Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|India|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to India. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

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

Indien

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agra Fort–Ramnagar Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [FREQUENCY] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agra Fort–Ramnagar Tri-Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Existence at the date of the timetable has been proven. Notability is not proven. WP:BEFORE suggests this is a WP:ROTM service. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and all the other articles prodded and deprodded at the same time to an article or list, per the deprodding summary. There is no reason not to WP:PRESERVE the encyclopaedic content just because the article is not independently notable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [FREQUENCY] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jumpytoo and fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Gorakhpur Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Lucknow Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [FREQUENCY] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Patna Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [FREQUENCY] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Sultanpur Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [FREQUENCY] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Varanasi Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen: This article fails WP:GNG. The train service does not have historical significance and may not be notable since it lacks coverage in independent sources, raising concerns about being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We should keep the articles only if they are helpful and have several reliable sources, which is not the case here. The article might fit better in a rail or transport database.--AstridMitch (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [FREQUENCY] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Katra Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Aligarh#Education. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Aligarh

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Other than two university entries, and one school, it is not a relevant list. WP:NOTDIR applies too with no standalone relevance of the list. Can be alternatively merged to Aligarh parent article's education section. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, India, and Uttar Pradesh. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aligarh#Education. I do not think it makes any better to merge the list that fails significant coverage with no reliable secondary independent sources and fails WP:NLIST. RangersRus (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with a redirect too. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no action‎. Bad-faith nomination based solely on an ongoing content dispute. A topic cannot both meet and fail GNG based on which editor wrote about it. Owen× ☎ 19:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mishri

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

Delete:Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Colors_TV#Current_broadcasts (listed there with a source) or to Lakshmi Baramma#Adaptations (not mentioned there yet but maybe better target), at least until more coverage exists (the program is recent); but not opposed to Keep given the coverage that the production received (not great sources but could justify a page imv if other users agree). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note I've blocked the article creator, RedParrot, as a Confirmed sock account.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until the nominator gives some explanation on what's going on between Mishri, Mishri (TV series), Draft:Mishri, and Draft:Mishri (TV series), because what I see in the history & logs gives me the impression that this may be a move to eliminate a "competing" version for some odd reason. I'm not sure how else to interpret edit summaries like Restoring my article and moving to draftspace, i will fight for my right. Since my article is better in terms of content as well. and Moving my article to draftspace to fight for illegal move done by administrator by moving newer and less content page instead of mine.
The article as such may be a bit WP:TOOSOON, but might as well keep it for the time being, to avoid unnecessary fiddling with deletion and re-creation soon after. Gamapamani (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gamapamani let me explain you the whole scenario then. I had first created the draft at Draft:Mishri (now Draft:Mishri (TV series)), meticulously by slowly gathering info and incorporating the details patiently and waiting for AFC approval to shift to mainspace. Then comes @RedParrot, does not check that a draft exists, makes his own draft at Draft:Mishri (TV series) by copy and pasting my draft content in his article as you can see [1] . He then moved his article to mainspace at Mishri (TV Series) while i patiently waited to add production section and details and then move through afc process. Liz approved my draft and placed my draft in mainspace as Mishri [2]. Then comes RedParrot requesting to Liz on talk page to move his article to Mishri and remove mine but I could not see any reason as to why because I had created the draft earlier than him and my article even was more expanded than him [3], SafariScribe comes and just on the basis of request replaces my article with his solely on basis of "request" which you can see here [4]. I tried solving things by talking to which I received no reply [5] [6], leading to me to restore my page and move it to draft at Draft:Mishri (TV series) until a conclusion is derived. Hardworking editors who follow all processes are deprived of the article creation credit while sockpuppet requests are being accepted to displace an article. Imsaneikigai (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Imsaneikigai That indeed doesn't seem very fair, and I can understand the frustration over being denied article creation credit, but I still have to ask: would your vote of Delete:Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV apply to any Mishri or only versions started by someone else? Because if you've initiated AfD while intending to re-publish the very same article yourself shortly after - and indeed your version was already in mainspace (Liz approved my draft and placed my draft in mainspace as Mishri) - then using these particular arguments IMHO would seem somewhat disingenuous. I wouldn't object to deleting the sock version and reinstating yours due to them copy and pasting [your] draft content. Gamapamani (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Gamapamani. Imsaneikigai seems to have filed this nomination purely based on jealousy issues. Apart from that, they also seem to be following WP:OWN Notsomelodramatic (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol..Not recently created another sockpuppet account saying this! This is not jealousy but dissapointment when one's effort and time is not valued. I think you are RedParrot's sockpuppet. Imsaneikigai (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarla International Academy

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

Fails NSCHOOL, GNG and no SIGCOV found anywhere. Only source is a dead PRIMARY link. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Kumar Srivastava

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

I don't see the person passes WP:NPROF as well as WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No third party news organisation has reported specifically on him. Changeworld1984 (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very obvious case. While he has made a good start to his career, it is rare for associate Profs to meet WP:NPROF. Adequate but not notable publication record, no major awards, no major converage. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching for author AK-Srivastava and keyword corona finds citations that look headed to a successful academic career but are not at the level required for WP:PROF#C1 yet. No other notability criterion is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. 3 sources on the page that are poor and primary. Source 1 is the subject's own homepage. Source 2 has a comment made by the subject himself and Source 3 is a link to a research/book written by subject himself. I cannot find subject's work that has made a significant impact and achievement in their scholarly discipline (nationally or internationally) and demonstrated by independent reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism

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

Information available from Google Books on the author Rodney Casdeden: a geographer and geomorphologist by training and has been actively involved in research on landscape processes and prehistory for the last twenty years. He has written books such as Inventions that changed the World, discoveries that changed the World, People who changed the World etc. Should scientific matters such as Heliocentrism be used from author of such books as he clearly isn't a subject expert on the matter, also Vedic-heliocetrism relation is a disputed issue and not widely published in any reliable scientific materials(Indians sources regarding the matter is subject to further reliability check as plethora of works produced from India on matters regarding inventions and discoveries from India are heavy embellishments of the actual fact, a kind of tribalism). The second source clearly states it is a paper done for the completion of MSc degree by an individual sans peer review. So it is explicit that citation is unreliable അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and History. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm seeing several other sources that discuss Yajnavalkya in the context of heliocentrism.[7] Perhaps it's just an issue with that one reference? Okay, I found the nom's arguments compelling, so I'm changing my preference to delete. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ delete: :In mainstream academics, it is generally accepted that the first heliocentric model was proposed by the Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos and later by Nicolaus Copernicus. Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism is not accepted by mainstream academics and may have been a religious interpretation of the text rather than a true heliocentric model. According to Shatapatha Brahmana it states that
"The sun strings these worlds – the earth, the planets, the atmosphere – to himself on a thread.”

Which is interpreted as heliocentrism.It was already discussed on talk page regarding indian heliocentrism Talk:History of astronomy/Common misconceptions Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge. This interpretation of Yajnavalkya may merit a few more sentences at heliocentrism but it is not notable enough for a standalone article. Srnec (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete not only this article but every mention of Heliocentrism by Yajnavalkya in Wikipedia as it falls under WP:Fringe

@Srnec, @Praemonitus

Let's see the sources used for the article Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism

The case for the unreliability of the first(author Rodney Casdeden) and second sources(a paper done for the completion of MSc degree by an individual)(numbering based on the article's reference list) are already pointed out by me. So I am skipping that.

Let us see the other sources

Fourth Source, the Murder in Venice by R. Suryanarayanan is explicitly a work of fiction. Now I am wondering how this as a source for an article on scientific topic existed in Wikipedia for so long without anybody noticing it.

Fifth source, Kak, SC. "THE SUN'S ORBIT IN THE BRAHMANAS is from the Indian journal of history of science. Reliability on Indian journal of history of science is extensively discussed in the Wikipedia Reliability noticeboard here under the section named Indian journal of history of science. There seems to be a general consensus that this journal is not a reliable source of information for citation. Also, see the guy(Kak, SC) who authored this isn't an expert on the field, he is an Electrical Engineering(if I remember it correctly) by qualification.

Sixth source, is from a website [8]. The website's About us states NRIOL.COM is a website developed by NRI Online Pvt. Ltd., a company promoted by a group of professionals and dedicated in providing value-added services to the unique needs of the expatriates worldwide. what more needed for its unreliability. It is also worth noting that the sources cited by the website are this Wikipedia article along with another work. This other another work the website cited doesn't even have a word entry for Heliocentrism or Yajnavalkya.

The seventh source, Ms. Mitali, Ratnaparkhi. English Textbook. As y'all can see, it is an English text, definitely not reliable for scientific topics. If needed I can elaborate the malpractices this source used in the translations of Vedas it provided. Also keep in mind this source is the product of Hindu nationalist(Hindutva) government who has a very established agendas for tying science with Vedas(or explaining science with Vedas/Vedic science/Vedic Mathematics etc) for legitimising their religion, an Indian version of Young Earth Creationism used by Evangelists in USA and elsewhere.

The third source used as citation in this article named Physics Around Us: How And Why Things Work by World Scientific Publishing Company may have fallen prey for the publications by Indian Journal for History of Science or other Indian publications as most of non Indian works that includes such claims may not be aware of the ground reality of movement happening within India ie., Tying Science with Hindu religious scriptures, the Vedas, or claiming Hindu religious scriptures such as Vedas has science in them millennia before present. Also this source doesn't go extensively on the topic just mentioning it as if a hearsay, as that book's objective wasn't on history of science.

So it is clear that this claim directly falls under Fringe theory like Flat Earth. Not only this, there are other claims like these circulating in English Wikipedia citing Indian Journal of History of Science and other Indian origin publications whose objective is as aforementioned.

So one can conclude that all listed references for this article are outright unreliable except for one.

അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. To the nominator, please don't start a third AFD in 2024. Wait longer as the first two AFDs were closed this year as Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Malviya

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL, Till date he has not won any election, he is just the head of the IT cell of the ruling party, whose job is to spread fake news all day long. You can also read about his fake news here. Youknow? (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Youknow? (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar: The previous AfD you nominated was closed as Keep, as consensus determined he meets GNG. There is no need to meet NPOL if GNG is met. What is your opinion on this? GrabUp - Talk 15:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Grabup, Thank you for your comment.
Most politicians who contest elections or are at least active in politics meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines WP:GNG. Therefore, even if they fail to meet the specific criteria outlined in WP:NPOL they should still be considered for having Wikipedia articles.? What is your opinion on this? Youknow? (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Youknowwhoistheman: Yes, NPOL is an additional criteria, and the General Notability Guideline (GNG) is the main or core guideline to establish notability. If a person or a subject meets any of additional criteria or GNG, then they will be considered notable. For example, let’s assume this politician does not meet GNG or NPOL, but he wrote some books that received reviews from multiple independent reliable sources. Then he will meet WP:AUTHOR, so the person will be treated as notable even if he fails GNG or NPOL. Hope this clears things up. GrabUp - Talk 16:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Youknowwhoistheman: Hey do you agree that the person meets GNG? GrabUp - Talk 07:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say but your argument is not logical. According to this reasoning, Wikipedia should abolish its criteria for politicians (WP:NPOL). If everyone is to be judged by the same Wikipedia's general criteria (WP:GNG), then what is the need for having specific criteria? Because every local leader also passes the general criteria. Even a person who loses an election meets the general criteria in some way or another. So, should all of them also have a standalone Wikipedia article? Youknow? (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Youknowwhoistheman: No, your thinking is wrong. During the general election in India, I saw nearly 50 articles about politicians that were deleted via AfD. Not every politician meets GNG, and not every politician meets NPOL. These criteria are necessary. Here are some examples of past AfDs.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratikur Rahaman

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emaan Singh Mann

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kriti Singh Debbarma

GrabUp - Talk 12:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can show you hundreds of such politicians who are passing the WP:BASIC, but are not on Wikipedia because they are not passing the WP:NPOL. Anyway, there is no point in arguing. Let the rest of the editors decide. Youknow? (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below:

~~Delete~~ : Probably doesn't meet NPOL, but he doesn't seem to be a politician... He also doesn't meet FILM, but he's not a film, so the nom seems incorrect. In addition to the sources from last time, this [9] and this [10] show coverage, more than enough to meet notability, GNG in particular. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Hey, I think you put the wrong vote. You said he meets GNG, so why did you vote Delete? Maybe it was a mistake? GrabUp - Talk 16:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, good catch. I wanted to !keep. Let me fix it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly meets GNG. It seems the nominator thought politicians must had to pass NPOL to establish notability, even if they pass GNG, which is incorrect. Notability will be established if any of the criteria are met. GrabUp - Talk 16:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG Madeforall1 (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen there are many people who have numerous media sources writing about them but this doesn't makes them notable. The subject in this case seems to be affiliated to biggest political party of India and hence we can see good number of sources about them. However, most of them appears to be paid articles. I recall how one of my article Vikas Shakya was deleted despite having many sources. The reason sought was paid editorials being used as sources. Here, in this case, it is possible that we are witnessing same case. The person is clearly not fulfilling WP:NPOL as he has not been elected to even local level body and I doubt the sources used are free from bias.-Admantine123 (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Admantine123, can you point out which articles are the paid ones, for the benefit of other editors? Or point out the ones that aren't paid, if that's easier. -- asilvering (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Çomment WP:NPOL is *not* a guideline that can be failed, that is, if a subject does not satisfy the criteria it does not mean they are not notable for Wikipedia. NPOL is an inclusive measure, not exclusionary. NPOL sits separately from the GNG because it provides "presumed notability" - the idea being that a person elected to office is generally likely to have SIGCOV in reliable sources. FWIW, no comments to date have indicated why sourcing presently in the article does not satisfy the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: he's a troll, but a notable one. Here's an article by AltNews on the disinformation he has spread on social media; an article by Business Standard on Malviya - Rediff has the unpaywalled version. Not to mention the Jansatta article cited in the article already. Sufficient material to cross the bar of WP:BASIC, all told. Java Hurricane 12:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:BASIC/GNG. Articles do not have to meet applicable subject-specific notability guidelines to be considered notable. GNG is the main guideline — generally, if any topic meets GNG, it is notable enough to have an article. SNGs were created to be able to bypass this requirement for some topics (e.g. academics and politicians) that editors have deemed should have encyclopedic articles regardless of coverage. C F A 💬 03:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kalidas Madhu Sadhwani

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

Couldn't find any sources proving existence; only websites mentioning him are Wikipedia mirrors, and a search on Google scholar gives nothing. Written by a user (Reims66) whose only four edits were about this person. None of the sources I went through when rewriting the Sultanate of Bijapur article even gave a passing mention, so even if this person did exist, I doubt many reliable academic sources are mentioning him or giving significant coverage. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Military. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. I am not able to find even any trivial information on the subject from Google book search. It is clear that the subject is not notable even in history to warrant a page on Wikipedia. Fails, WP:GNG and WP:HISTRS. RangersRus (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. If we had something to go on, a book, a thesis, anything, we could at least userfy or redirect it. Right now, without any sources or way to verify him, it could be a hoax or original research, so we should delete it outright. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic heritage of Hyderabad

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

Don't see the point of this article. The lead mostly talks about Hyderabad itself and the city's name, and the history section is just a brief overview of the area's history which is already covered extensively in history of Hyderabad. The rest, and majority of the article covers the Muslim architecture of Hyderabad, which is covered in Qutb Shahi architecture (the dynasty which built most of Hyderabad's notable Muslim architecture), list of mosques in Hyderabad, Heritage structures in Hyderabad, India, and Hyderabad#Landmarks. This article is very redundant with those other articles and doesn't serve any good purpose. There would be a better case for this article's existence if the sources treated this article's title as a distinct topic, but they do not. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, India, and Telangana. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar: There is a Hyderabadi Muslims article which may be a suitable merge target. Left guide (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the article was actually about it's title, then yes, Hyderabadi Muslims would be a great merge target, but as I said it's mainly just about the general architecture of Hyderabad created by Muslims, and thus if it were to be merged, which I don't think it should be as none of the content is not already covered in any of the possible merge targets, the merge targets would be the ones above which makes the article redundant. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and oppose merger. I could see this being a valid overview of Islamic influence in the culture of Hyderabad, but as it stands the OP is correct; there is no justification for this. It is also, unfortunately, typical of the work of its creator, in that it has a liberal sprinkling of copyright and verifiability issues, which is why I oppose a merger. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor, unreliable and unverifiable sources. Page is also WP:SYNTH and the creator of the page inserted opinion in a circular bit of logic. I am also opposed to merge for same reason. RangersRus (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Chauhan

AfDs for this article:

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

In its current form, this biography of a living person makes no reference to anything that is said by third parties about the subject, and so does not satisfy general notability. The one reference is a press release which makes a passing mention of the subject, which is not independent coverage or secondary coverage. It states that the subject is the co-founder of EFS Facilities Services Group, but an article on that group has been deleted for lack of corporate notability, so there is no good redirect target. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Companies, and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Written by a just-barely-autoconfirmed sleeper as copyright infringement from a press release. After that was stubbified, revdelled, and draftified and nobody was looking anymore, he pasted the same material back in, where it lasted until the past few hours. Should be speediable, and the only reason it isn't is because we let the good-hand socks of paid editors vote against reasonable countermeasures against advertising even as obvious as this. And, btw, EFS Facilities Group wasn't just deleted, it's currently heading very rapidly towards a blacklisting at DRV. —Cryptic 19:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources in the bad revision—special:permalink/1187098514:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Pupic, Tamara (July 17, 2018). "Impact At Scale: Tariq Chauhan, Group CEO, EFS Facilities Services Group". Entrepreneur.	Statements come from the subject.	Churnalism.	? Has volume but a volume of churnalism is not a volume of significant coverage.	✘ No
Chauhan, Tariq (May 5, 2019). "The How-To: Family Relationships In A Business Setting". Entrepreneur.	WP:SPS of the WP:FORBESCON type + author is the subject.	WP:SPS	Self-published material is not coverage for it to be able to qualify as significant coverage.	✘ No
Staff Report. "EFS Group forays into its food and beverage business". Khaleej Times.	Repackaged press release sourced from the company of which the subject is CEO.		Routine.	✘ No
East, Forbes Middle. "Top 50 Indian Executives In The Arab World 2018". Forbes ME.	?	?	No meaningful coverage.	✘ No
"Union Budget 2023-24: India goes for growth, slashes income tax". gulfnews.com. February 2023.	Churnalistic quote farm.	Can not be used to support any claims about the subject.	A quote of the subject of a biography is not coverage for it to be able to qualify as significant coverage.	✘ No
"Gulf's facilities management services keep getting shortchanged". gulfnews.com. 16 February 2022.	WP:SPS of the WP:FORBESCON type + author is the subject.		Self-published material is not coverage for it to be able to qualify as significant coverage.	✘ No
John, Issac. "Sheikh Mohamed is the new President; excitement, expectations abound as UAE pivots to new era of growth". Khaleej Times.	Sycophantic-churnalistic quote farm.	insource:khaleejtimes gives thousands of results—something to think about.	A quote of the subject of a biography is not coverage for it to be able to qualify as significant coverage.	✘ No
Fernandez, Keith J. (April 14, 2022). "Ramadan 2022: how UAE residents are paying it forward". The National.	The material pertaining to the subject is a self-aggrandizing statement from the perspective of the company of which he is CEO.	nope	not	✘ No
"The younger generation is getting it wrong on work-life balance". gulfnews.com. 6 November 2022.	WP:SPS of the WP:FORBESCON type + author is the subject.		Self-published material is not coverage for it to be able to qualify as significant coverage.	✘ No
"With risk and debt, business owners have to walk a fine line". gulfnews.com. 8 January 2023.	WP:SPS of the WP:FORBESCON type + author is the subject.		Self-published material is not coverage for it to be able to qualify as significant coverage.	✘ No
East, Forbes Middle. "EFS Facilities Services Group". Forbes ME.	Paid "Brandvoice" section.	Paid content.	Ads are not coverage.	✘ No
"Winners Revealed for the Innovation in FM Awards 2022". Construction Business News Middle East. 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2023-05-04.	?	Subject won the non-notable award.	Just a mention. Evidence of a non-notable award.	✘ 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}}.

WP:BEFORE does not reveal any further usable sources.

Löschen per the source analysis and my BEFORE which did not yield any other sources that could demonstrate notability.—Alalch E. 21:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to EFS: The company seems notable [11], he only gets a mention [12] as the CEO, even in articles about him, they talk more about the company. Oaktree b (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we're not going to redirect this personal name to a disambig. The company has no article on Wikipedia. —Cryptic 01:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alalch E. Part of a big promotional/suspected paid editing endeavour. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dont have a problem if the article is deleted if it has no merit. But why was the article blanked out just before the deletion nomination.

This a not a fair review process for deletion as the article was blanked out just before nomination.

Is this some kind of bullying thats going on? The guy is a billionaire and was voted as one of the most powerful businessman in the middle east multiple times.

I can find atleast a million article on wikipedia with not even 1/10th of his notability without any notifications whatsoever. This culture of selective bullying and harassment should stop(2409:4073:4EB1:118F:2D94:5D9B:3BCF:B604 (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Kommentar - Allegations of selective bullying and harassment by unregistered editors with no evidence are usually ignored, even in conduct forums, and especially in content forums. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No one is proposing to salt the title. The unregistered editor is welcome to create a new draft article that describes significant coverage of the subject, and to submit the draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar - If the unregistered editor really thinks that there is a culture of selective bullying and harassment, they should report it at WP:ANI with evidence, after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is overtly promotional page with no merit of its own. The sources on the page are trivial. If anyone can find any reliable secondary independent sources with indepth notable coverage on the subject and subject's achievement and work, I will reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How on earth can this be promotional when the whole article was vandalized and blotted out by an editor and there is hardly any content left on the page. This discussion is deviod of any credibility whatsoever. It is a bogus review discussion and a sham honestly. Many others like puppets are resorting to supporting the vandalism and unwarranted aggression done on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.118.147 (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Six books featuring Tariq Chauhan

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Learning_Ecosystems/aRWEEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Tariq+Chauhan%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA46&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Disruptive_Workplaces/VsoDEQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Tariq+Chauhan%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT224&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_10_Best_Performing_Facility_Manageme/knLXEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Tariq+Chauhan%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA27&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Routledge_Handbook_on_Business_and_Manag/A6ATEQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Tariq+Chauhan%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT182&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Handbook_of_Research_on_Supply_Chain_Res/xwBuEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Tariq+Chauhan%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA232&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Marketing_Communications_and_Brand_Devel/V0hxEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Tariq+Chauhan%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA197&printsec=frontcover — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.118.147 (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP's six books:
1. Schipperheijn, Katja (2022). Learning ecosystems: creating innovative, lean and tech-driven learning strategies. Kogan Page. pp. xv, 46–49, 102. ISBN 978-1-3986-0741-5.
  - Lists Chauhan in the Acknowledgements section (Of course, I am also grateful for the many contributions and inspiration from everyone who has helped me write Learning Ecosystems. ... Tariq Chauhan, Group CEO and Co-founder of EFS whose leadership and knowledge of engagement is an example to many, then excessively praises him using language including: It is deserved that Tariq and EFS won many awards for their practices and authentic leadership, but it shows even more in the results.
2. Ryckaert, Tom (2 July 2024). Disruptive Workplaces: Create Your Sustainable & Future Proof Workenvironment. Lannoo. ISBN 978-94-014-0540-9.
  - Can't access. From the preview, it also probably lists Chauhan in the Acknowledgements section; other previewable content about Chauhan is a quote of him: ... Tariq Chauhan, Group CEO & Co-Founder of EFS: "That's why we invest in so-called 'incubation centres,' nine-month training programmes for young leadership potential, preparing them for the job they will have to perform. In recent years ...
3. "EFS Facilities Services Group: Ensuring Superior Service Delivery while Building a Sustainable Enterprise". The Business Fame (digital magazine) (The 10 Best Performing Facility Management Service Providers: 2023 ed.). thebusinessfame.com. 6 July 2023. p. 24.
  - Interview in a promotional pamphlet.
4. Sidani, Yusuf (July 31, 2024). Routledge handbook on business and management in the Middle East. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-367-49111-6.
  - Book not yet shipping. Only available for pre-order. Google Books allows previewing the following: Another example comes from Tariq Chauhan, the CEO and cofounder of EFS Facilities Services Group in the United Arab Emirates. EFS is a regional leader and the region's premier facilities management company. Chauhan displayed exceptional efforts in creating his business on ethical ideals of ethics, honesty, collaboration, integrity, and accountability, and he received multiple honors for his efforts in elevating his organization to an ethical standing.
5. Yanamandra, Ramakrishna (2022). Handbook of research on supply chain resiliency, efficiency, and visibility in the post- pandemic era. Business Science Reference (IGI Global). ISBN 978-1-7998-9508-4.
  - Can't access. The following is some of the text can be previewed: ... Chauhan, has been the driving force and is leading the organization to new milestones repeatedly. His focus on the welfare of the blue-collar workers enabled EFS to bag the prestigious Taqdeer Award, UAE in 2021 ...
6. Agha, Kakul; Fitzsimmons, Jason (2022). "Examining the Significance of Corporate Social Responsibility in Building Employee Value Proposition and Brand Value in the United Arab Emirates". Marketing Communications and Brand Development in Emerging Markets Volume II. Palgrave Studies of Marketing in Emerging Economies. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 183–210. ISBN 978-3-030-95580-9.
  - Lists an EFS Facilities Services employee in "Acknowledgements" (We would like to express heartfelt appreciation to all people who supported us in any minor or major way from the initiation till the completion of this book chapter. We wish to acknowledge the following personnel for their assistance in terms of time and information during the collection of primary data for writing out the case studies. Hence, special thanks go out to: ... Ms. Charmin Nazereth, Manager, Corporate Office, EFS Facilities Services, UAE, then excessively praises the company EFS in the embedded promotional article packaged as a "case study", within which it praises Chauhan using language such as: At the pinnacle of making an impact in the society is the “Ehsaas” Initiative by EFS. The patron behind this initiative is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Mr. Tariq Chauhan, an ardent believer of CSR and its impact on employee commitment and trust. Ehsaas means feeling, which translates to feeling for the people and society.

—Alalch E. 09:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review of these sources to the extent that I was able to review them, and I significantly was, I would say that these don't exactly help us write an encyclopedia article on the given topic. We could extract some statements from them to add more words to the article, but whatever the result may be, it could not possibly be compliant with the Wikipedia:Core content policies and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. An inability to write a policy-compliant article with the available sourcing is what it means for a topic to be non-notable. What do you think Robert McClenon? —Alalch E. 11:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider it useful to argue over disembodied URLs or dumped URLs or detached URLs, out of context. I think that the Heymann criterion is for someone to create a draft, Draft:Tariq Chauhan, so that the references can be seen in context. Is someone ready to create a draft? User:Alalch E. - Maybe that is similar to what you are asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried about adding these to the article for I'd be accused of WP:POINT, and indeed I could not add any statements from these sources while citing them as references in good faith. Were I to do that, I could only make a revision even worse and even more promotional than the bad revision linked above, where the source assessment table is. —Alalch E. 22:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Please make your cases better. CIte policy. Provide examples. Be clear. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1M1B

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

Appears like one of the many organizations recognized by UN. However I find the article to be having notability issues. Inviting your comments. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like there is significant coverage and proof of notability in the sources used in the article itself, such as the Economic Times, News18, The Hindu, plus the other sources that appear on Google search that are not used on the article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not significant enough, Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No clear deletion rationale presented by the nominator. Broc (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can keep !voters please address whether this org meets WP:NORG, the relevant guideline?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete To start with, User:Broc's 'speedy keep' vote should be discarded for determining consensus as a vague pretension about the nominator's statement and not addressing notability concerns. [13] appears reliable at first glance but is not due to WP:FORBESCON. The Hindu piece cited by the first 'Keep' vote [14] is largely about the hiring of Telanganu innovators to the organisation.

In terms of sources actually in the article, however, I have presented a {{Source assess table}}. I'm admittedly not familiar with Indian sourcing, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA also causes some difficulty in appropriate source analysis of this organisation, so feel free to chip in to anything I might've missed.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Whoareuagain
https://www.un.org/en/civil-society/1m1b-foundation	The United Nations is an accreditor of the subject.	From my analysis, I do not consider it reliable for this article due to its lack of independence.	The entire article is about the organisation.	✘ No
https://www.deccanherald.com/india/india-not-just-observing-the-future-unfolding-but-actively-shaping-it-ruchira-kambo-2794024	This article by the Deccan Herald does not appear to fall afoul of WP:NEWSORGINDIA.	While not listed at WP:RSN, from my analysis, the Deccan Herald is a popular newspaper from the Karnataka area, and should be considered generally reliable.	This article is mostly about India's envoy to the UN, but the organisation receives a few paragraphs of the article.	✔ Yes
https://thebetterindia.com/133481/bengaluru-students-future-leaders-1m1b-un-new-york/	While the article is written in a rather saccharine tone, the source seems independent from the organisation.	? The author of the article, Sanchari Pal, seems to be a frequent contributor to The Better India, but I'm not able to find any information at all about him online.	The article is mostly about the 14 students going to the UN headquarters and not the organisation itself.	✘ No
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/india-not-just-observing-the-future-unfolding-but-actively-shaping-it-amb-kamboj/articleshow/105675027.cms?from=mdr	The Economic Times is independent of the organisation.	? The Economic Times is the business-oriented wing of the Times of India. Per WP:TOI, the Times has a mixed reliability (somewhere between no consensus and generally unreliable), and I don't see anything indicating why it shouldn't be extended to its business counterpart.	The article is largely a regurgitation of the Deccan Herald article (I suppose there's not much room for differentiation when reporting on that story), but it does have some paragraphs dedicated to the organisation.	? Unknown
https://www.news18.com/news/tech/exclusive-open-safe-accountable-internet-what-is-digital-nagrik-campaign-for-students-young-adults-7172539.html#goog_rewarded	News18.com is independent from the organisation.	The article is mostly just a quotation of the founder's own words, so is unhelpful for determining notability.	Most of the article is dedicated to the subject, aside from a few mentions of Mark Zuckerberg.	✘ No
https://www.newindianexpress.com/lifestyle/tech/2020/Jan/23/the-kids-are-artificial-intelligence-right-2093306.html	The New Indian Express is independent of the subject.	? From what I can deduce, the New Indian Express is the southern edition of the Indian Express, which is listed at WP:INDIANEXP as a reliable source. However, I'm not considering it fully reliable because, as with the News18 article, the article is largely quoting off the founder, which obviously decreases its reliability. The article also sounds quite promotional, but that's probably just personal opinion.	The article, while short, is dedicated to the subject.	? Unknown
https://theprint.in/world/indian-youth-activists-changemakers-among-winners-of-diana-awards-in-uk/1649917/	ThePrint is independent of the subject.	The article has a disclaimer at the botton stating, This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.	The organisation is described in a single paragraph, but most of the article is not about the subject.	✘ No
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/1m1b-and-government-of-meghalaya-sign-mou-to-set-up-indias-second-green-skills-academy/articleshow/108081430.cms?from=mdr	Most of the article is paywalled for me, but I assume it is independent based off source 4.	? See Source 4	? I am unable to determine SIGCOV because the article is behind a paywall. The article seems to be about the subject, but I can't fully confirm it.	? Unknown
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/1m1b-foundation-to-set-up-green-skills-academy-in-hyderabad/article68300273.ece	Yes	The Hindu is considered generally reliable per WP:THEHINDU.	A large part of the article is paywalled for me, but there are more than two paragraphs dedicated to the subject, which is more than a trivial mention as stated in WP:SIGCOV.	✔ Yes
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}}.

Overall, the organisation seems to fail NORG, but it's very borderline, so I definitely wouldn't be opposed to keeping, especially if some new sources are found. Whoareuagain (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)— Whoareuagain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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!} 02:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doust (film)

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

I cannot find any mention about this film, not even in the references in the article. I suspect it may be a spelling mistake and in that case a redirect to Dost (1944 film) would be called for. But that is my speculation. As it stands, without any real references, the topic fails WP:GNG Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
del per nom: the article contans no any info that could identify the film, not to say to establish its notability.- Altenmann >talk 16:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with no indepth coverage. Fails notability WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to Dost if anybody feels strongly enough that a redirect would be useful.) This does indeed seem most likely to be merely a misspelling of Dost, but apart from the year of release this contains no other information at all to be completely sure of that. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Kannada-language television channels#News. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV9 Kannada

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced article. Literary found nothing that can help to support WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources on the page to establish significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Don't Delete I think it not to be deleted. Randomiaedit (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)User Blocked[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Kannada-language television channels#News -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV9 Bangla

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

Only press releases. Literary found nothing that can help to support WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with no significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nomination. Regards, Arnab. 19:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV9 Gujarati

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

Unsourced article. Literary found nothing that can help to support WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, India, and Gujarat. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced to establish any significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kulwant Singh Rauke

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

Disputed PROD. My rationale still stand, the subject fails WP:NPOL and there's no evidence that there's a passing of the criteria that constitutes WP:GNG either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Punjab. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The creator has made multiple similar articles which fail WP:NPOL, this should be deleted as well. Xoocit (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician and activist is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, also failed WP:NPOL. Youknow? (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. and "WP:N" isn't a sufficient deletion rationale argument. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditty (musician)

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

"WP:N" Bulklana (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Environment, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As is evidenced on the current article, Ditty has been the subject of "multiple, non-trivial, published works", meeting the first criteria in WP:NMUSIC. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Against a bare minimum nominating statement, WP:SIGCOV in The Hindu, Rolling Stone India, Indian Express, the Business Standard and other outlets show she passes WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Tanti

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

WP:NOTRESUME. Fails WP:GNG WP:BASIC. Initially, I tried to draftify the page, but there is already a rejected draft in existence. Charlie (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources. The businessman's work has not been significant and unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO RangersRus (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG, also the articles look like a resume. Youknow? (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. With no comments after a second relist, I don't want to relist it again. I don't see a consensus here with a strong Keep opinion expressed. But editors interested in a possible Redirect can discuss this outside of an AFD discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khais Millen

AfDs for this article:

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

Immediately refunded after soft deletion in 2023 but no change to address concerns in first AfD. Film writer/director who does not pass WP:GNG, WP:NCREATIVE, WP:NBIO. Most sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS if they mention him at all; there's an interview that's a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and a single example of WP:SIGCOV that exhibits all the hallmarks of unreliable content of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Not enough to pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: fairly meets WP:DIRECTOR AND WP:CREATIVE with at least 3 2 notable films directed and 3 2 written (not mentioning the fact he produced. 2); the said films are notable creations that received independent and in-depth coverage mentioning him. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:DIRECTOR are you referring to with "three notable films"? (Only two films he has been involved in even have en-wiki pages and only one of those he directed.) The only criterion I could plausibly see cited is "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work," but there's no evidence that any of his works are "significant or well-known." Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider his debut film as director notable enough. See coverage about it online. It has no page yet on WP, true. Added 2 links to the article. Writer: my bad, I had counted Lipstick, which is a short. Even if it's only two or even if it it was only one, he would pass both SNGs because these works can be considered significant, as coverage shows. I'll leave it at that as he is a really clear pass imv.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC) (number of significant films; clarification: 3 or 4 films including 2 directed (Thala; and I count Aakashvani), 2 written (Adithattu and Thala, to which one can add again Aakashvani)); the 1st has received a significant award and is clearly significant imv).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar on the opening assertion in the nomination: sorry but no change to address concerns in first AfD is an inaccurate statement.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, no substantive change. The addition of WP:TRIVIALMENTION citations does not address the concerns in the AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. If those mentions (trivial or not) allow to verify he had an essential role in notable productions they do address the concerns, especially as one mentioned the award for Best Second film that was not mentioned before, unless I am mistaken. I remember checking them (or even adding some) myself back then. I should leave it at that that, as I had said, sorry. Thanks, anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. As I noted in the previous AFD, a film he wrote won a second-place regional film award, and for another of his films a child actor won a regional award. Per nomination and subsequent comments by nominator, coverage of the director himself is insufficient per WP:NFILMMAKER. Wikishovel (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect (presumably to Thala (film)) would be acceptable to me as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either to Thala (the apparently better known film) or to Adithattu (the film that won an award) would be fine by me. Wikishovel (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News9 Plus

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

AfDed per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News9Live Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt This current version is blatantly promotional compared to the original version ("News9 Mediaverse umbrella"?!) and N is still not met at all. Nate • (chatter) 16:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with no significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are comprised of a few questionable websites, some of which are "News9" sites. Not notable. Ternera (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:G4 BrigadierG (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, Poor sources with no significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) on the channel. clearly fails WP:NCORP. Youknow? (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The NLIST and NOTTRIVIA arguments have not been meaningfully rebutted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian prime ministerial firsts

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

WP:NOTTRIVIA, does not meet WP:LISTN. Along the same lines as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and India. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen per lack of capacity for reasonable WP:SELCRIT. On this day, the Indian prime minister became the first in history to eat a donut which contained a jam filling and brown sprinkles before 9am on the 2nd day of february while wearing a yellow turban... BrigadierG (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going with your logic shouldn't we just delete List of Mexican presidential firsts, List of Philippine presidential firsts, and List of United States presidential firsts as well? — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably. BrigadierG (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then move them to articles for deletion as well. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 12:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is a significant coverage about the Indian prime ministerial firsts. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you have in mind? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 12:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just run a search and you'll find out. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 12:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You changed this article on your will.

You need to make sure you CITE YOUR SOURCES and make sure your English is professional and encyclopedic.

Thanks, GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Dabral, I have specifically performed a WP:BEFORE as expected to when nominating this article. I did not find anything discussing the category of "Indian prime ministerial firsts" in depth, just examples of individual instances being described as a prime ministerial first. Absent any evidence to the contrary, I presume that the sources you are thinking of fall into the latter category, which is not enough to meet WP:LISTN. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to keep those few material related to individual instances and remove the rest, instead of deleting the whole article? Because this article has potential to be developed properly. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 07:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:NOTTRIVIA. We should also likely delete the other "Presidential Firsts" list articles for rhe same reason. CoconutOctopus talk 06:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Purely going by the fact that List of United States presidential firsts exists and the article is on similar lines to that. Xoocit (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article should likely also be deleted, although it is possible that coverage exists to meet WP:LISTN there so it would require patiently working through its mountain of sources first. WP:OSE _signed,Rosguill ^talk 12:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Curbon7 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning keep given the fact these exist elsewhere, but I can't quickly find a source which would get this past WP:LISTN (covering several firsts at once as opposed to just being a trivia section). SportingFlyer T·C 10:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen per WP:LISTN. There are practically an infinite number of unnotable firsts. First PM to visit Canada??? What next? First left-handed PM? First to catch a disease in office? First to play a video game? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are just comical straw man arguments you are giving, I dont know about Canada but an Indian prime minister's visit to Israel is significant enough to highlight, given the fact that previous governments had a policy to not recognise Israel in favour of their pro-Palestine policy. This was a significant shift in the foreign policy. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 12:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The List of Indian prime ministerial firsts fails encyclopedic merit without contextual information. RangersRus (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on the article, I feel there are several important and key facts that are noteworthy regarding Prime Ministers of India; however, I do see some uncited firsts listed and I feel the introductory paragraph is not Wikipedia based. Therefore, I would say keep the article, but make sure that the statements are not too specific, and as obvious, they are cited with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HockeyFanNHL (talk • contribs) 23:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article originally was mine. But another user merged it and changed it on their will.

I suggest to restore my version of the article. I cited sourced, and made everything under Wikipedia Policies. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk • contribs)

Contrary to these assertions, the prior version of the article (I presume Special:PermaLink/1218109595 corresponds to the juncture GHDNA is referring to) does not address the failure to meet WP:LISTN. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts, selecting what goes onto this list is always going to be an exercise in original research. Also contravenes WP:NLIST and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failure to meet WP:LISTN. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Many entries in this list seem to fall into the category of trivia rather than providing any encyclopaedic value. The relevance of distinctions such as "First Prime Minister to keep beard" does not significantly contribute to the understanding of the Prime Minister's role or impact on India’s political history. - The9Man ^(Talk) 08:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EPACK Prefab

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

Promotional company page, fails WP:NCORP. Trivial sources only. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Case of WP:PROMO, Promotion, advertising. Company fails WP:N and WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only source here that is generally reliable is 12. The Hindu Times as per WP:RSP. Content seems promotional to me. Vorann Gencov (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is 25 Years old company. A BEFORE search reveled Significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I found these: 1 and 2. DJ InstaMalik (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not significant coverage, the Hindu and other media mentioned above has only brief trivial mentions, with no in depth coverage. --200.219.52.19 (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the IP Address's comment is posted by nominator see the tone. But The Hindu considered is reliable source in the discussion. Please check WP:THEHINDU. The other media mentions which are also significant. La Kruse (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by Sony Entertainment Television#Current broadcasts. Despite the socking shenanigans, it looks like nobody here wants to keep this and there is no objection to the redirect as an ATD. Sandstein 16:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pukaar – Dil Se Dil Tak

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

I am neutral in this filing but feel a consensus is needed here than deleting the page and redirecting, given that this is an ongoing tv show which satisfies WP:TV. Also I don't find any issues with the current sources of this article, only thing is that more WP:RS sources should be added. Editingmylove (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With only 28 edits you may not be familiar with WP:NEWSORGINDIA which is what all of these references fall under. Nothing reliable to show notability. I would also say that a redirect wouldn't be a suitable WP:ATD based on the objection to it. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Sony_Entertainment_Television#Current_broadcasts: Not opposed to keep, given existing coverage. A redirect is not only suitable but should always be considered when production, cast and broadcast are verifiable, which the said coverage clearly allows. If someone objected to the redirect, it is most likely because they wished a standalone page, not on principled opposition to keep history and allow further improvement or expansion here or on the target page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG and does not meet the WP:NFILM criteria. (Also fine with a redirect) — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Adding a few references. I don't know if that helps WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovetvshows (talk • contribs) 11:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar: I was the one that created the plot tab for the show and added stuff to it. I usually just fix the plot or the cast section in TV shows so I am not completely aware of why the deletion might be happening. I would like an explanation and if there is anything I can do to stop the deletion? Whothatwhothatwhothstboi (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the relevent people @CNMall41 @Mushy Yank @Alien333 @Ilovetvshows. I think this conversation should be in the talk page Editingmylove (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. @Whothatwhothatwhothstboi: you may vote if you think the page should be retained (see the template in the corner of the page: how to contribute and deletion process). Ilovetvshows may !vote too. Adding sources certainly can help unless other users consider them not reliable/not independent and maybe someone should explain why most sources have been said to fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA when it does not concern websites or media that are considered generally unreliable (and that are simply not mentioned there), as, not only for newcomers, that might not be completely clear. The quantity of coverage added certainly means something, though. Bylined sources would be better, I guess. Maybe such as https://www.news18.com/entertainment/abhishek-nigam-is-part-of-sayli-salunkhes-pukaar-dil-se-dil-tak-8884431.html, which contains a paragraph that might pass for independent coverage. But I will leave it that as I don't wish to comment any further on the topic and maybe my !vote is clear enough (not opposed to keep- suggesting redirect as a useful compromise, alternative to deletion). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV Imsaneikigai (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is opposition to Deletion although editors have not offered bolded Keep votes as they should. To the nominator, don't bring an article to AFD unless you are seeking a Deletion. Because that is often the outcome here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, hello; you mean they have not offered bolded Keep, perhaps? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct, I have changed my relisting statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Maharashtracha Favourite Kon?. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MFK Award for Favourite Male Playback Singer

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. An award for playback singers issued by a TV channel. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Awards, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Maharashtracha Favourite Kon?: or keep as a WP:SPLITLIST. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maharashtracha Favourite Kon?. WP:CFORK. RangersRus (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sreenidhi Institute of Management and Science

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

I cannot find any independent, substantive coverage about this institute. Their FB-page was discontinued in 2014. Fails WP:NORG Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IgelRM that does not seem likely. Sreenidhi is a name; it means Treasure of Goddess Lakshmi or treasure of beauty. Since these Institutes are geographically distant from each other, one is in Hyderabad and the other was in a village in Kerala state, it is unlikely that they are related. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I guess I thought perhaps because of Sreenidhi Trust. The website said something with List of colleges affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala. Unverifiable if it is still operational, so Delete if on sources surface. IgelRM (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources, just a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors and sites that generate stuff based on Wikipedia articles. --Here2rewrite (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Park

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

Fails WP:ORG, lacks in-depth coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH) in reliable independent sources. References are routine news reports about individual initiates when it was inaugurated. The organization itself lacks sufficient coverage. Government organization has no inherent notability, WP:ORGSIG. Gan Favourite (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Institute of Local Administration

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

Fails WP:ORG, lacks in-depth coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH) in reliable independent sources. WP:PRIMARY references are used for sourcing. The content is mostly copied from the official website. Govt organizations are not automatically notable (WP:ORGSIG). Gan Favourite (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Fake news in India#Modes of distribution. While there was strong early numerical support for 'keep', I find hinnk's contribution persuasive, as did most people who contributed in the second half of the debate. Early statements attesting that this passed GNG were therefore considered refuted, and without them (and disregarding a couple of low-quality contributions), there is sufficient consensus to redirect. In terms of merging the content, this can be done at editorial discretion (the content is preserved behind the redirect). Daniel (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatsApp University

AfDs for this article:

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

The term is indeed used in India. However, I don't think it has scope beyond a definition. It can be easily integrated in Fake news in India#Modes of distribution (WP:CFORK). Although start-class, it pretty much looks like a future repository for dumping all fake news spread on WhatsApp. For serious cases, there is already Indian WhatsApp lynchings. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NEO. The topic is better covered in Fake news in India#Modes of distribution, and the term is not separately notable. Many of the sources here just contain uses of the term but actually cover the topic (and not the term). Maybe merge a brief mention of the definition in the NDTV article. hinnk (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the references added, keeping my !vote as is. These links [15][16][17][18] were added to support discussion of a Kerala High Court case. None of these mention the case at all, and none discuss WhatsApp University beyond using the phrase in a headline (two are political cartoons). The statement that "The phrase has…been a subject of stand-up comics" is referenced to a short review of a single comedian, where the topic is recapped very briefly. To Grabup's question below, the existing coverage isn't significant, and we're seeing how trying to present it as such means misleading readers. hinnk (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: i added some of WP:RS references. and this phrase clearly passes WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with @Youknowwhoistheman --BeLucky (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with @hinnk, the topic can be better covered in Fake news in India#Modes of distribution, other than the defination, there is not much to inside the scope of this article which cannot be put under the Fake news article. Xoocit (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough sources are cited to establish the subject's notability. In my opinion, if there can be a standalone article with sufficient coverage, what is the reason to redirect? GrabUp - Talk 03:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Sufficient sources have been added to make a reasonable case for inclusion. I am somewhat dubious that this will develop into a full article, so a merge could make more sense down the road. We can cross that bridge when we get there.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For now, however, should be reviosited and if still not fleshed out, should be Redirect as that would be the best move if there is still not much thereCassierREDDDD (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a very common topic in India so it is notable. Perhaps a disambiguation page pointing later to the real Whatsapp University. Sectioneer (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a clearer discussion of the sources and whether they contain significant coverage of the topic? A source table would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a stab at a source table. The strongest candidates appear to be a short article in the Navbharat Times, an opinion piece in The Hindu, and an in-depth blog post of questionable reliability. That last one is really a stretch, and I think we'd be hard-pressed to hit WP:3REFS. Even more so to get something large enough that it'd merit being split off from Fake news in India. hinnk (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:hinnk
https://cyberblogindia.in/the-great-indian-whatsapp-university/	~ Blog, no apparent editorial staff at the time		~ Partial
https://www.thehindu.com/society/whatsapp-indias-leading-university/article24358591.ece	~ WP:THEHINDU, but this seems to be an opinion piece		~ Partial
https://www.tv9hindi.com/business/misinformation-fake-news-will-be-the-biggest-risk-for-world-in-next-2-year-2355348.html		Brief mention, article is actually about a World Economic Forum report on online misinformation	✘ No
https://www.livehindustan.com/jharkhand/ranchi/story-students-need-to-leave-facebook-whatsapp-university-vice-chancellor-6861807.html		Brief usage	✘ No
https://hindi.news24online.com/travel/survival-tips-bear-alligator-water-whatsapp-university-truth-social-media/727091/		Brief usage	✘ No
https://www.scoopwhoop.com/humor/logic-khatre-mein-hai-kunal-kamra-takes-on-whatsapp-university-in-latest-stand-up/	~ Looks like a clickbait site	Screenshots and GIFs from a standup routine without secondary analysis	✘ No
https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/tech/gadgets-news/whatsapp-launches-check-the-facts-campaign-to-fight-misinformation/articleshow/105384003.cms	~ WP:TOI	~ 2-paragraph blurb, but has actual coverage of changes in WhatsApp to prevent misinformation	~ Partial
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/maharashtra-ministers-whatsapp-university-jibe-at-bjps-new-online-campaign-plan-2270936		Brief mention	✘ No
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/yogi-getting-my-telephones-tapped-akhilesh/article37993341.ece		Brief usage	✘ No
https://www.apnlive.com/bjp-ruchi-pathak-india-on-99-years-lease-video/		Brief usage	✘ No
https://www.business-standard.com/politics/bjp-mps-call-kharge-vc-of-whatsapp-university-for-criticising-railways-123060901106_1.html		Brief usage in a quote	✘ No
https://www.jagran.com/editorial/apnibaat-secularism-of-whatsapp-university-separating-imul-is-like-saying-that-congress-has-no-relation-with-nehru-23434257.html		Brief usage, not related to what's being cited	✘ No
https://www.newslaundry.com/topic/whatsapp-university	~ Reliable publication, but this is a political cartoon	Appearance in a political cartoon, not related to what's being cited	✘ No
https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bengaluru/2024/Jul/10/debunking-whatsapp-universitys-misinformation		Brief usage, article is about a tabletop game, not related to what's being cited	✘ No
https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/dont-go-by-whatsapp-university-kerala-high-court-dismisses-pil-alleging-forced-vaccination-of-children-198488		Brief usage in a quote	✘ No
https://theprint.in/last-laughs/whatsapp-university-phd-in-mangal-gyaan-maths-isnt-ec-you-know/2066319/	~ Political cartoon	Brief usage, not related to what's being cited	✘ 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}}.

Whatsapp University is a real University of India, They even have a Linkedin page

https://www.linkedin.com/company/whatsapp-university/about/

"A genuine global University with schools of Engineering, Law and Humanities. Aiming to be in QS Top 100 by 2033.

Warning : Impersonators shall be Prosecuted or Shot." 106.210.38.218 (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fake news in India#Modes of distribution; per WP:MERGETEXT. Not to say a term like this can't be used alone, see, e.g. Godi Media, a similar Indian term that has substantial references support - unlike here. Shotgunheist ^💬 05:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note, also, I just rolled back an addition about the actual "Whatsapp University" as it is patent nonsense with 4 followers on linkedin, and does not add to actual article notability being debated. Shotgunheist ^💬 05:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject has been significantly covered by quite a number of sources, ToI, The Hindu, The Print, NDTV. Also covered by books such as 2019: How Modi Won India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.210.38.218 (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EXPLAIN: On behalf the Whatsapp University I would like this listing for Whatsapp University to be remove ASAP. The Whatsapp University and Whatsapp College is well known brand names of Brahma University since at least 2016. Associating with BJP party and disinformation and misinformation by Wikipedia is causing a great confusion and commotion in minds of the students. Hope you understand and remove this listing in your online directory immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShymalWhatsappUniversity (talk • contribs) 09:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 06:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested or Keep as atd. This smells very dictdef to me (unlikely to be expanded). It's clear the quote has caused a fair reverberation, but I concur with those who'd like to see these sources presented in proper context. BusterD (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The suggestion an actual institution exists is farcical (and apparently based on our Wikipedia coverage). There are ZERO reliable sources which support the assertion this is an actual place of learning sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in an online encyclopedia. The source analysis above by User:hinnk seems to indicate the subject is of only marginal notability. BusterD (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Agree Shotgunheist ^💬 06:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Best course of action would be to merge it with Fake news in India#Modes of distribution. MohReddy (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎ to separate the content into the 1986 and 2023 films and move to DAB, redirect and or re-mainspace as applicable. Star Mississippi 03:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aangan Ke Laxmi

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. In fact there not even enough sourcing ( or content) to figure out what this is about. Appears to be a mashup of two different films with similar names. Aangan Ke Laxmi and Aangan Ki Laxmi Info box says 1986 film but the only two sources that actually discuss it are short "future film" type pieces from a couple years ago. Found nothing in a search for Aangan Ke Laxmi North8000 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears there have been a few mixups here. It looks like Aangan Ke Laxmi (the article title) is a 1986 film (entirely non-notable); see this mention in a book bibliography. Sources 3 and 4 in the article are referring to a film called Aangan Ki Laxmi (sometimes Aangan Ki Lakshimi), which has more coverage and was released last year. Aangan Ki Laxmi probably meets NFILM/GNG (see [19][20][21] and on Google). It would be helpful here if the creator (NIA3000) clarifies what exactly this article is about or if the two films are related. If it is about the 1986 film, then I vote delete. Otherwise, I am not familiar enough with the topic to decide what to do here. C F A 💬 19:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the second film is notable, would Draftifying this help? Get it sorted out and publish back in mainspace with proper sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine with me. But there's a lot to sort out, starting with the title. And there's not much to save. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think we need to hear from more editors as we have opinions to Draftify and Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it doesn't meet WP rules for notability and verification. im sorry but There aren't enough reliable sources to prove its importance, and the content is minimal and incomplete. Yakov-kobi (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either DISAMB (and create a page for the 2023 film) or redirect to List of Bhojpuri films#1980s (where it is listed) because there are sources, including mentions in books that allow to verify cast, director, etc. and this is a standard ATD in such cases.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Draftification may be a legitimate alternative to deletion, when there is a consensus not to keep the page in mainspace. But in the absence of such consensus, draftification is not a valid alternative to taking no action. Owen× ☎ 19:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shabana Shajahan Aryan

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

Previously deleted and salted as Shabana Shajahan/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabana Shajahan * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2 lead roles In notable series have her clearly meet WP:NACTOR. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I concur with Mushy Yank. At least two co-leading roles in the television series Sembaruthi and Mr. Manaivi. Fulfills NACTOR#1. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the previous AFD was closed as Delete and it seems like many sources concern her personal life, not her career.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Actress had been in 2 Tamil language TV shows where she played lead roles but the sources on the page are focused on her personal marital life than her career. Source 1 is about her dress outfits. Source 2 is on her wedding anniversary. Source 3 is on her marriage trouble. Source 4 is on her childhood picture. Source 5 is passing mention on likes dislikes. Source 6 is on show going off-air. Source 7, 8 and 9 are on her marriage troubles. There is not a single source with indepth coverage on her career. I did not find any reliable secondary independent source that has indepth coverage on her career as an actress and the reason could be that her career is not yet worthy of notice to deserve attention or to be recorded but voting to draftify if anyone can find sources on her career and improve the page. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Could editors arguing to Keep offer a response to this source review? How would you feel about draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There's a fair amount of (albeit tabloid-esque coverage) in news outlets, indicating some sort of notability. For example, this Times of India article goes in-depth about how she celebrated her birthday. Non-notable people wouldn't get anywhere close to that level of coverage. There's also a whole bunch of stuff about her wedding ([22][23][24][25]). Combined with meeting WP:NACTOR I think notability is met and there should be enough to write an article. C F A 💬 02:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Birthday celebration, giving thanks on instagram and the kind of gift received by spouse, these are not the kind of coverage needed to satisfy notability. The page has no source with indepth coverage on her career. The page needs to be re-written and sourced with reliable secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not necessarily. It doesn't really matter what the coverage is about, as long as it is significant and about the subject. In this case, I believe WP:BASIC is barely met, and she appears to meet the applicable subject-specific notability guideline (WP:NACTOR). The article is currently a fairly well-written start-class article and is cited to reliable, independent sources. I don't see any issues with the article. What is the point of deleting/draftifying this? C F A 💬 15:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage has to be notable to warrant a page on the subject and coverage like birthday and divorce issues, that are personal life, are not only the kind of coverage needed for a WP:NACTOR. There needs to be significant coverage on her career to be considered a notable actor. This is why I was opting for Draftify so that creator or other editor can find indepth coverage in secondary reliable independent sources on her career and improve the page. RangersRus (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR is a subject-specific notability guideline that doesn't require the person meet the general notability guideline as well (in my opinion they do, but that's not relevant). As long as they meet any one of the criteria outlined (and it can be verified), they are presumed notable. Now, if they meet a SNG and there isn't enough coverage to write an article, there's a better argument for deletion. In this case, however, an article has been written and appears to be appropriately sourced, so deleting it is kind of pointless. Draftifying is useful for someone who could become notable in the near future but isn't at the moment. As I mentioned, the article has already been written and the subject is notable, so there is no reason to draftify. When more in-depth sources about her career are published, they can just be added to the article in mainspace. C F A 💬 16:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to relist question: I cannot see why this should be moved to draft it she meets WP:NACTOR with 2 verifiable lead roles in notable productions. If other users want to remove content and sources about her private life, they can. If you remove "Aryan" from your search, you find some sources focusing more on her work and confirming her roles.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its the indepth coverage on her career that is missing. The subject's career has not (imo) received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability because her roles did not gain significant independent coverage or recognition. Too early still? I did google search for reliable secondary independent source on her career by her name, Shabana Shajahan, but was not able to find any in first two pages. If you find any, can you list them here please? RangersRus (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage that allows verification of her roles, which is what the SNG requires, is not great but includes https://www.filmibeat.com/tamil/2024/shabana-bids-farewell-to-mr-manaivi-vaanathai-pola-star-debjani-modak-takes-the-reins-392475.html ;

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/tamil/pavan-and-shabana-starrermr-manaivi-to-go-off-air-soon/articleshow/106371726.cms ; https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/tamil/etimes-tvs-poll-results-netizens-select-mr-manaivi-as-their-favourite-daily-soap-take-a-look-at-the-other-tv-shows-on-the-list/articleshow/99777465.cms ; https://nettv4u.com/celebrity/tamil/tv-actress/shabana-shajahan/list-of-serial-and-shows -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it seems you had already received a reply about that by CFA. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filmibeat and Nett4u are unreliable sources and the ones from Times Of India are the same sources on the page that I mentioned earlier in my vote that there is no indepth coverage on her career in those sources. RangersRus (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I said, you have already received a reply about that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The Times of India is generally not considered a notability-establishing source because it is known to accept coverage for pay. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but how many times do you want me to repeat what has been said in the course of this discussion? WP:NACTOR is the applicable guideline and the said sources, including TOI, can be used to verify her roles. I'm leaving it at that.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note about the Times of India: The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently closed an RfC on TOI and updated the RSPS entry. It now states the following:
Additional considerations apply to articles published in The Times of India (TOI) after 1950. TOI has sometimes had a poor reputation for fact-checking and its use should be evaluated with caution. Editors should ensure that they do not use paid advertorials—which were first published in TOI in 1950 at the earliest—to verify information or establish notability. Paid advertorials may be of particular concern in topics such as entertainment. Editors should also be aware that TOI may have published at least one AI-generated article.
voorts (talk/contributions) 17:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and it also says and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. RangersRus (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"also says"? Please. It is written in my note. There's no need to repeat and repeat it, bold or not, as if I was trying to ignore it. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes it more clear to state what is exactly said that isn't clear or contradicts from what you said. You have made your point and I agree to disagree on the sources you provided. Is there any other source you can find with indepth coverage on her career? If not, we do not need to discuss further and let closer analyze. RangersRus (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As has been repeated many times, there does not need to be in-depth coverage of her career. She verifiably meets a subject-specific notability guideline, WP:NACTOR, and is therefore notable. End of story. C F A 💬 15:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:SNG, there is no adequate sourcing and significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We dont't have to repeat each other when there is just disagreements. Lets have others weigh in. RangersRus (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't have to be significant coverage, as long as the claim is verified. C F A 💬 15:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes NACTOR with roles in Sembaruthi and Mr. Manaivi. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: FWIW, additional criteria clearly mentions that 'People are likely to be notable' not necessarily. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per RangersRus's source analysis. Also SALT this page to prevent it from being published before it's been reviewed. Editors citing NACTOR are misunderstanding that SNG. It states: "Such a person may be considered notable" if it meets either of the criteria, not that the person is notable. We need sources that provide significant coverage of the subject so that we can write an encyclopedic article. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors citing NACTOR are misunderstanding that SNG. Maybe. Unless you did not understand what some of us did say or why they !voted with a reference to the applicable guideline. An actor meeting WP:NACTOR is presumed notable; not necessarily notable but certainly not proven non-notable. Sources allowing to verify the roles are necessary. You have them. And coverage about her private life was not said to be non-significant, it was said not be significantly about her career....it's about her and just confirms she is a celebrity/famous personality, who is probably judged "notable" by certain media for some reason, which is obviously her career as an actress. Notability is a spectrum, and, indeed, when you have an actor with two lead roles in notable productions, NACTOR is quite clearly satisfied and their notability is very very highly likely, which this discussion allows to agree (or not) upon. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumed notable and Likely notable have very different meanings. 'Presumed' is a more stronger word for an occurance to happen, while 'likely' is a weaker word in comparison. The additional criteria mention 'Likely' and not 'Presumed'.

It's about her and just confirms she is a celebrity/famous personality, who is probably judged "notable" by certain media for some reason, which is obviously her career as an actress. - The standards of Indian media regarding the notability of a person are quite poor, which is why people/companies often don't stop at just having their name in the news but instead aim to get their own article on Wikipedia.

I don't believe anyone who has argued above has mentioned that the subject doesn't meet NACTOR criteria, rather they are asking for significant coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per User:RangersRus's source analysis. I likewise concur with User:voorts's suggestion salting this mainspace until an approved draft may be completed. I find myself sympathetic to User:Jeraxmoira's assertion regarding standards of media. Entertainment and sports-based churnalism sometimes makes notability discussions of BLPs complicated. Asserting the relative importance of roles without proper citation in RS is pure synthesis. Wikipedia is not People (magazine) or the cultural equivalent elsewhere. BusterD (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I agree with RangersRus's assertions. Draftify is the best thing we can do for now. If, in the future, she gets some good sources with significant coverage, it can be created via AfC. GrabUp - Talk 07:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Per RangersRus's source analysis. TarnishedPath^talk 01:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Sir

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

This stub about an Internet personality whose channel is education based was recently accepted at AFC. I believe it to be a borderline acceptance, which is fine of itself. AFC reviewers role is to accept drafts which they believe have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. As a fellow AFC reviewer I believe that the subject is not verified to pass WP:BIO, and that the draft was below the acceptance threshold. On that basis I would not have accepted it. The referencing is independent, yes, but the content of the references is gossip column-like trivia, which simulates significant coverage, but which is not. I see the only way of resolving this is for the community to discuss it, hence AfD 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Education, Internet, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not going to vote here since my stance is clear, as I accepted the draft. At the time I saw the draft, it was not passing GNG, but I know the personality well and thought he might already have a Wikipedia article. When I found out he did not, I started to find significant coverages and added many that are currently cited. I respect Timtrent’s judgment, and we already discussed it on my talk page. We would like to get the community's views on the article. Lastly, I want to add that if the article can’t be kept, we can draftify it, as it has good sourcing, and the subject may gain more coverage to establish notability in the future. Happy editing. GrabUp - Talk 13:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Draftification is a perfectly acceptable outcome to me as nominator. I ought to have said that in the nomination. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH - Subject has a reasonable claim to notability, and I don't see what draftifying would accomplish. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar: I have done some research to find Hindi sources and interestingly found many that may establish notability.
*BBC Hindi | *News18 Hindi | *NewsNation | *AmarUjala | *News18 Hindi and *Dainik Jagran Hindi
In my opinion, the BBC Hindi one is a very powerful source with significant coverage. I will leave it to the community. Thanks. GrabUp - Talk 08:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think its the time for voting Keep. Grab</spanw>Up - Talk 08:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Löschen~~ : I can only find coverage about "criminal" activities [26], [27], but they don't seem notable and rather tabloidey... I don't find coverage of his streaming career, so there just isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Hey, can you comment on these Hindi sources I mentioned above, especially BBC Hindi? GrabUp - Talk 00:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The BBC source translates fine, seems like substantial coverage. With the rest of them, should be ok for notability.Vote amended above. Oaktree b (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The BBC source says, to me at least, that the subject of the article does indeed pass WP:BIO. We have plenty of articles on internet educators, and this person is plenty notable in India. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to End-of-train device. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last vehicle board

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Transportation, Sri Lanka, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find a few sites describing why the last car in Indian trains has an X symbol: [28], [29], [30], but that doesn't make it a notable concept, since these are just quirky did-you-know sort of items. Analogy: I can find articles explaining why pencils are often painted yellow: [31], but that doesn't make Color of pencils a notable concept. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with End-of-train device (as I suggested when deprodding), which is another technology with the same purpose (and likely there are others from different railways around the world). This isn't notable on it's own, but the broader concept is and the target article itself is possibly too narrow on it's own. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The information is not with citations but it seem to be true and that can be merged. Wikicontriiiiibute (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)User Blocked[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into End-of-train device sounds reasonable - that article already describes two approaches. Adam Sampson (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into End-of-train device. Thank you, Thryduulf, for deprodding and suggesting! gidonb (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhimadeva

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

MOS:DABMENTION requires "If the topic is not mentioned in the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page". "Bhimadeva" is mentioned only in Bhima of Mahikavati, probably not a good target for a redirect. I suggest this page is deleted in order to enable uninhibited use of Search. A PROD was reverted by @Utcursch: with edit summary (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=bhimadeva+caulukya) without editing any targeted article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bhima I now, quite properly, also mentions "Bhimadeva". The stipulation in WP:DABMENTION gives as the rationale for its claimed requirement "since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic". In this case the links obviously would help the reader so this is one of the occasional exceptions the MOS allows for. Thincat (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Language-barrier keep. "Bhima" is in the dabbed article names, and "dev" shows up in the article bodies. I am not familiar with that language, but there seems to be some grammar thing going on that makes this dab page worthwhile. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Thincat and sguerka. Pretty useful DAB. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel D'Lima

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. None of the sources are about him. Sources (and much of the content) are about taitrs. Material on him is just resume type material. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Theatre, and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor to unreliable sources with no significant coverage on the subject. The subject fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Goa and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a number of references are from offline books. Has the nominator managed to access them ? Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to answer with respect to what you are seeing because there have been 104 edits to the article since I nominated this. But I did evaluate them at the time. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a lot was added after you nominated this, including several refs, but much of it was WP:PROMO, fluff, repetition, and stuff about the genre of theatre that, I think, has no direct relevance to D'Lima's career. I tried to reduce the promo, cruft, repetition and tangential stuff, but someone else should review the refs to see if they actually discuss Liima's life or career at all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new additions to the article since it's nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no review of additions to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Most 'Keep' views failed to address the notability-related shortcomings raised by the 'Delete' views. However, after three weeks, support for deletion did not achieve consensus.

Note to some participants: a "Note to closer" that merely rehashes points of P&G, or attempts to summarize views expressed by others, adds nothing to the discussion, and is generally ignored by the closer. If you find new information that is pertinent to the discussion, such as evidence of canvassing or COI, kindly post the link or diff, and leave it at that. Owen× ☎ 13:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayank Shekhar

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Subject did receive an award Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism. Source 1 is a book review, source 2 is a blog, source 3 has a passing comment made by the subject himself, source 4 is a review by subject himself, source 5 is a bio written by subject himself, source 6 is more on bio written by subject himself, source 7 is a link to Ramnath Goenka Award and source 8 is a book written by subject himself. Many unreliable and primary sources here. Draftify would be an option to improve the page with secondary independent sources and remove primary sources like the reviews by the subject himself and the interview with the subject.RangersRus (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the award is judged significant enough, he could meet WP:ANYBIO. If his books have received coverage that is judged sufficiently significant (including the review you mention, or https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/name-place-animal-thing-of-bollywood-trivia-popular-culture/articleshow/52685080.cms oder https://www.spectralhues.com/news/bookreview-name-place-animal-thing-mayank-shekhar/), he might also meet WP:AUTHOR. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TOI makes it under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I still do not find his books a significant monument or been a substantial part of a significant exhibition or won wide significant critical attention by well known peers and critics in secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TOI falling under NEWSORGINDIA is an interpretation that I respect but with which I disagree in this case (not great journalism but not simply unreliable). The fact that the author of the book is one of the film critics of the Hindustan Times also indicates the article in the TOI should be rather independent.-- -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank: The article from TOI doesn't look like a review at all; it seems more like a promotional piece or an announcement. Additionally, the article was published by PTI. I don't think he meets WP:AUTHOR. GrabUp - Talk 16:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note about the Times of India: The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Note: TOI has trivia (likely promotion) from the subject's book and is not a review that I glanced over again and spectralhues.com is likely unreliable source as it says "Spectral Hues has been founded by a couple of starry-eyed romantics with their feet firmly planted on the ground (a rather unusual combination, we know!)." This is not a well established news media or website. About The Times of India, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. So this puts in question the promotion by using trivia taken from the book written by the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Film, and India. RangersRus (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable; a prolific film critic who is also known for his in-depth interviews with major film stars. The Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism is no mean achievement, and he is the first film critic to have received it. I have added a reference for an interview with him for the The Asian Age. At best, the article needs expansion, certainly not deletion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Shshshsh (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Indeed, I should have mentioned that I hapeen to have been the creator of this page many years back. I actually didn't even remember I was the one who created it, as I've created numerous pages for notable Indian film critics. As someone who has worked on Indian cinema-related articles, I can attest to the relevance of his reviews on dozens of film articles, including several FAs. Him being an author as well as the winner of a notable award only consolidates my position. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
interviews are primary sources that needs to cite the truth of the statements unless attributed. RangersRus (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RangersRus: Didn't undersrtand what you said here, please explain. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are considered primary non-independent source. Independent sources helps to fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. If you use interviews as source for any statement made by the subject then the subject's statements needs to be cited with secondary independent source as well. Wikipedia:Independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shshshsh: The award “Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards” is given to over 20 people every year. Do you think this is an exclusive award that can make recipients notable? GrabUp - Talk 16:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grabup: Yes; there are many notable awards which award several groups of individuals. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shshshsh: Hey, Thanks for the reply. Can you please name some! GrabUp - Talk 12:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grabup: Yes, off the top of my head - the Padma Shri. Not comparing them in notability, but just giving a direct answer to your question. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shshshsh: Padma Shri does not establish notability. I wanted the names of some awards that establish notability and are given to more than 20 people every year. GrabUp - Talk 15:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No award in the world "establishes" notability in and of itself; notable awards indicate notability, they attest to the recepient's notabiltiy. The notability is established by the professional achievments the award was given for. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see my reply to nomination above.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very much notable, as pointed out above. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not convinced that he meets any notability criteria. He fails WP:ANYBIO, as the award is not exclusive, with more than 20 people receiving it. Receiving the award first or last does not make it exceptional or add to notability. Regarding WP:AUTHOR, The Times of India is not a review, merely a short promotional or announcement piece with no author, published by the Press Trust of India (PTI), therefore, it does not meet WP:AUTHOR criteria. The person does not meet the General Notability Guideline, which is already known. Also, I don't understand how interviews with celebrities establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 09:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the award is a notable national award as per WP:Anybio and having specific award categories does not invalidate that in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ramnath Goenka Award is not national award. It is award named after journalist Ramnath Goenka that began in 2006 and is awarded to over 20 journalists every year and is presented by Indian Express Group. RangersRus (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer. Keep votes are more focused on the subject's notability because of an award (not national award) but there is no argument on the unreliability of the sources on the page that are blogs, interviews with no secondary sources as attribution and self written reviews by the subject himself and part of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Two keep votes consider him notable but have no argument as to why and the two other keep vote (including the creator of the page) do not have opinion on the argument about the page and the unreliable sources that fails WP:GNG. I think the page is at best Löschen but Draftify is also an option if there is any scope of improvement with secondary independent reliable sources. If this page stays a keep, then likely it opens a Pandora box to use unreliable sources like blogs and interviews and self published reviews on other pages or newly generated pages. RangersRus (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note @RangersRus is the nominator of this AfD and appears to have voted twice (assuming good faith), both in the nomination description and in the comment above. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not votes but opinion based on the unreliability of the sources on the page. RangersRus (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RangersRus: Then you should not have highlighted them in bold. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see it as problem. Two closers already went through the arguments and understood it as opinion. RangersRus (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t understand why they are not providing good arguments for their Keep votes. It looks like @Atlantic306 is just here to go along with the majority. The question raises because how can he call it a ‘national award’? Additionally, they are posting low effort delete votes and not giving any counterarguments, which raises some questions in my mind. GrabUp - Talk 02:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup: Please assume good faith on other participants here. The fact that they do not agree with you doesn't mean their arguments are not "good". This is an AfD where no one is obligated to satisfy his voting peers. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are not obligated to satisfy me, but to build consensus, they should explain further why and how the subject meets some notability criteria. Being a "National award" does not establish notability, such as the Padmashri Award, which is a national award, but the majority of the recipients are not notable and don’t have articles. Giving low effort votes does not really help to build consensus in every AfDs. GrabUp - Talk 13:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In the UK and US a national award means it relates to the scope of a whole country not that it is given by the government. For example the Oscars and Grammy Awards are national awards that are given by private organisations, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  For UK and US, there is national award for films National Film Awards UK and National Film & TV Award USA. In India, for journalism, Press Council of India honours the journalists selected by the Jury/Council for having excelled in various fields on the occasion of National Press Day. This is national award. RangersRus (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The award is not exclusive enough to establish notability. Every year, more than 20 people receive the award. Are they also notable for this award? I don’t think so. GrabUp - Talk 16:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, they might be notable. The UK Awards are given by a private organization. National, especially in the Indian context, means the recepients may be chosen from across all states and not just locally. The Ramnath Goenka Award is given by a notable organization which has existed for almost a century. The award might not necessarily establish notability in and of itself (although I think it should), but everything else about the subject certainly does. Shekhar is also a member of the CBFC, he writes for notable publications, he hosts programs where big stars are being interviewed (see Hitlist on YT), he has authored two books which received media coverage. I can't see the harm in having a Wikipedia article on this person even with half of these achievements. I do admit I'm an inclusionist. :) I strongly believe WP can and should cover as much as possible. The spirit of WP, as I think of it, lies in its ongoing goal to become a robust center of knowledge, where minimal restrictions are put on inclusion of information. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Shshshsh: Being a member of the CBFC does not meet any notability criteria. Writing for a notable publication does not meet any notability criteria. Hosting big stars in a program or interviewing them does not meet any notability criteria. Lastly, his book has not received enough media coverage to be considered notable, nor have his books been reviewed by any notable media organization that would allow it to meet WP:AUTHOR.
  
  I want to ask where it is written in Wikipedia’s notability guidelines that being a member of the CBFC, writing for a notable publication, hosting big stars in a show, or taking interviews makes a person notable. I don’t have a problem with your intent to include everything on Wikipedia, but there are rules that should be followed. Why keep a subject that has not met any notability criteria set by Wikipedia guidelines? GrabUp - Talk 15:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  He does meet notability guidelines, because all these positions do not work individually but as a group. Going by your opening sentence, no critic/journalist is notable. Anyway, we should agree to disagree. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Shshshsh: My comment was: Journalists or critics are not inherently notable; they have to pass some sort of guidelines, such as GNG, JOURNALIST, AUTHOR, or similar, for an article in Wikipedia. You said, "because all these positions do not work individually but as a group. Going by your opening sentence," where is it written that these types of works or positions make a person notable, whether in a group or individually? GrabUp - Talk 11:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:N, WP:GNG is my answer. We wouldn't have known all of this had this not been published in reliable sources. And above all, common sense is an option. I will reiterate for you: he has won a notable award, he is a member of the CBFC, he writes for several notable publications, he hosts programs where big stars are being interviewed (see Hitlist on YT), he has authored two books which received media coverage, he is a film critic whose reviews are being quoted, and his work has made him the interviewee, as we can see. If you're not convinced, which I think is going to be case anyway, let's agree to disagree. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  GNG requires significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, and I am unable to see any. GrabUp - Talk 16:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Three awards are now reported by reliable sources (another one added just now). I can't think of many non-notable writers/authors whose books get a full review on India's most popular entertainment portal. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I can’t see the full review. These are promotional. The Asian Age article contains only statements from the subject and is not an independent article. The newly added source The Print is a press release and is not at all independent nor reliable per WP:PRSOURCE. Please share your “reliable sources” here. GrabUp - Talk 01:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Whether you can see it or not, it's there. The Asian Age is a legitimate interview. I really don't get the analysis here of independent or not given it's a film critic we're talking about. A notable one, of course. With all due respect, I don't accept your subjective analysis of the sources. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  How do interviews start to pass GNG? To pass GNG, independent in-depth coverage of the subject is required. How is this a subjective analysis? The article is just full of quotes from the subject or what you call interviews. Interviews do not help to establish notability at all. Read WP:INTERVIEWS, which states, "They may be used for sourcing some facts amid a mixture of sourcing types, but a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have." The subject actually does not have independent sources. GrabUp - Talk 10:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Exactly - it's not the only kind of sourcing. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Where is independent source then? GrabUp - Talk 11:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, I've said enough on this. I'm really busy. You and the other user haven't managed to convince anyone except each other. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Interestingly, The Print’s ANI press release was provided by SRV Media, a PR company known for sponsored promotional publishing. Therefore, this article falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and cannot help meet GNG. None of the sources cited in the article are reliable, independent secondary sources. GrabUp - Talk 02:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You must be kidding - The Print is an online newspaper and the article cited is just used for the overage of the awards. All you said here is mere speculation. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That shows you have not seen any articles and are just arguing blindly. If you read the end of the article, it is clearly mentioned, “This story is provided by SRV Media. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of this article. (ANI/SRV Media)” And since you are acting like you don’t know anything, here is what SRV Media’s website says: “A well-written press release informs and positions your brand as an authority in your industry, enhancing credibility and trust among your audience.” GrabUp - Talk 10:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Please use WP:RSN to gain consensus pertaining to the label you're using. For the rest, let's agree to disagree. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I went to RSN about the source he wanted and mentioned that he wants to establish notability with that article, he immediately came to my talk page telling me to remove the word. Closer can see this. He says he has no time when I ask him to provide an independent, reliable source but has time to argue and tell people to remove things. After all this, he agreed at RSN that the article is a press release. GrabUp - Talk 11:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is notable regardless of whether this specific article is a press release. I think we should let this AfD run its course and see what other people think. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources can’t really establish notability (unless any additional criteria is met). You are unable to provide any secondary independent sources but are claiming this article is notable. You are replying to everything but saying you have no time when asked to provide independent sources, and acting like you have, but actually have not. Anyways, I will leave it to the closer to decide. GrabUp - Talk 17:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with your points when seen specifically, but disagree about the outcome where all the criteria are taken together. I think I have made my point clear and so have you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seem to be notable and meeting GNG. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LusikSnusik: Can you explain how he meets GNG? You should learn about notability before voting on AfD. GrabUp - Talk 10:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article cites in-depth coverage of the subject's books and his criticism. He is mainly known for his work, which is common enough. The same could be said of the poet Homer or the playwright Shakespeare. Mayank Shekhar is clearly notable as a film critic. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not cite multiple reliable secondary independent sources with indepth coverage on subject's book. It is very clear to me that you did not review the page. Subject's comparison with Homer and Shakespeare is bizarre. RangersRus (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer. Please do not consider consensus based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. Keep votes have not made any logical and policy based arguments. The last keep vote by Aymatth2 before this note makes me suspicious of off-wiki canvassing who hasn't voted on an AFD for as far back as I can check and to just appear and make vote on this only AFD today just adds to suspicion. The creator of the page who voted for keep admitted that he is inclusionist and that is why his stance is amoral and disingenuous. Please assess the discussion and review the page and sources on the page for final consensus before closing this AFD. RangersRus (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Amoral and disingenuous"? As I've noted to the other user, please assume good faith on other participants here. The fact that they do not agree with you doesn't mean their arguments are not "logical". This is an AfD where no one is obligated to satisfy his voting peers. Please note it is your second note to the closer; I'm sure the closer will consider the entire discussion without us repeating ourselves. Also remember that if the article does not have enough good sources, although I think it does, it doesn't mean deletion is the right course of action; improvement is. With respect to inclusionism, beliving in it is totally allowed on WP as long as you follow policy - I have used above policy-based arguments and said that in my view this article meets notability guidelines. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enough good sourcing? Not a single independent, reliable secondary source is cited. Please share if you find any. Just promotional, Sponsored, NEWSORGINDIA, full of sayings of the subject. GrabUp - Talk 02:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the Bollywood Hungama source, there is just a single piece, which cannot make the book notable as it requires multiple independent reviews. GrabUp - Talk 02:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop replying to me in several places, especially when I call out another user for inappropriate conduct. You say the same above. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen although I wouldn't be opposed to draftifying if there is an editor who wants to work on the article.
Source 1: A full review of the subjects book. reliable, independent, and significant coverage.
Source 2: An WP:ABOUTSELF blog, reliable but not independent.
Source 3: A passing mention which is a quote from the subject, reliable - not independent - not significant coverage.
Source 4: This is by the subject themselves, reliable but not independent.
Source 5: A piece about the subjects book, reliable - not independent as it mostly an interview. This is the Asia Age sources mention above.
Source 6: By the subject, not independent.
Source 7: By the subject, not independent.
Source 8: One line noting they won the Ramnath Goenka award for 'Films and Television (Print)', this seems notable per WP:ANYBIO point 1 but that doesn't guarantee inclusion it only mean they are likely notable.
Source 9: A press release, reliable but not independent.
Source 10: A book by the subject, reliable but not independent.
There are two more sources mentioned in this discussion. Two book reviews one by SpectralHues and another by Times Of India. SpectralHues is not a book review site, per it's 'Our services' page[32] it offers services including Content Management, SEO, SEM, Website Designing & Development, Social Media Marketing and Book Promotion. It's not a reliable or independent source. The Times India review is quite short and I fear could be promotional.
So there is one reliable, independent source with significant coverage that has been mentioned so far, and that is a review of one of their works and I can't find any other online sources that would contribute. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s what I was saying from starting, thank you so much for the detailed analysis. GrabUp - Talk 02:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New sources have been added to the article and mentioned below.
Source 1: A review of the same book as source 1 in my first comment. Not significant coverage.
Source 2: Again a review of the same book. Again reliable, independent, and significant coverage-ish.
Source 3: A blog by the subject, obviously not independent.
Source 4: Subject is named dropped in the article, not significant.
Source 5: Again a passing mention, not significant.
That makes two sources so far that are reliable, independent and have significant coverage, and both are reviews about a book not the subject. That might contribute to showing the book is notable per WP:NBOOK, but I still don't see enough for the subject of the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Update - five more sources have been added, just using a basic search online, including additional book reviews and pieces reviewing his film criticism and calling him a noted film critic. The latest vote seems like an effective source review, but my point has been all along - if the page can be improved, and it can, it needs improvement, not deletion. WP:BEFORE please. If I thought he was notable before, now I'm convinced of it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources you are referring to as "Book Reviews" are not book reviews at all.

1. Paperback Picking NAME PLACE ANIMAL THING and PaperBack Picking Bombay Talkies | In these articles, they suggest some books to read and also mention three other books. Obviously, these are not reviews. Book reviews look like this. : So, this doesn't help meet any notability criteria at all.

2. Are film critics 'retards'?: Just a passing mention, not a significant source, and no in-depth coverage, so no notability criteria are met.

3. Breakups, Twitter style: Again, it's just a passing mention, so it can't meet any notability criteria.

4. An Insider’s View of the Film Censor Board: Blog article by the subject himself, as it was under the domain of 'india.blogs.nytimes.com.' So, it is a primary source and does not meet any notability criteria.

I don't find any of these sources to be good for meeting any notability criteria, such as GNG. Obviously, passing mentions can't generate notability. GrabUp - Talk 12:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 of the sources you added are from TelegraphIndia and these are Paperback Pickings section for advertising current and new books in the market as you can see the price tag in the source and briefing what the book is about. It is not a review by any well known critic. Three of these sources do not help with notability. Source by archived NY Times is an article written by subject himself (primary source and not independent secondary source). Rediff article is just passing mention and an opinionated one not written by any well know critic or journalist but by some one calling themselves Bolly wood and ends the article with "Till next week, love, Bolly." All these sources do not help. RangersRus (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For passing mention - it's not about the quantity but the quality. To me, listing him as among the critics who "bring sense, and a measure of cinematic sensibility, to their writing" is solid coverage. As for the Telegraph sources - whether book reviews or suggestions - they are discussed and given importance. As for the blog, it just supports him being a member of the CBFC. The fact is that his input as a film critic is often considered in daily newspapers. I can dig more, but I believe the subject is easily notable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed deletions

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Redirects for deletion

MFD discussion debates

Other deletion discussions

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