about him in independent sources rather than sticking only on his modi book.TheSlumPanda (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    == Sources supporting notability ==
    Most of the sources cited to support the notability of Vijay Nahar are from Hindi-language newspapers and online publications. However, these are established and widely circulated media outlets in India, such as Dainik Bhaskar, Amar Ujala, Rajasthan Patrika, Punjab Kesari, Jansatta, and the Hindi edition of Times of India. These outlets are considered reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines for regional and vernacular coverage.
    The references include interviews, book reviews, coverage of public recognitions and awards, listings of published works, and inclusion of his books in institutional libraries. Several sources document his contributions as a biographer of public figures like Narendra Modi, Vasundhara Raje, and Maharana Pratap. Many of these sources offer English summaries or have accessible translations. Gujjar.rudraa (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I repeat none of these sources cover this person in depth, lack WP:SIGCOV also most of these sources are non reliable TheSlumPanda (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gujjar.rudraa have you edited only this person page since creation of your wiki account ?TheSlumPanda (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors willing to research the sources offered in the article and discussion. Would the two editors who have participated so far please take a step back and let other editors weigh in? Please let them comment without adding your opinions to their arguments. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Liz, again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:03, 22 April 2025 (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! 02:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adhunik Bharat Ke Brahmarshi Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya

Adhunik Bharat Ke Brahmarshi Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya (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)

Orignal creator of this article was blocked for WP:COI and WP:PROMO. This article is also nothing more than a promotion. This book is not significantly covered by secondary sources in depth.Clearly fails WP:NBOOK. TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2025 (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 14:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vasundhara Raje Aur Viksit Rajasthan

Vasundhara Raje Aur Viksit Rajasthan (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)

Orignal creator of this article was blocked for WP:COI and WP:PROMO. This article is also nothing more than a promotion. This book is not significantly covered by secondary sources in depth. Only source i found is the Dainik bhaskar, which is actually not about the book and it is about the launch of book (as it is about chief minister so it got some attention). Clearly fails WP:NBOOK. TheSlumPanda (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 15 April 2025 (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 02:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Chaudhary (soldier)

Narendra Chaudhary (soldier) (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)

Does not meet criteria for notability, reliability, or reliable sources. The single English language source is of extremely poor quality. Audrey Woolf (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. While numerically there's slightly greater weight for delete, the single keep contribution is far more detailed than the nomination and the interventions waving at ADMASQ and per nominator. As such, there's effectively two detailed but opposite views regarding notability, neither of which fully refutes the other. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I.I.M.U.N.

AfDs for this article:
I.I.M.U.N. (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 to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sourcing in this article is like a flea market: cluttered, uneven, but with real value among the items. Roughly two-thirds of the 33 references are clearly low-quality, promotional, or dead links and should be trimmed per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. However, 6 to 7 are solid pieces from reliable national sources including The Times of India, The Economic Times, DNA India, Forbes India, and India Today, offering independent coverage that satisfies WP:GNG. This is a clear keep and a strong cleanup candidate under WP:PRESERVE. HerBauhaus (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've performed a WP:HEY cleanup: removed all promotional and unverified claims, trimmed weak sources, and ensured the article is now built on a solid core of high-quality, independent sources, with minor supporting references for individual events. HerBauhaus (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete change !vote since redirect target no longer exists Merge to Rishabh Sanjay Shah as per WP:ATD and redirect. First, fair play to HerBauhaus for the extensive cleanup, the article is much better now. But unfortunately, I cannot locate any reference that provides in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *organization*. Most of the references have a couple of sentences describing the organisation at most, all saying much the same thing, that the organization is involved in organising conferences or has been involved in marches or other movements. A lot of the articles are dedicated to a participant in a conference (might go to notability of the participant?) or one of the conferences (might go to notability of a particular event?) or to the founder (might go to notability of the founder?). We even have stuff about the find-a-bed program (might go to notability of the find-a-bed movement?). But if the topic is the organization, then NCORP criteria says we require references that establish the notability of the organization. I suggest the material here, which overlaps extensively with the existing material in the target, can easily be merged. HighKing++ 13:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'm a bit unsure about the merge suggestion. The article appears to meet WP:GNG, with broad, independent coverage from sources like The Economic Times, Forbes India, and India Today. Even when the founder or events are mentioned, isn’t the organization itself the recurring subject? Wouldn’t that satisfy notability under GNG, regardless of WP:NCORP? And since the content focuses on the organization's activities rather than a personal biography, wouldn’t merging to the founder risk WP:COATRACK concerns? HerBauhaus (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your question contains a flawed premise which, when pointed out, will reveal the answer. There isn't a "regardless of WP:NCORP" because GNG and NCORP are essentially the same thing. NCORP shows how the general notability guidelines (GNG) *must* be applied for companies/organisations. Or put another way - an article about a company can't meet GNG and not meet NCORP and if you think the article does, it must be only because you're applying the guidelines incorrectly for this topic area and you must be ignoring the NCORP guidelines (which are instructions on *how* the general GNG guidelines are to apply). HighKing++ 13:34, 27 April 2025 (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! 22:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast India International Travel Mart

AfDs for this article:
Northeast India International Travel Mart (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)

Is clearly WP:PROMO. Little to know sources talking about it. Fails WP:GNG and all of the sources are press releases Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast India International Tourism Mart: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Kudos to AllyD for fixing the broken AfD link.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This has been going around the relist circuit for some weeks with little input. So, let's seek a creative consensus... The current article is doing little beyond listing the annual occurrences of a marketing event, supported by PR sourced coverage; I am not seeing the critical coverage needed to demonstrate notability in its own right. However, in the wider context, we also have a Tourism in Northeast India article which does little beyond listing the sights. So, would a reasonable outcome be to move the first paragraph of this article into a International Tourism Mart section in the other article, giving some improvement there, and reduce the present article to a redirect? AllyD (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey firstly thanks for fixing the broken AfD link. Well I get what you mean but I’m totally against even using the content for the other wiki page, since the content here are all primary sources. The other sources that are not press releases also seem to be written with an overly promotional tone and we might be in WP:NEWSORGINDIA waters. A redirect would thus not make sense. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article does not meet WP:GNG because the topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources available on the topic are primary sources or passing mentions. - tucoxn\talk 14:46, 27 April 2025 (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 merge‎ to Sabeer Bhatia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nano City

Nano City (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)

Proposal in 2006 to build a city in India for nanotechnology work. The project never went anywhere and was formally cancelled in 2010. The only sources are two 2006 news articles about the proposals, and two articles when it was cancelled. It is very hard to justify this page as notable, particularly as there is no evidence that this cancelled proposal had any impact -- fails WP:Notability means impact. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If someone wants to mention this on Sabeer Bhatia that's fine. Merging more than a 1-2 sentence mention would seem excessive to me though as there does not appear to be much more than routine news coverage announcing the project and its demise. Tech people/rich people proposing utopias that eventually never happen feels pretty routine these days anyways.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2025 (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! 22:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Group of Institutions

AfDs for this article:
Indus Group of Institutions (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)

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NORG. The only source currently in the article is the organizations website, while a cursory search didn't come up with much better. Let'srun (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Shibli Nomani. ✗plicit 01:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Farooq (book)

Al-Farooq (book) (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 removed some unverified and unsourced content from the page. It was already a stub, and now it's even shorter. Deletion seems to be the most appropriate option.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 01:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some references on the Uzbek wiki (uz:Al-faruq) that look promising, but I can only access this one. I've added some context. It could be notable; I lean towards keep. I realized that those sources are considered unreliable by the nominator who removed them recently. Would be useful to know why they are unreliable, but I trust your judgment since I can't read them. Reconrabbit 19:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reconrabbit: I initially added the sources while working on the Bibliography of Shibli Nomani. Although they are reliable, they are not directly relevant to the text, which is why I chose to remove them. However, if you find them useful, you're welcome to incorporate them. There is no shortage of credible sources available online. The primary concern is that, in its current state, this article does not meet the standards required for a standalone entry.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 20:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The linked source from the Journal of Islamic Studies and Humanities dedicates about two pages to this book, which led me to believe it was worthwhile to use it. If it does not meet the standards for an article on a book, it could be redirected back to Shibli Nomani until someone compiles more substantial information. Reconrabbit 20:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Mccapra, where are you suggesting this, and other articles, be Redirected to? Please always identify a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m suggesting redirecting to Shibli Nomani, the author, where the work is mentioned. Mccapra (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. The sole 'Keep' here is a promise to improve the page - a promise that has yet to be fulfilled. Owen× ☎ 14:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad Heroes

Hyderabad Heroes (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:NSPORT with very limited WP:SIGCOV Agent 007 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has just been created. Within the next couple of days, more details and sources will be added. It’s foolish to list it for deletion without giving it time to be completed. OCDD (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be completed in draft space. Draftify Mn1548 (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AGF relist to give User:OCDD more time to work on this, since I don't see a strong consensus for any one outcome yet. However, I will note that OCDD has only made [22] one edit to this page since their !vote. I strongly encourage them to make good on their promise to add more details and sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: There will probably be better coverage once the season has started, but the article is currently lacking any sources with significant coverage about the subject - the sources present are primarily about the competition, with very little content about the teams involved. EdwardUK (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2025 (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 12:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omaxe

Omaxe (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)

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. WP:BEFORE is all about new project launches, funding news, winning government contracts., etc - all are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 11 April 2025 (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 05:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medica Hospitals

Medica Hospitals (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:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. An alternative to deletion could be merging with Manipal Hospitals. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 18 April 2025 (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. RL0919 (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fortis Healthcare

Fortis Healthcare (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)

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like government approvals, profit/financial reporting, capacity expansion news, acquisition news, partnership news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. WP:ATD - Manipal Hospitals. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 11 April 2025 (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. No sources have been provided to substantiate a keep close. asilvering (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shekinah TV

Shekinah TV (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 am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the scroll.in piece referenced in the article does contain some analysis such as suggesting the tv channel is set up to promote positive news rather than the negative stories that have surfaced about the church, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: WP:GNG typically requires evidence from multiple independent, reliable sources providing such coverage to establish notability, or perhaps exceptionally deep coverage in a single source. My WP:BEFORE search didn't uncover other sources offering this level of independent analysis, suggesting this might be an isolated mention rather than evidence of wider significant coverage. Therefore, I maintain that the subject currently fails WP:GNG based on the overall sourcing found. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2025 (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 23:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darshana TV

Darshana TV (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 am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep the article and improve the references. Channel is available in most DTH (except SUN) and most Cable aggregators.
Anish Viswa 04:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the points raised: Availability doesn't satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent sources (see WP:NEXIST). The suggestion to improve sources falls under WP:HEY; the key is demonstrating such sources actually exist, which the WP:BEFORE search did not confirm. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Darshana.tv
 No Website of the channel Yes Self-published Yes Only about it. ✘ No
Keralatv.in.
 Yes Yes Page not found. 404 ? Unknown
Bharatchannels.com
 No clue. Yes Yes, only about it. ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

A search doesn't offer anything either. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:54, 11 April 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest TV

Harvest TV (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 am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:10, 18 April 2025 (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. ✗plicit 00:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevan TV

AfDs for this article:
Jeevan TV (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 am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep the article and improve the references. Channel is available in most DTH and most Cable aggregators.
Anish Viswa 04:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the points raised: Availability doesn't satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent sources (see WP:NEXIST). The suggestion to improve sources falls under WP:HEY; the key is demonstrating such sources actually exist, which the WP:BEFORE search did not confirm. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:10, 18 April 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness (TV channel)

Goodness (TV channel) (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 am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last attempt to reach some kind of quorum.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2025 (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. We appear to be in agreement that she meets the letter of WP:NACTOR, though whether she meets the spirit of it is in question. This may be worth revisiting after her next film comes out. asilvering (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thapaswini Poonacha

AfDs for this article:
Thapaswini Poonacha (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)

Declined G4. Non-notable actress. This version of the article is drastically different from the previous version which was deleted in 2022. Although it's still in very poor shape, and would need to be completely rewritten if kept. Fails WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris talk! 21:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to AfD Discussion: Thapaswini Poonacha
I oppose the deletion of this article on the grounds that Thapaswini Poonacha meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for actors (WP:NACTOR) and has received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources.
1. Notability as an Actress
Thapaswini Poonacha has been featured in multiple Kannada films, including:
Hari Kathe Alla Giri Kathe (2022) – Available on JioCinema
Gajarama (2025) – Upcoming release on February 7, 2025
Mr. Jack – Upcoming, co-starring Guru Nandan
Rukmini Vasantha – Upcoming, co-starring Shree Mahadev
She has received media attention for her performances and won the Chittara Promising Star Award, which is a notable recognition in the Kannada film industry.
2. Significant Media Coverage
Multiple independent and reliable sources have covered her career and achievements, demonstrating significant coverage beyond passing mentions:
Times of India:
"I do my research before signing a film"
"Not about numbers, want to do memorable movies"
"Roles have to make my soul happy"
The New Indian Express:
"I have no interest in chasing attention"
Kannada Prabha:
"Thapaswini Poonacha: I have no interest in chasing attention"
Hindustan Times Kannada:
"Thapaswini Poonacha in Christmas photoshoot"
These sources demonstrate that Thapaswini Poonacha is consistently covered in reputable media, indicating her notability as an actress and public figure.
3. Business and Coffee Industry Recognition
In addition to her acting career, she is a certified coffee cup tester and runs a coffee business in Coorg. This has been discussed in interviews and media coverage, adding to her notability beyond acting.
4. Conclusion
Thapaswini Poonacha meets WP:NACTOR by virtue of:
✅ Multiple roles in notable Kannada films
✅ Award recognition (Chittara Promising Star Award)
✅ Significant, independent media coverage
✅ Additional recognition in the coffee industry
Given the multiple reliable sources and her growing career in Kannada cinema, deletion is not justified. If improvements are needed, I encourage a rewrite instead of deletion. Akashmdp (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
Agree on multiple roles in notable Kannada films, which is enough for a standalone page, but would you happen to have a source for the award, by any chance? -Mushy Yank. 17:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seen the Youtube video. Added it. A better source might be needed for that, but as notability does not depend on that point (but on her 2 roles), not urgent. Advising you no to repeat the same things nor add long walls of text here or on the page. -Mushy Yank. 18:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you ask AI to ask if the article should be deleted or not? That might explain why Kannada industry became coffee industry. DareshMohan (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 2 significant roles in (2) notable films (the second has no page yet but at least 3 bylined reviews [see page]) have her meet the requirements for WP:NACTRESS. I have cleaned up the page. -Mushy Yank. 17:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep – Thapaswini Poonacha meets WP:NACTRESS by having significant roles in two notable films:
    Hari Kathe Alla Giri Kathe (2022) – Recognized and covered in mainstream Kannada media.
    Gajarama (2025) – While the film does not yet have its own Wikipedia page, it has received at least three bylined reviews from reliable sources.
    Additionally, she has been profiled in multiple independent, reliable sources, including:
    Times of India (article)
    New Indian Express (article)
    Kannada Prabha (article)
    Hindustan Times Kannada (article)
    Her acting career and coffee business have been independently covered, reinforcing her notability beyond just press releases or promotional content. The page has been cleaned up to meet Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing guidelines.
    Thus, per WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS, the article should be kept. Akashmdp (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
    The Kannada Prabha piece is more interview. The Vinay Lokesh piece is also interview. These aren't nearly enough, IMHO. I don't see a single presented source which isn't routine entertainment news, mostly quotes. No direct detailing at all. To Akashmdp, repeating your bullet points over and over doesn't make your argument any stronger. You may be convinced, but you need to convince the other editors in this discussion. BusterD (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User:Akashmdp is the page creator AND a paid contributor to this page. As for the sources already applied on the page, cite #2 (Asianet Suvarna News) admits it's a Kannada translation of The Times of India link (cite #1). Both consist entirely of identical quotes from the subject. Interviews do not count towards GNG. The two movie reviews are both (parenthetical) bare mentions, but do confirm the single role. Cite #5 is also an interview with a few bits of routine industry news. The photoshoot linked above is five pics of her in same outfit next to quotes from the actress. If this is all an avowed digital marketing professional with 7+ years of experience in the industry can bring, it's not very impressive to me. BusterD (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For full disclosure, I was the administrator who declined the speedy deletion tag earlier. BusterD (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG.
    I would like to address the concerns raised by User:BusterD regarding notability and sources.
    1. Significant Roles in Multiple Notable Films
      • Hari Kathe Alla Giri Kathe (2022) – A commercially released Kannada film with media coverage.
      • Gajarama (2025) – Upcoming film, already receiving pre-release coverage.
      • Mr. Jack & Rukmini Vasantha – Both announced, with media mentions. Under WP:NACTRESS, an actor needs two significant roles in notable films, which she meets.
    2. Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources
      • Times of India: Multiple interviews and feature stories.
      • New Indian Express: Independent reporting on her career.
      • Hindustan Times (Kannada): Coverage of her work.
      • Kannada Prabha: Career analysis and industry perspectives. Response to the Source Criticism:
      • The Times of India article is a primary source, but it is still independent and features her career insights.
      • The Asianet Suvarna News article may translate TOI but does not invalidate other sources.
      • Movie reviews confirm her roles, fulfilling minimum WP:NACTRESS requirements.
      • The New Indian Express piece is not just an interview; it provides analysis of her trajectory.
      • Photoshoot coverage, while not the strongest evidence, still indicates media attention.
    3. Regarding Paid Editing Allegations
      • While User:Akashmdp may have created the page, the subject’s notability stands independently.
      • Wikipedia has a system for COI disclosures, but that does not automatically invalidate an article’s merits.
      • Even if a paid editor initiated the page, the subject’s career must be evaluated separately from who added the content.
    4. Conclusion
      • Thapaswini Poonacha meets both WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS based on her coverage and career milestones.
      • The article has been cleaned up to remove promotional tone and improve sourcing.
      • If further citations or refinements are needed, that can be worked on, but outright deletion is unnecessary.
    Thus, the article should be kept. Akashmdp (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
    Now you're screaming. You have made your argument. Let others speak. Mushy Yank can be helpful here. Consult with them. BusterD (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 20:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes Wp:GNG and Wp:NACTRESS. Multiple significant roles in notable movies and multiple significant coverage in WP:RS, both are available. Zuck28 (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: As per above discussion and my search on the subject find this: [34], [35], [36] B-Factor (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Keep
    Thank you, B-Factor, for your input. The references you provided—Times of India, Cinema Express, and The New Indian Express—are credible sources that establish Thapaswini Poonacha’s notability as an actress in Kannada cinema.
    These sources provide coverage of her career, film roles, and interviews, which meet Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines (GNG). Additionally, her role in upcoming films like Gajarama shows ongoing relevance.
    I believe the page should be retained, but I am open to improving it by adding more citations or restructuring content for better compliance with Wikipedia standards.
    Looking forward to further discussion. Akashmdp (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
    @Akashmdp Is your !vote Keep or Weak Keep? (You don't need to repeat identical arguments over and over, even if it's to thank someone -we understood your point, I guess-, which is perfectly fine, though) Inviting you to "remove" your "Weak Keep" above (with strikethrough) (So that it appears Weak Keep) if your !vote (the only thing that should be bolded (theorically :D) in a !vote) is indeed Keep. And Gajarama is NOT an upcoming film, mind you. It was released in February and has received multiple reviews in reliable media outlets, this being one of the main arguments (with her other significant role) in favour of retention of the page. -Mushy Yank. 18:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, thank you for your kind suggestion. Yes, I was confused. Gajarams is released. I am sorry for that. Should I update that in the page? Also, there is no option to remove keep with strike. Should I send new reply regarding that? Akashmdp (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
It’s OK, done it for you. The film is clearly indicated as released in the article so there’s no problem. -Mushy Yank. 17:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. If you don’t mind, can you tell me what should I do next? Is the article live? Nomination header is still there. Akashmdp (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
Just be patient :D. The discussion will take place until April 9 at least. The nomination tag will remain until the discussion is closed and a consensus (to retain/delete/redirect/draftify) is clear. Nothing to do in particular here; feel free to list new sources on the talk page if you find some and think they are useful to expand the page. Best, -Mushy Yank. 18:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, if you wish and can, you could upload a quality photograph of this actress if you can find one that corresponds to the guidelines explained in Wikipedia:Images. Be particularly mindful of copyright and legal issues if you can find one. Please note that the potential insertion of an image is totally unrelated to notability questions and that it will not change a thing in the current discussion. -Mushy Yank. 19:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. How long does it take to index on google? Akashmdp (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
From their frequent use of the phrase, it appears Akashmdp gets paid when the page indexes. This was not written by an LLM, at least. BusterD (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NACTRESS who has worked as female lead in two films that have been released. Page needs to be improved though with secondary independent reliable sources. Sources with interviews are not independent of the subject. RangersRus (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: at the suggestion of another editor, I ran GPTZero on User:Akashmdp's extended posts in this discussion. They each came up 100% LLM created. BusterD (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I had used LLM to improvise my article since my english is not upto the par. So much allegations on me, I am the friend of Thapaswini, I am marketer by profession but doesn’t mean I am charging Thapaswini. I can provide any proof that she is my friend. I am solely doing this for a good will. If you insist me to add COI paid or something, I really don’t mind until it doesn’t affect our article. And I still stand on my stance that I am not being paid. In future I might write an article which will be paid I hope, that time I would definitely mention it. And this is my first article and I am still a noob. I would be expecting you people help rather than defending it. @Mushy Yank@BusterD please check this out.
    Thank you Akashmdp (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
  • Delete - The "two" significant roles argument is good as long as there is significant coverage on the subject themself. Simply having sources verifying a role is not enough. The sourcing here is no better than it was in the first two deletion discussions (mentions, NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable). Apparently there are two other films they are involved in. Maybe when there is more coverage of them there will be more coverage of this subject. Until then, it is a case of TOOSOON. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Aside from the LLVM generated content, the views of experienced editors are split between keeping and deleting. Another week getting views of other editors is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure - whilst it is true she’s been an actor in two films, it’s not really clear that these are notable even in the context of Indian cinema where it appears more than 100 Kannada language films are released per year. It is true there are reviews from Indian newspapers, but these suggest that the critical reviews were not good. It seems plausible to me that Indian actors might only be considered notable if they’ve been in movies that are particularly notable. The use of LLM and closeness to the subject strongly suggests that the !keep votes above are clouding the issue. JMWt (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: passes WP:NACTOR (barely, but still...). The subject also passes WP:GNG. The sourcing appears good - at least two of them are WP:RS, and the coverage is significant enough to warrant an article. I agree that the page needs to be improved, though.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources do not necessary mean significant coverage. Which references show the person meets WP:BASIC as that is still a requirement given the WP:NACTOR guideline says " meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."--CNMall41 (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Delete until the release of her next film Mr. Jack per WP:TOO EARLY. Given that the film was already shooting in January 2025, a release could happen in 2025. Regarding COI, I or any other editor can blank the draft and rewrite it. The issue I have with keeping the article is that what if her next film doesn't release, will she be notable? I had trouble sourcing her second unreleased film based on English sources [37]. DareshMohan (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    She has already acted on two notable movies. This article is being targeted for no reason. You are not considering the “keep” comments from other editors. You guys already decided to get it deleted then keeping it. Feels like being targeted. Please help me rather than keeping the conversation for more than a week. I am just being honest.
    Thank you Akashmdp (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is indeed no need to wait for the release of another production. She already passes NACTOR and even if her career stopped today, she would remain notable according to that guideline -Mushy Yank. 21:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If on the other hand the page creator gets themselves blocked for their continued shady behavior, this will make it harder for them to make money on their next page creation. Mushy, please convince Akashmdp to allow the process to work without them continuing to sound like a jerk. BusterD (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Akashmdp please be patient until April,17, at least. Your comment is unclear but sounds partially inappropriate. If, on the other hand, experienced users could refrain from using words like ”jerk”, that is very unlikely to come across as friendly or even polite, that might help too. -Mushy Yank. 05:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi BusterD, I am sorry but you are taking it too personal. Please be nice to writers, it will maintain a healthy environment. You using all words like j***, terms like that can feel discouraging for contributors. I have already mentioned I am not doing it for money, you can check above comments of mine. Now, as Mushy Yank suggested, I respect his words and I will stay silent until he ask to.
    Thank you. Akashmdp (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I had already ”rewritten” the page, fwiw. -Mushy Yank. 04:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the award notable? See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Chittara_Star_Awards. DareshMohan (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t know exactly to what extent, but even if it counts, it does not seem enough for ANYBIO. Or (from a K point of vue), even it’s not enough in istelf, it’s a plus. -Mushy Yank. 08:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is incredible to me the amount of time sometimes that is expended on some cases of notability when it at least passes the basic tests. Is this person sufficiently covered by reliable sources to pass WP:NACTOR. Yes. Are they as notable as Leonardo DiCaprio? No. But they don't need to be. The article subject matter proves in the citations to be notable and should have the article kept. Enough already! Iljhgtn (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:35, 18 April 2025 (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. Clear sources that establish GNG have not been presented, and convincing arguments have been made to the contrary. While not numerically clear, the weight of arguments are clearly in favour of deletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 08:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pathankot Campaign

Pathankot Campaign (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)

Article describes a 1775 clash between Sikh Misls but fails to show its a distinct, notable event beyond skirmishes already covered in articles like Kanhaiya Misl, Bhangi Misl, or Sikh Confederacy. "Pathankot Campaign" isn’t a recognized term in historical scholarship, also WP:RS don’t treat it as a standalone event separate from typical inter-Misl strife. It leans on a narrow set of sources, like Gandhi (1999) and Gupta (1939), lack the mainstream weight or specificity to confirm details. NXcrypto Message 10:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An unbiased source analysis would be far more useful than accusations of "revenge" or AI use.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes Authored by a reputed scholar Hari Ram Gupta Yes Beyond a full page of coverage ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Same author as above ~ Passing mention with no detailed coverage about the battle event but has a good overview of background ~ Partial
Yes Yes Author is HoD of Ramghariya University No Passing mention ✘ No
Yes No A thesis presented to the Punjabi University Patiala in fulfillment of the requirements for PhD in history; don't qualify WP:SCHOLARSHIP No Passing mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Dympies (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are saying that there is only 1 source which has provided major coverage to this conflict, and that too a 1944 source. Are you seriously citing a work from 1944 and calling it significant coverage? See WP:HISTRS. That source does not count towards notability in any way, if anything your source assessment table has conclusively proven that this conflict is not at all notable. You comment should be better read as delete. Azuredivay (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At present, we're at 50/50 on delete vs keep, and it seems unlikely that another relist would get us any closer to a consensus. However, I agree with Azuredivay that Dympies's source table suggests the appropriate vote is "delete", not "keep". So, rather than close as no consensus or a somewhat supervotey delete, I've had a look at the sources myself and can confirm that what NXCrypto says about the second source Heraklios presents being just Hari Ram Gupta again is entirely correct; these are the same source, just different editions of it. I do not think it is accurate to say these are two pages of content about the battle; what they certainly are not is two different pairs of two pages about the battle. This is not to mention that this source uses "The Battle of Pathankot, 1775" as the name of this conflict and does not apparently refer to this as the "Pathankot Campaign". From what I can see of Singha 1993, a source that has not come up in this AfD but which is present in the article, it has roughly the same content. I can see grounds for a mention of this battle in the articles Zamzama and Bhangi Misl, but I don't see enough for a standalone article with the sources that have been presented here. Ordinarily, given the type of coverage in Gupta, I would expect to be able to find more detailed coverage of some parts of this event elsewhere. However, the only ones here appear to lean very heavily on Gupta, which suggests to me that the detailed coverage elsewhere does not (yet?) exist. Since no new sources have come up in this discussion, I land "delete". -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2025 (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. Significant concerns raised over sourcing and policy related matters (including WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO) with no assertions of WP:HEY rectifying the problems. Goldsztajn (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War

Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia 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)

There is no conflict such as the "Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War", sources do not support it and provide no significant coverage to a conflict under this name. This article is a part of a series of fringe pseudohistorical articles created for ethno-religious POV pushing. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete sources exist that proves the content is genuine. But the article title is indeed pseudohistory. The available content could be merged into any of the parent articles. Academic sources lacks covering this as an individual war.Borax || (talk to Borax) 14:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlvaKedak (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The coverage in the sources is not enough and none of the sources support this neologism made up by the author "Ahluwalia - Ramgarhia war" , in fact sources do not even support that this was a war, sources at best refer to it as skirmishes and do not provide significant coverage to them. Anyway given the author's history of making copyvio, I doubt this article is free of it. The relevant details (not closely paraphrased) can be covered at the articles of relevant personalities. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Input from editors familiar with milhist but who do not normally edit in this topic area would be hugely welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can't find the article title in those sources which I can see but, worse, a quick check shows that there are copyright issues. For example, the last paragraph is far too close a paraphrase of the cited source. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sitush is correct, there are serious close paraphrasing issues in the article, combine that with dubious notability and the obviously made up title, are sufficient grounds for deletion. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The editors seeking to keep this article did not present policy/guideline-based arguments, and indeed one conceded that it did not meet WP:GNG. If Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability § Request for comment: Notability guideline for newspapers passes, this topic could be reconsidered. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mokokchung Times

Mokokchung Times (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)

Challenging draftification. I found no significant coverage of the website from any reliable sources. There are passing mentions, but they are not enough to meet SIGCOV. Additionally, no policy states that being a news organization automatically makes it notable. GrabUp - Talk 11:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have very little Wikipedia representation in Nagaland (Northeast India) and I looked at this newspaper, and right now it seems fine.
Here are some article headlines which I see right now in this newspaper. All of them seem appropriate to me to cite to develop Wikipedia articles on related topics:
Bluerasberry (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In accordance with WP:NMEDIA, dailies such as Mokokchung Times are assumed significant if they extensively circulate and contain a known history of independent reporting. Asking for major secondary coverage creates an unrealistic expectation—media does not cover others. Removing this page has the risk of enabling systemic bias (WP:BIAS) against regional media. Agree with (Bluerasberry)Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2025 (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. limited support for deletion, with no consensus after three weeks. Owen× ☎ 23:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arunachal Times

Arunachal Times (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)

Challenging draftification. I found no significant coverage of the website from any reliable sources. There are passing mentions, but they are not enough to meet SIGCOV. Additionally, no policy states that being a news organization automatically makes it notable. GrabUp - Talk 11:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: In accordance with WP:NMEDIA, dailies such as Arunachal Times are assumed significant if they extensively circulate and contain a known history of independent reporting. Asking for major secondary coverage creates an unrealistic expectation—media does not cover others. Removing this page has the risk of enabling systemic bias (WP:BIAS) against regional media. You cannot judge dailies using WP:GNG as dailies themselves are the source of 3rd party material. Other dailies don't usually write about each other Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - searching on Google Books reveal that plenty of works reference this newspaper. South Asia and China: Engagement in the Twenty-First Century has ample commentary about the editorial positions of the newspaper on Indo-China issues. Mass Media of India -2004 lists it as one of the principal dailies in the state. The sole daily in Arunachal Pradesh listed in Press in India, vol. 33. "Arunachal Times was published from the state with Vijay Kumar Nath as the chief editor and Taso Grayu as the editor - cum- publisher . Kumar joined in August 1989 and ultimately took over as its editor in December 2003. Its popularity grew day by day . From letter composing , the daily introduced offset in 1996 and web offset on 2nd December 2008."([46]). In 2014-2015 Arunchal Times had the second-largest advertisement payments from central Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of all Arunchal newspapers ([47]). "In July this year, Tongam Rina, a leading journalist and associate editor of Arunachal Times was shot from close range while she was leaving the office." (The Telegraph), "On July 15, 2012, the well-known investigative journalist and associate editor of the Arunachal Times was shot by unknown gunmen as she entered..." (IFJ). "Arunachal Pradesh chief minister Nabam Tuki has enquired about the progress of investigation into the recent attacks on The Arunachal Times office" (ToI). Etc, etc. It almost feels like WP:BEFORE was not performed before bringing this to AfD. --Soman (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that these sources are passing mentions and the last book and PDF which you cited are government publications, so they are not INDEPENDENT. GrabUp - Talk 08:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am quoting wikipedia guidelines for media outlets:
    Many of the reliable sources used on Wikipedia come from the media, especially about current topics. However, the media does not often report on itself. It is not often that one media outlet will give neutral attention to another, as this could be seen as "advertising for the competition." Also, when searching for sources on media outlets, the results are often pages produced by the outlet, making it difficult to find significant coverage in multiple sources.
    As media outlets are themselves a significant proportion of our sources for other content, however, it serves an important purpose for Wikipedia to provide neutral and verifiable information about those sources so that readers are able to evaluate their reliability and scope.
    The subject here is definitely notble because as @Soman pointed out, it has been the subject of coverage of multiple independent sources, and there are countless scholarly sources, that have cited this news outlet for their research. This definitely does qualify wikipedia guidelines. What you are citing right now about trivial mention is WP:GNG. You cannot use WP:GNG for news outlets.
    This is what Wikipedia guidelines have to say for newspapers.
    Notability is presumed for newspapers, magazines and journals that verifiably meet through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:
    1. have produced work that has received a well-known and significant journalism award or honor or has been nominated for such an award several times
    2. have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history
    3. are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative or influential in their subject area
    4. are frequently cited by other reliable sources
    5. are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets
    Publications that primarily carry advertising and only have trivial content may have relevant details merged to an article on their publisher or an equivalent sister newspaper (if notable). Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Flyingphoenixchips: Stop using LLM and I already pointed out to you, that it is not a guidline still now. GrabUp - Talk 05:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When did I use lol lmao. My guy. I just copy pasted what was there in WP:NMEDIA. If that’s LLM then pls edit the page Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Flyingphoenixchips: You were posting LLM generated arguments here. You were so careless that you even copied links directly from ChatGPT,the links ended with ‘?utm_source=chatgpt.com’. After I collapsed your message, you removed it so no one would know you were using LLMs here and in other AfDs. And now, you’re shamelessly claiming that you never used them. Even I raised this to you in your Talk page, which you removed without replies. GrabUp - Talk 05:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude what I copied is from Wikipedia itself. Have a look. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So, this LLM argument you posted here was copied from Wikipedia? Wikipedia includes links with ending “chatgpt”? GrabUp - Talk 05:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not talking about this. Talking about what I posted yesterday, and you called that LLM 🤷‍♂️ Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arunachal_Times&oldid=1285694550
    talking about this edit. You called this LLM generated. Yes I admit using it previously, and I am not using it right now. You called the points I added in yesterday as LLM. That’s where I corrected you Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever I have written just now was just a copy of what was already there in WP:NMEDIA I did not change a single word, so I guess the content of WP:NMEDIA is LLM generated 🤷‍♂️ Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To get us back on track, I'd like to say something important. NMEDIA is an essay, and in 2021, an attempt to make it an SNG (which I led) was roundly rejected. Flyingphoenixchips does quote NMEDIA, in a section that predated widespread use of LLM. Yes, newspapers tend to be a bit gun-shy about covering their rivals.
    But here, we have to separate notability and article condition. The current article text smells of an LLM (the lack of most wikilinks also contributes to this feeling), and the 2020 start date seems wrong (they have stories up to 2017 on their site). Only Soman's source work indicates correctly the notability of this daily newspaper, which was the first broadsheet daily in the state when it began 6 June 1989 (ProQuest 2272282984). This page needs someone to start over and do it right. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to The Archies (film)#Cast as a reasonable ATD. I see a rough consensus against keeping this as a standalone article, which is more than enough not to retain a BLP. Owen× ☎ 23:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Saigal

Aditi Saigal (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)

This is a case of Wp:TOOSOON. Just one film as acting career and one ep for that she received some press coverage. Other than that she is daughter of singer and actor parents but notability is not inherited. Fails wp:NACTOR and Wp:NMUSIC as well. Zuck28 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2024/aditi-saigal-aka-dot-winning-with-words-and-melody/91751/1
  • Not all individuals featured in Forbes necessarily meet the eligibility threshold for a standalone Wikipedia article.
    The subject must first satisfy the notability criteria outlined in Wikipedia's WP:Notability guidelines as a prerequisite for inclusion.
    Zuck28 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability is not established per WP:NACTOR, WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:GNG. The sourcing consists of standard PR type promo that one would see for any emerging actor with a press agent, including Forbes, which is not significant coverage, it's simply a photo of her with a caption mentioning her name, thus trivial. The Forbes "profile" link above is more standard PR written by "Forbes Staff", (it does not even have a by-line). I agree with the nom that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps in a few more years this emerging actor will become notable, but at this time, one acting role, Spotify "fans" and famous parents is not enough. Netherzone (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does have a byline and in my view counts as one piece of significant reliable sources coverage. Another reliable bylined piece in the Hindu here, another bylined piece here, leaning Keep for WP:GNG rather than WP:NACTOR imvAtlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. I see a rough consensus against keeping the article in mainspace, and broad support for working on it as a draft while sources are likely to be added as they get published. Owen× ☎ 12:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled S. S. Rajamouli film

Untitled S. S. Rajamouli film (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 film title, just started filming, and anticipated release date in 2027. Nothing notable about the production and references are all churnalism, routine, or WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I do not see a redirect as an option as it has twice been removed based on the history. CNMall41 (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This article is premature as the film is still in the early stages of production and lacks a confirmed title. The current sources primarily offer routine production updates and do not demonstrate the significant notability required for a standalone article at this stage. Creating a full article now risks violating WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL, as details about the film are likely to evolve. While the involvement of notable figures is acknowledged, Wikipedia articles require more than just anticipation to warrant inclusion. Deletion is recommended until the film progresses further, has a definitive title, and receives substantial coverage establishing its notability.Aditi's Voice (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: filming has started; notable cast, crew and director; a lot of coverage about production. At worst, redirect (or draftify). Opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 15:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to SSMB29, the film's tentative title. It is noteworthy that the director's previous film's tentative title was so famous that it became the actual title, which is likely not the case for this film however. DareshMohan (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Sources are mostly about leaked scene and others are on casting, and other routine news. Not notable yet. I was leaning to vote draftify but very likely the page will be moved back again right away to mainspace unless an administrator can put a move lock to it. If a move lock can be done, please let me know and I can change my vote to draftify. RangersRus (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aditi's Voice:, you need to bold your vote. RangersRus (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The title should not be the criteria to redirect or delete, as it has begun filming, is notable and has wide media coverage. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 5:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Regards (CP) 07:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of filming, please see WP:NFF which states, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." How is the production notable?--CNMall41 (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Budget, coverage, cast, etc. -Mushy Yank. 04:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the notability guideline that states notability is based on budget, cast, coverage, etc.? I must have missed it. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. -Mushy Yank. 17:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found it.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, wrong link. -Mushy Yank. 17:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...guys, really? Toadspike [Talk] 21:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this has several claims to notability already, and it seems to have significant coverage in reliable sources. As for NEWSORGINDIA, some pieces don't have bylines, but some do [48], and some are not even Indian [49]. I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that a film that has begun shooting with a notable director, notable producer, and notable cast is notable. Add to that the fact that the director's last project was RRR, the most successful Indian film of all time by several metrics, and that line of argument becomes very reasonable. I could support draftifying until release, but the draft will be at risk of deletion every six months – when we expect this to come out in two years, that's just creating an unnecessary headache. Toadspike [Talk] 21:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now per WP:HAMMER. Once the film is released, that will be the time to have an article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You may argue that the sources we have don't show that film is notable right now, but that essay doesn't seem to apply; we have a lot more than "rumors posted to message boards, blogs, or Facebook" right now. Toadspike [Talk] 13:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFF would apply. Just because something "has begun shooting with a notable director, notable producer, and notable cast is notable" does not mean it is notable. Maybe when it gets closer to release (which isn't even a definite date, but the earliest would be two years from now) but right now the majority of sources are press releases, churnalism, and fancruft. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete - For a film which is suspected to release so far into the future, and seems to lack any form of notability for its prerelease details. The subject also seems to include several speculatory points from unreliable sources (i.e WP:GNG).
I do think because of the lack of notability, it might be too soon. I think that more reliable sources may be introduced as relevance rises but in the current state, it isn't like that. This should either be drafted or deleted (for speculatory reasons). twisted. (user | talk | contribs) 18:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards draftify per WP:TOOSOON. However, I do think it will be notable in the future, if it isn't already. Procyon117 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source Analysis . After reviewing all the 45 sources on the page, it is very clear why this is WP:TOOSOON. All reports are majorly, buzz, speculations and rumors. The makers have not made an official announcement regarding the developments.
    • Source 1 about rumors circulating that Rajamouli might release #SSMB29 on March 25, 2027. However, the makers have yet to announce an official release date for the film.
    • Source 2 idiva.com, very likely unreliable women's magazine, partnered with mensxp, an unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES.
    • Source 3, old article from 2015 about director teaming with actor Mahesh Babu for old project.
    • Source 4 non independent source on interview with the actor about his films.
    • Source 5 another old article from 2017 where it's undecided if the director and actor will work together.
    • Source 6 passing mention "Rajamouli will work with Telugu superstar Mahesh Babu in a yet-to-be-titled project for producer K.L. Narayana. The film is likely to roll in 2019."
    • Source 7, thenewsminute, has nothing about the project, not even passing mention.
    • Source 8 nothing on the project, not even passing mention
    • Source 9 old article from 2021 about buzz and speculation on the budget and the writer of the film to explore the African Forest Adventure space for project that is not finalized.
    • Source 10, non independent source on interview with actor that has brief mention about teaming with director for next project.
    • Source 11 non independent source on interview with director and director's father on the project, to be an inspiration from Indiana jones.
    • Source 12 on unconfirmed report about the director purchasing the rights to African-British novelist Wilbur Smith’s bestselling adventure novels Triumph of the Sun and King of Kings, speculating that this is where the vision of the project to be from.
    • Source 13 same on buzz and speculation as source 12
    • Source 14 on two more stars joining the cast and have begun shooting. Scouting locations in India and Africa
    • Source 15 on pre production about director sharing pictures on his Instagram post of Kenya, scouting for film locations.
    • Source 16 from Jan 2024 about report on massive budget and comments from interview with the writer of the film Vijayendra Prasad.
    • Source 17 also on report on massive budget but doubtful with article saying "If the Rs 1000-crore budget is accurate..."
    • Source 18 on reports about project being a two-part film set for 2027 & 2029 release.
    • Source 19 404 page not found
    • Source 20, just a brief mention on actress Priyanka Chopra back in Hyderabad to begin shooting for the third schedule of SS Rajamouli’s much-anticipated film SSMB29.
    • Source 21, March 19, 2024, Instagram video and pictures of director in Japan and talking about his project, "completed the writing and have begun the pre-production process."
    • Source 22, buzz on the director and actor planning to kick off filming in January 2025, with the director actively searching for the perfect locations.
    • Source 23 on actor sharing on social media, a series of captivating photos from his trekking expedition in the scenic Black Forest.
    • Source 24 on actor leaving for Germany, related to the project.
    • Source 25 on director sharing glimpses of his location scouting in South Africa.
    • Source 26 on launching the project in Hyderabad with actor sharing tweets and casting of actress Priyanka Chopra doubtful.
    • Source 27 from sep 18, 2024 on early and rumored reports on the project and doubtful about full cast.
    • Source 28 from June 24, 2024 with comments from music composer MM Keeravani, about update on the project.
    • Source 29 from feb 13, 2024 about technical crew getting finalized but it's speculation
    • Source 30 from sep 30, 2024 on pre production work and speculation if the actor will reveal his look for the project at an event.
    • Source 31, about some fan sharing glimpse of the shooting on twitter and other speculation and rumors
    • Source 32, mother of actress Priyanka Chopra, revealing that the actress is part of the project
    • Source 33 on a a viral picture captured with Prithviraj Sukumaran along with Mahesh at the airport, spotted departing from Hyderabad.
    • Source 34 from sep 22, 2022, one sentence brief mention "Rajamouli next will direct an untitled feature starring Mahesh Babu, with production set to start in the spring."
    • Source 35 about actress Priyanka Chopra taking a break from the project to attend brother's wedding.
    • Source 36 about actress Priyanka Chopra back to work after brother's wedding.
    • Source 37 on buzz and rumors on where the next shooting location could me and on replacement of one of the cast member.
    • Source 38 on report that Mahesh Babu and Priyanka Chopra will arrive in Odisha and again Prithviraj's casting doubt.
    • Source 39 about a footage leaked online from the project.
    • Source 40 about no confirmation and doubts on the leaked picture about the set of the project.
    • Source 41, same reports as on source 31 about some fan sharing a leaked footage of the film.
    • Source 42, again about leak of the footage and the production team and director deeply upset over the breach.
    • Source 43 on reports what the project could be about. Again speculations.
    • Source 44 , 404 page not found
    • Source 45, from December 12, 2021 about director answering when asked about his next project, "the project is not on his mind at the moment as he is busy promoting his upcoming movie Rise Roar Revolt (RRR)". RangersRus (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RangersRus:, Thanks for the deep dive into all the sources. The page is currently a WP:REFBOMB of WP:CHURNALISM. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting the attempted close by SPA. Would suggest salting if deleted or draftified as we will likely be dealing with this on a regular basis if not. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few sources in this analysis show that the production has garnered WP:SIGCOV. For eg. Source No 12 is an independent reliable source which talks exclusively about the film. Whether the report itself is confirmed is confirmed by the makers or not is another discussion, unrelated to the film's notability as such. Ab207 (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: thank you very much but I am not convinced by this list of short comments on each source (just added 2, btw), personally; yes SSMB29 is an upcoming film, and that won't change until release but even with what is presented in what is intended to shed a negative light on all the existing sources, one can clearly realise its production is notable...Some sources are better than other, of course, and some are not great and even need to be removed and/or replaced but even if production stopped today SSMB29 can imv be covered in this encyclopedia. One can dislike what is said in some sources but not discard them all because a given source says "If", another focuses on the premise, another on the budget, another is about the actors, etc. Yes, they're about the production and even if the author of a given article expresses reservations, some of the sources and their overall sum, should count. Some sources are also there for verification only. I am not sure what kind of official statement about the development is missing/expected.-Mushy Yank.
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 and redirect‎ to Battle of Lahore (1748). Star Mississippi 15:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Manupur

Battle of Manupur (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 battle; article is cobbled together from passing mentions in various sources and padded out with the "background" and "aftermath" sections. Sources that do exist do not properly verify the content. For example, the date of 10 March 1748 is cited to a book that only says "In a battle fought near Sirhind early in 1748 Qamruddin received a fatal wound but his son Muin ul-Mulk defeated Ahmad Shah Abdali with the support of Safdar Jang." Indian campaign of Ahmad Shah Durrani is a possible redirect target, but I'm not sure it's a good one, and it may be better just to delete this. If redirected, request that the closing admin delete and redirect, as similar articles have been deleted for copyvio reasons and these are frequent sockfarm targets. asilvering (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree with your other nominations, I disagree with this one and feel Manupur is more relevant. I've seen more significant sources cover it, page could generally be improved though, no doubt. Here's some sources:
[50] [51] [52] Noorullah (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Just fyi, we usually use the bolded word "keep" to oppose AfDs.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks. Noorullah (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Relangi Narasimha Rao#Filmography. Star Mississippi 20:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eluka Majaka

Eluka Majaka (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)

Notable director (his 75th film) and notable cast, so why are there no reliable reviews? A search in Telugu (or English for that matter) surprisingly yields nothing [53]. No reliable reviews or other reliable sources apart from the single sources already on the article. The old sources that used to be on the article and a WP:BEFORE yielded: [54] [55] [56] [57]. This is not a pre-2010 film, it is a 2016 film, hence it needs more sources.

Note several films by the same director lack articles including his immediate previous film (see the director's filmography). Note: I support a redirect to Relangi Narasimha Rao#Filmography, where the same source about this film is also there. DareshMohan (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This isn't his first Telugu film not to be remade in Kannada or that wasn't a remake.
He has three other such films like that:
  1. Apparao Ki Oka Nela Thappindi (2001)
  2. Preminchukunnam Pelliki Randi (2004)
  3. Appu Chesi Pappu Koodu (2008)
  4. Oo Antava Maava Oo Ooo Antava Maavaa (2023) DareshMohan (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Will amend my comment (that was written in a very confusing way, on top of this). -Mushy Yank. 17:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kattumaram (film)

AfDs for this article:
Kattumaram (film) (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)

Not Notable. concerns regarding notability and verifiability, as outlined in Wikipedia's content policies. For a film to be deemed notable, it must receive significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. While Kattumaram has been reviewed by several outlets, the depth and prominence of this coverage are limited. For instance, Asian Movie Pulse provides a review that, although positive, does not constitute the extensive coverage required to establish notability. Similarly, BollySpice.com offers a review, but its reach and influence are not substantial enough to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Additionally, the film's listing on platforms like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, which include brief synopses and user-generated content, do not serve as independent, reliable sources for establishing notability. Furthermore, the article's reliance on such sources may violate Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which mandates that information be backed by reputable, third-party publications. Without substantial, independent coverage, the article does not meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia's notability guidelines for films, making it a candidate for deletion. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+Technically a WP:NFILM pass for another reason: screened >5 years after release (released in June 2019) https://birminghamindianfilmfestival.co.uk/kattumaram-catamaran/ and https://londonindianfilmfestival.co.uk/kattumaram-catamaran/ and the Global Indian stories source seems acceptable too.-Mushy Yank. 12:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "For a film to be deemed notable, it must receive significant coverage from independent, reliable sources." Notability is not one-size-fits-all. This is a film and there are thousands of films produced globally that do not get to be reviewed by mainstream media (The New York Times, The Guardian, Variety, etc.). More often than not, the only reviews for a film will be found in niche publications. There are even film blogs and websites that are considered reliable sources because they are recognized within the film industry. Kattumaram was released in film festivals. It was included in Channel 4's annual Indian cinema showcase in 2020. It was a special screening at Wesleyan University in 2021. Six years after its premiere, it continues to be included in academic film events. Frameline is the Frameline Film Festival and a legitimate, reliable source for films with non-heterosexual subjects. The Hindu is a reliable newspaper. The New Indian Express is an edition of The Indian Express, which is a reliable source. Now Toronto (Now) is a reliable Canadian newspaper. The Times of India article is an interview with the filmmaker and from what I saw in it, is acceptable. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ 12:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I expanded the article to improve its notability per WP:HEY. The Times of India articles source that was added is an interview with an actor not the filmmaker and is a passing mention. DareshMohan (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not satisfied with frameline source that has been misrepresented as critical review. That leaves only one review by Now Toronto. If anyone can find one more critical review from reliable sources, please let me know. Interviews are not secondary independent source. RangersRus (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to Asian films, it's not easy to find reviews for them outside of Asia-related newspapers, websites, magazines; unless a film is groundbreaking, or becomes a critics darling, or gets word-of-mouth recommendations, or wins awards. Particularly when they are independent films. That's the reality of non-West films. Kattumaram is reviewed in High on Films, Apt613, and Asian Movie Pulse. (RottenTomatoes does take some of High on Films RT1 and AMP RT2 reviews into consideration). It has been included in a handful of academic papers about Indian cinema. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ 05:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing the sources but these are still not credible or reliable. Apt613 is a blog. Even High on films, anyone can write for them and per RT is not a Tomatometer-approved publication. Reviews from this publication only count toward the Tomatometer when written by the following Tomatometer-approved critic(s): Debopriyaa Dutta, Pramit Chatterjee, Shikhar Verma, Vassilis Kroustallis. The review is by neither of these approved writers. Asian Movie Pulse is also not a Tomatometer-approved publication. Reviews from this publication only count toward the Tomatometer when written by the following Tomatometer-approved critic(s): Amarsanaa Battulga, Grace Han, Joshua Polanski, Nathan Sartain, Olivia Popp, Panos Kotzathanasis, Renee Ng, Teresa Vena. The review here too is not from one of these approved critics. RangersRus (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Reviews from this publication only count toward the Tomatometer when written by the following Tomatometer-approved critic(s)". I wrote, "RottenTomatoes does take some of...." (Imo, if RT accepts any film review from the afore-mentioned sources, then other reviews from those same sources should be acceptable.) As for a source being a blog: WP:BLOGS states – "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I suggest you seek input on WT:MOSFILM about film sources, because there are many blogs (such as Film School Rejects, /Film, and Cinapse) that are used as reliable film-related sources in Wikipedia and what is considered a reliable film source is ever evolving. You may find this article from Film Comment a useful learning tool: The Top Film Criticism Sites: An Annotated Blog Roll (yes, it was published many years ago, but many of the blogs listed are still in operation). Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ 10:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:04, 5 April 2025 (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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brightcom Group

Brightcom Group (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 suspended company from the stock exchange. Fails WP:NCORP, and WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Proposed deletions

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Redirects for deletion

MFD discussion debates

Other deletion discussions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/India&oldid=1285253116"