Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

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

India[edit]

Road Safety World Series[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage to pass WP:GNG. This event and all of its (so far 2) seasons falls foul of WP:NOTINHERITED- just because some notable people played in the event, this doesn't make the event itself notable, as it's a clear GNG failure. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. AA (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjala Ramakrishna Reddy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article doesn't meet WP:NPOL; WP:GNG

Sajjala Ramakrishna Reddy is an advisor to the Government of Andhra Pradesh during 2019 - 2024, along with more than COUNTLESS others.^[1] (Andhra High Court on Role of Advisors; Some of the List of Advisors) Additionally, he is one of the 31 General Secretaries (List of YSRCP secretaries) of the YSR Congress Party. Beyond these roles, there is little of value to add in Wikipedia article, so I propose it for deletion. RWILD ✉ 10:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He's in the media quite often, but not in any articles about him. There's this [1], but not helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as Journalist and politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. There is no in-depth significant achievement notable. RangersRus (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Women's Premier League (cricket) captains[edit]

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK, and violates WP:NOTDATABASE as almost the entire content of the article is just a copy of the ESPNCricinfo source [2]. Just because the men's IPL has this article (which I also don't necessarily agree with), that doesn't mean this article meets WP:NLIST, as I don't see significant coverage about these captains grouped together in news sources (i.e. not just copies of the table). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, Cricket, Lists, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. The page does not meet notability guidelines WP:FAILN and WP:NLIST. RangersRus (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For full transparency, I'm just noting that I mentioned this list was nominated for deletion at the featured list nomination here. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmer Haider (actor)[edit]

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

Recreation of salted title, Ahmer Haider, which has been salted since 2019 due to repeated recreation. Subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject to justify WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Additionally, he was not a lead character in any of the listed films. GrabUp - Talk 08:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, passes neither WP:GNG not WP:NACTOR. Sources are mostly paid for and that is evident in the cited sources. Ednabrenze (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. No significant and noteworthy achievement by the subject's role as an actor to warrant a page on Wikipedia. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General Airconditioners[edit]

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

WP:BLAR was reverted, bringing it to AfD. Does not fulfill WP:NCORP due to lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Redirect to Fujitsu#Fujitsu General Broc (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Japan, and India. Broc (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Fujitsu#Fujitsu General. I can not find any significant coverage in reliable secondary independent sources. Sources are poor to unreliable on the page. RangersRus (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fujitsu#Fujitsu General per nom; brand was established in the 1960s to establish an 'English name' and over time, people became fine with Fujitsu as part of it. About as standard a brand story as you can get. Nate • (chatter) 23:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel D'Lima[edit]

(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]

Kanyadan (Marathi TV series)[edit]

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

Another WALLEDGARDEN of adaptions of television shows based on Kanyaadaana. Nominating this as opposed to mass deletion nomination in hopes of getting input on the others. This adaption is not notable as there is no significant coverage. The references are mainly about the original show or fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA or otherwise unreliable. Redirect would be a good WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Kanyadaan_(2020_TV_series)#Adaptations. Poor sources with no significant coverage and critical reviews on the series. RangersRus (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supreet Bedi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article refunded after soft deletion, but still fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The vast majority of sources are tabloid coverage, which doesn't count as WP:SIGCOV under GNG. Other sources include primary sources like the subject's own book or WP:INTERVIEWS, or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all criteria WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:BLP. No WP:SIGCOV. Sources are poor to unreliable WP:NEWSORGINDIA. RangersRus (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayank Shekhar[edit]

(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 or 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]

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]
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]

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]

Principal Mutual Fund India[edit]

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

This company page fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, as most of its citations focus on trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page is WP:PROMO. Coverage is just news on appointments, acquiring stakes and lacks indepth coverage on the company and its significant achievement or significant demonstrable effects. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary Business[edit]

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

This stub is essentially an 'About Us' page for a publication that no longer exists. It appears as though it was intended to advertise the publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TiredMango (talk • contribs) 05:21, 3 Jul 2024 (UTC)

Note. Randfiskin, the initial creator of the page, was blocked for blatant advertising. —C.Fred (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This page is only linked to by Brad Trost in a misattributed reference that has since been removed.—TiredMango (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Websites, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Wikishovel (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing South Indian films of 2024[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing South Indian films of 2024

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

There is an article List of Indian films of 2024 which covers entire Indian films box office and release dates, so having the article just for the sake of box office of every year is not needed. — Jayanthkumar123 (talk; contributions) 14:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they follow the same pattern similar to this article. Having a year-wise article just for the sake of box office collections, which merely has 10 entries is not necessary. Also, there are year-wise articles covering the entire Indian films and language-wise which has both release dates and box-office data.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film — Jayanthkumar123 (talk; contributions) 14:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would be like having an article for List of highest-grossing films in Wyoming (2024); pointless and certainly not a normal classing list article. Nate • (chatter) 16:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...with all due respect, not exactly... the population of Wyoming is roughly half a million, South India would be something like 250 million people....not to mention the fact that South India is an extremely relevant region in the geography of the film industry, Wyoming, not so much. But I understand that's not the point.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was making an example of breaking out box office by subnational regions, not comparing population at all. Box office figures are never generally broken out by state, province or region for the general public. Nate • (chatter) 16:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to each to the respective List of Indian films of (the respective year); a section can be created there; or not, depending on what other users think. Or redirect all and merge into Cinema of South India#Characteristics and popularity, a section that lacks material, examples and sources. Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC) (I forgot to say that, because this is sourced, I am not opposed to Keep this, if other users accept the idea that it meets WP:LISTSPLIT, for example.[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain, these articles may just mention few of the films that is just in South Indian territories, but it can be still used as the list for the selective fields to mention the highest grossing box office list of South India. I believe it can be better if we merge the lists of Telugu, Malayalam, Tamil, Kannada and Tulu films of each year to this article.
By Piruty Pipaty (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I was of the same doubt regarding all of these articles. Not sure why Tulu was mentioned above but its box office impact is essentially nil. DareshMohan (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL. Per nom and fails WP:NLIST. This is also WP:CFORK. No need to distinguish between South Indian films and Indian films when they are all the same. Pages like List of Indian films of 2024 already exist. RangersRus (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by South Indian films and Indian films being all the same? Indian films include South Indian films, but they are not the same. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it is all Indian. We do not need South Indian or North Indian or west Indian or East Indian titles. Indian should include all. RangersRus (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but the South Indian Cinema includes more languages and also has lot of films with high box office. And also if you would say like that, what is the need of List of highest-grossing South Indian films? Will you discuss to delete that too?
By Piruty Pipaty (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Raosahab[edit]

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

No establishment of notability Amigao (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This un-sourced and un-categorized bio uses many puffy words, without much proof of anything. This spammy website is all I can find [3]. Not passing any sort of notability, could be a hoax for all we know, with no sources. Oaktree b (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Technology, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero references and nothing in the text that suggests this subject is notable. Elspea756 (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although it seems they/someone for them, has made many profiles and entries for their non-notable books, nothing I can find contributes toward WP:N. Skynxnex (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. Youknow? (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There aren't any sources to back it up, and it uses a lot of vague language. Plus, I can't find anything else reliable online about this subject. Waqar💬 16:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. Simple search do not show reliable sources with significant coverage and noteworthy achievements to warrant a page on this subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Crime Break[edit]

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

A draft was declined multiple times, but the author created it to the main space to bypass AfC reviewing. I also declined the draft earlier. Based on my review, I can't find any sources with significant coverage of the subject just passing mentions and promotions. The organization was just created, and the article seems to exist solely to promote or publicize the organization. I don't think the article meets WP:GNG , WP:ORG, or any other notability criteria that would justify keeping it. Draftification is not a good idea since the author has bypassed the AfC process by moving the article to the main space despite multiple declines by several reviewers. GrabUp - Talk 14:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 14:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, obvs, although I expect this'll be speedied soon enough. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, latest self-marketing attempt by wannabe "hacker" and serial sockpuppet. Zero coverage in reliable sources, just the news-skinned blogs that he always sources his articles with. Best to keep this AFD open though, to allow for a quick G4 next time he creates it. Wikishovel (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article seems to focus on promoting rather than providing neutral information from reliable sources. Deletion seems reasonable. Waqar💬 17:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page made for WP:PROMO. RangersRus (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This company was founded earlier this year??? And the support is in local and non-English sources??? There doesn't seem to be notability of any kind. Ira Leviton (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG, even WP:BASIC. Youknow? (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gazetted officer (India)[edit]

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

Nominated by IP 117.230.88.202 as follows: Not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", hence fails WP:GNG. It violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as listing all gazetted designations are NOT within the scope of an encyclopedic article as it is not a directory or manual. The article predominantly consists original research, with references that barely support it. Legodesk.com fails WP:RS. (end quote) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all sources available through here.--Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Legodesk is not the only citation of this article. There are several references/citations which are indefinitely reliable like : The Hindu, "Indian Laws" Several Official Government of India website(s), Website of Directorate of Printing, Gov of India, Other prominent news/media like Amar Ujala, The Indian Express, etc. Deleting this article would be a big loss to the encyclopedia because Gazetted officers are the officers due to whom the whole country INDIA, works in a systematic manner.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are gazetted officers for the United Kingdom as well, but I haven't come across any articles on them. It is a content fork of The Gazette of India, where it can be mentioned, and does not justify WP:SIZESPLIT. Other than a dictionary definition, there's no other content encyclopedic to be added. The so-called reliable references are either passing mentions or run-of-the-mill news reports about a single news (eg: JCO). No other "independent sources". The subject definitely lacks WP:SIGCOV, depth of coverage, and fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY.--2409:4073:314:4414:2885:8BF:F6E1:1901 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there are specific pages on Gazetted officer of Kenya and Sri Lanka. There are many reliable references in this article as well.!! TheProEditor11 (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Ballabh Narayan Singh[edit]

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

The author challenged the draftification done by Zinnober9. Based on my check, I don’t think the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or any other notability criteria. I looked for reliable sources but did not find any. If anyone finds sources in Hindi or other languages, you are welcome to share them here. His books are also not notable. In my opinion, there is no need for draftification anymore. GrabUp - Talk 16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, India, and Bihar. GrabUp - Talk 16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable here. Sources are just poor and unreliable such as using Wikipedia Commons to source on his early life and education. The author's achievement is not significant or noteworthy to satisfy notability and to warrant a page on this subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. RangersRus (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In my rudimentary findings, this person does not meet WP:GNG as there is little to no coverage of the author, and my impression of most of the sources existing in this article/draft were from this author's works; which is problematic for reliably sourcing any claims or facts stated within. I realize that there could be reliable sources in Hindi that would support this draft, but I do not know Hindi, and I am not personally interested in this subject. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As someone who made a few edits on the article, I was debating between moving it back to draft or bringing it to AfD, but since it's been brought to AfD already, I'll cast my vote. Also note that this link here of one of his works listed on the page is nominated for deletion due to possible copyvio and false rationale for uploading (i.e. not own work). Procyon117 (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No in-depth coverage, fails WP:AUTHOR. Youknow? (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dear,I would like to humbly request you that you have put a request to remove or delete the Wikipedia page of Hariballabh Narayan Singh by proving it false, but you do not know anything about that Indian Hindi writer Hariballabh Narayan Singh. According to the information received from Google / Internet Archive and more reliable sources, Hariballabh Narayan Singh is a reputed writer of Indian Hindi language who has written many books in Hindi language, he has written a commentary book on Hindi grammar named Sugam Hindi Vyakaran Evam Rachna and he has also written many books like:Shiksha Vichar Manthan etc. You should once take information from reliable sources and I humbly request you to please withdraw or cancel the request you have put to remove the Wikipedia page of Hariballabh Narayan Singh. Thank you. 2409:408A:1E06:D395:C395:471E:16C9:10F7 (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE Contributing editor is actively discussing reasons for a keep on their user talk page instead of here where the actual vote is. @Archivehindu: Please add your viewpoint here, as this is where the evidence and full discussion for determining if the subject qualifies in regards to sourcing and WP:GNG and such. And please comment here while logged in. Thanks. Zinnober9 (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dear @Zinnober9 I would like to humbly request you that you have put a request to remove or delete the Wikipedia page of Hariballabh Narayan Singh by proving it false, but you do not know anything about that Indian Hindi writer Hariballabh Narayan Singh. According to the information received from Google / Internet Archive and more reliable sources, Hariballabh Narayan Singh is a reputed writer of Indian Hindi language who has written many books in Hindi language, he has written a commentary book on Hindi grammar named Sugam Hindi Vyakaran Evam Rachna (view reliable source here) and he has also written many books like:Shiksha Vichar Manthan (view reliable source here) etc. You should once take information from reliable sources and I humbly request you to please withdraw or cancel the request you have put to remove the Wikipedia page of Hariballabh Narayan Singh. Thank you. Archivehindu (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Archivehindu: Google itself is not a reliable source; it is a search engine where you can find both reliable and unreliable sources. The Internet Archive links you provided contain books written by the author, but that does not make him notable. Writing a book does not make someone notable; there needs to be enough coverage about the author or their works, which I currently cannot find. You are repeating your words; please cite reliable sources such as newspapers or secondary books with which the author is not connected. I hope you understand. GrabUp - Talk 07:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not question his being a published author or his reputation, and I have no issue with his works being sources for verifying statements in the article. What I, and others here are having an issue with is the lack of sources available showing that he meets notability requirements. His being a published author and having those works does not satisfy in regards to notability, as his works themselves are not used to determine notability (this is clearly stated in WP:GNG). Other people talking about his works establish notability and (so far) there has not been evidence of significant coverage by other people talking about him in reliable sources.

Of the sources I've looked at that you added, most were either blogs, or the author's work. Author's work I just mentioned above. Blogs are not to be used per WP:BLOGS. The newspaper articles, or any reliable news coverage that focus on him are a great start, but there doesn't seem to be that many, and so still lacks evidence of significant coverage.

I did not submit this AFD request, so I can not withdraw this request. I also still currently agree with this request, so even if I could, I would not at this time. To change my mind, you would have to show that there has been significant, reliable coverage of other people talking about him from the news or from other people's published works. Arguing that his works are notable because he has written many is not proof of notability, and is not evidence of significant coverage. Other people must be talking about him from a reliable setting.

We are not trying to be difficult, we are trying to make sure that your contributed article/draft meets the specific, required criteria that all other biography articles must meet, and have tried to be clear about what this draft, so far, has been lacking so that you could address these concerns and change our minds. Zinnober9 (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zinnober9 Archivehindu (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Academy High school[edit]

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

Non-notable school, none of the sources cited contributes anything towards notability, and a BEFORE search finds nothing beyond the usual directory listings, social media, etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG with flying colours. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and West Bengal. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searched for sources with in-depth coverage to establish notability but did not find any. I agree with the nominator; it fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 16:53, 29 June 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) 14:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources to establish notability. Pinakpani (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chhokar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the current sources are significant coverage, and I think that the same issues from the August 2016 AfD still apply. So, this still fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Hinduism, Pakistan, and India. GTrang (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there does not seem to have been any attempt to find sources that actually prove notability, rather the reverse, a quick attempt to ignore the old AfD, notable or, as here, not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The current sources don't seem to provide any substantial coverage. Waqar💬 17:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with some failing verification and others that have no significant indepth coverage. RangersRus (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sher Bengali[edit]

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

To be frank, this article glorifies our subject despite historical scholarship barely documenting sufficient notability to be included within Wikipedia. Some of the sources in the article do not meet Wikipedia standards. Of those that do, some of them are not about our subject at all and are used to source points irrelevant to our subject. The sources which do mention our subject only mention him in passing, never as a separate topic. Article contains a lot of Original Research to make it look like more notable than it actually was, which can mislead people. In connclusion, this article fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:15, 29 June 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 June 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails notability and the sources on the page are poor to unreliable WP:HISTRS with many failing verification with no significant coverage on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes Wikipedia's minimum requirement criteria WP:GNG. also there are many offline sources are available, for more information please see WP:OFFLINE. Some of ref are 1, 2, 3, 4. Thank you. 06:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Parul Institute of Medical Science and Research[edit]

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

Not notable enough to have a seperate article, the institute became a constituent college of Parul University after it's formation, see this and this. Should be part of the university's article, maybe under constituent colleges section. It's also unclear whether the college's name is still the same, I have seen it mentioned somewhere as "Faculty of Medical Science and Reaserch - Parul University", I'm unable to find the college in any UGC / MCC lists so couldn't check. Anyways, It doesn't have any offline notability, too, it's just on paperwork like degrees, otherwise only "Parul University" is being used. CptViraj (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and Gujarat. CptViraj (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parul_University#Affiliated_Colleges: I could not find any in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources, which is needed to prove notability. It would be better to redirect. GrabUp - Talk 07:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Parul_University#Affiliated_Colleges. Poor sources and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support delete or redirect, as above for notability, not in depth coverage, and somewhat promotionally. It had a copyvio which I discussed off-wiki for RevDel request. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 15:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parul University. As of this time it seems not notable enough for a separate Wikipedia article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parul_University#Affiliated_Colleges: No notability for this affiliated college at this point. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parul_University#Affiliated_Colleges.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eashvar Karthic[edit]

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

Main issue: the 2nd film of the director never released --> WP:TOOEARLY. This guy only directed one released film, not meeting Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative professionals since the film received mixed reviews. The notabliity guidleine states that the director creates a "well-known work or collective body of work". As of 2024, the work is not well known, it is a single film with mixed reviews, not a critically acclaimed film. I don't know if a writeup by an assistant professor at American College, Madurai holds any weightage but that info can be added to Penguin, the director's only released film. The deletion was caused by an undo of a redirect to Penguin. Long sources are mainly direct interviews about Penguin, not independent. Acting roles seem minor and not notable.

If anybody who directs one film, gets an article, doesn't this set a bad precedent. The film didn't win a National Award or any award for that matter.

This source [4] talks about six films including Penguin, all of this information pertaining to Penguin should be moved to the film article. This director can be notable after more of his works release. DareshMohan (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if you are wondering what the contents of source #7 is, it is here: [5] The story focuses on the pain and struggles suffered by the female lead. A pregnant woman remembers her child who went missing years ago. After the child’s missing, her husband started becoming toxic by saying she was the reason for the loss and separated ways from her. Later after years, a male character was shown who accepted her as she is and started living happily with her. No strong characterization or importance was given to both these male roles. They are just part of the screenplay.

That's just the plot of the film. How is it scholarly analysis? The assistant professor mentioned above [6] (page 100) is the only significant analysis but that is of the film and can be added to Penguin.

Just redirect to Penguin till Zebra (his second film) releases. DareshMohan (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:DIRECTOR as director of Penguin (film), a notable creation that received coverage, which is what the guideline requires (the said coverage mentions him, see the page about the film). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Penguin (film): His only directorial credit. The second one has been unreleased for over a year, and doesn't have a Wiki article. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Actor and WP:Director. AmericanY (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)— AmericanY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: This seems like a bad-faith nomination and I believe you are upset about your friend, User:Monhiroe's autopatrolled rights being removed. You first edited this article on 8 October 2023, what changed your mind between then and 19 June, 2024, when you redirected it? Did it take eight months for you to judge its notability? On 19 June, you skimmed through all the articles I have ever created and made some changes on three of them [7][8][9]. Was it to check which ones you could nominate for deletion but couldn't find any, so you thought Eashvar Karthic was borderline because he had only one film and chose to redirect it? Is this how you get back at an editor who may have upset your friend?

The notice you have posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force is not neutral and did not follow WP:APPNOTE. Is your nomination rationale so weak that you are trying to discredit a source simultaneously?

Notability

The main issue you have mentioned in you nomination rationale is countered by WP:FILMMAKER#3 where it explicitly mentions significant or well-known work. It need not be a collective body of work.
I believe the film receiving mixed reviews has no weightage here as we are not debating for WP:FILMMAKER#4c
As of 2024, the work is not well known, it is a single film with mixed reviews, not a critically acclaimed film. - Adding to my previous comments above, the film has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, which can be verified by checking Penguin (film).
Apart from the above, the film has been cited in journals for three completely different reasons: A film that discusses women-centric films, OTT during the COVID-19 pandemic and representation of the subaltern.
If you had taken the time to read through Source #7, you would have known that the PDF you have linked is another journal that has cited the original source #7's work. In the PDF you have linked, Penguin (film) was selected as one of the films out of all the other women-centric films that were released in 2020. The scholarly analysis is in the findings and conclusion section of the same PDF. The journal entry's objective is independent of the subject, so it's absurd to ask for an analysis about the film when the objective is different.
FWIW, here is another journal that extensively cites the subject's work.

There is significant coverage about the subject and their work. Penguin (film) has also received independent periodical articles, reviews and cited in multiple journals, thereby passing the WP:FILMMAKER criteria. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jeraxmoira, I completely agree with you on the notability of this director and, like you, I do indeed disagree with DareshMohan's interpretation of the guideline in the present case, but is your very aggressive opening statement absolutely necessary? I am inviting you to kindly strike it. I don't think it's appropriate here, nor helpful. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any bad-faith nomination will be called out. My statement is true and the diffs/timeline make it clear, so it will not be struck out. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Penguin (film): he has done only 1 film its better he done atleast 3 or 4 movies. Another film he directed was not released yet. WP:TOOEARLY. Monhiroe (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Penguin (film). Case of WP:TOOSOON with only 1 release under this director and has not garnered significant achievement to satisfy notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the analyses of Mushy Yank and Jeraxmoira wrt Penguin meeting GNG via sufficient reviews, thus Karthic automatically passing NCREATIVE#3 and therefore being automatically considered notable by the wording of NCREATIVE's header. I don't like it, but individual AFDs aren't a great place to overrule clear guidelines so I've started a discussion at NBIO Talk because NCREATIVE#3 is clearly a much lower standard (at the lower bound) from the other criteria. That also said, I also suspect that when Zebra is released that it will also receive more than sufficient reviews to pass NFILM[10][11], there will be no good single redirect target, and Karthic will pass my proposed modified NCREATIVE#3 anyway, so a WP:NOPAGE redirect would likely be short-lived. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Monhiroe and RangersRus, there is is no policy based rationale in your Delete/Redirect votes. I would like to know which policy Eashvar Karthic fails or does not pass to have a separate article. WP:TOOEARLY and WP:TOOSOON are essays and not policies. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON is to tell in short the reason that the actor/director is too early to have a standalone page on himself and policy wise page fails WP:Actor and WP:Director. RangersRus (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work, i.e Penguin (film). Are you implying that Penguin is not a significant work even though it has an article on Wikipedia and has been cited in 3+ journals? RangersRus. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I do not find his work significant or noteworthy that has received a wide critical acclaim or award or even considered for a remake by other makers. Noteworthy: If we take film Kill (film), the director Nikhil Nagesh Bhat (does not have a Wikipedia page), has created a noteworthy significant work noticed by International critics and the film has also been considered for remake by Hollywood makers. RangersRus (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:CREATIVE and WP:NBASIC, as far as I can tell. This seems to be a case of WP:NOTIMPORTANTENOUGH, at least to the nominator - but that isn't a valid ground for article deletion. Newimpartial (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Chhillar[edit]

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

Contested draftify. User:Procyon117 moved over to draft due to poor sourcing but this was reverted by the creator. I'm not convinced that WP:GNG or WP:BIO are met here. The references presented represent the best that can be found on him, as far as I can see. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.aninews.in/news/business/landmark-group-creating-realty-landmarks-while-creating-value-for-end-users-amp-stakeholders20240610181025/		Contains the text The above press release has been provided by NewsVoir. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of the same	Coverage is mostly about his company	✘ No
https://www.news18.com/business/real-estate-sustainable-living-smart-tech-defining-todays-bespoke-luxury-homes-8940012.html			One brief quote	✘ No
https://insightconvey.com/landmark-welcomes-a-paradigm-shift-in-workspace-luxury-with-the-unveiling-of-the-landmark-sales-office/		No evidence that this is WP:RS	Just one long quote from him	✘ No
https://www.business-standard.com/content/press-releases-ani/landmark-group-creating-realty-landmarks-while-creating-value-for-end-users-stakeholders-124061000792_1.html	Sponsored article	As above	Coverage is mostly about his company	✘ No
https://www.landmarkgoc.com/	He owns this company			✘ No
https://www.newsvoir.com/news/news/advertising-branding/landmark-group-creating-realty-landmarks-while-creating-value-for-end-users-stakeholders.html		This is clearly a press release		✘ 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}}.

Delete: Totally agree with the source assessment table. I also searched for in-depth coverage from reliable sources but could not find any. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 07:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. This article fails WP:GNG with mostly unreliable sources and the ones that we could consider somewhat reliable does not show any significant coverage and achievements to satisfy notability about the subject. Page also reads as promotion. RangersRus (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which one is unreliable sources? Please be specific. Also, I am trying to publish my first article, please help me here. Thanks. Johnbt21 (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are all unreliable. Business Standard has Advertorial disclaimer, "The above press release has been provided by NewsVoir. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of the same." Source like insightconvoy are views shared by the subject himself. Others are all company sites. News18 have nothing of great significant coverage and noteworthy achievements. RangersRus (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that neither this person nor the company exists? Visit Landmark Cyber Park, Sector-67, Gurgaon, and see for yourself. Meanwhile, all the information mentioned here is true and from reliable sources. Your arguments are baseless. Johnbt21 (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did not understand what I was saying. Please take time to review WP:GNG and WP:BIO that will be helpful for creating a page with reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manichandra[edit]

(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. Was a contestant on 4 games shows and won 1. And is a choreographer. Sources (and article content) are just facts related to that. Nothing approaching even 1 GNG source. Creator is indeffed for abuse of multiple accounts. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There seems to be no significant coverage and the role played by the subject on the shows apart from the Jodi S9 is not significant as well. Fails GNG. ~~FWIW, I was waiting to G5 this after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isha.Narain was closed.~~ Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage and achievement in secondary independent reliable sources to satisfy notability. Most sources on the page are unreliable. The page has mostly routine news of the subject as runner up on a Bigg Boss game show that is not sufficient basis for a page on this subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: They seem to have been on a reality show, but there isn't much written about them in reliable sources outside of that. Waqar💬 09:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom was on Big Boss but fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar Police[edit]

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

Rejected, contested draft. Moved back against advice of HD. There is no indication they meet N:ORG. A merger would be fine, but would likely need protected. Star Mississippi 00:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, India, and Maharashtra. Star Mississippi 00:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify then salt the page until notability enough referenced. -Lemonaka 01:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources that talk about inauguration, appointments and organization structure and most of these sources are from the organization's own website. There is no significant indepth coverage in secondary independent sources. Per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NORG. RangersRus (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point to note that, out of 11 almost 6 references are from different news articles, and rest which is there referenced is the actual information, which is true and not for promotion by the website... Pls review again the page references & visit those references Pratik.S2005 (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the website is a government law enforcement website. Pratik.S2005 (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6 sites are the police stations own website mbvv.mahapolice.gov.in and 1 another government source has nothing but a link to this police station site. So these are all unreliable and not secondary independent sources. 4 others news site have nothing significant that satisfies notability. It does not have any criteria to pass the notability guidelines for organizations. RangersRus (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, just to correct, it's an article for Police Commissionerate just like Mumbai Police & not a Police Station... Pratik.S2005 (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is requested to review the topic, it is well notable as per the guideline for notability by the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratik.S2005 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redraftify until it meets notability guidelines. Procyon117 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vasa Denticity[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. The closest GNG appearing source is #1 which appears to be a copy of their self-bio. The others are just financial announcements etc. Creater is indeffed for COI promotional editing. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Tudu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The page was previously deleted because it fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG and it still holds true. Coderzombie (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Coderzombie (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and per WP:BIO. The subject does not meet notability and biography is not enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Poor sources with no WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply having a biography isn't enough for inclusion. If reliable sources can be found to establish notability, the article could be rewritten and resubmitted for review. Waqar💬 16:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @RangersRus:, @Iwaqarhashmi:, I found [12], [13], [14], [[15], [16], [17], [18], among many more English and Hindu sources (not to mention other Indian languages. Cleary was sigifnicant ifgure in Indian lower league football and was even called up to the senior India national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Das osmnezz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Most of these sources are interviews and paid promotions and do not help pass WP:NFOOTY. The player has not garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements because he has not played at an international level and he has not played for an entirely professional league to satisfy WP:GNG. He is an upcoming player but it is too early to warrant a page on this subject because of insufficient significant achievements.

RangersRus (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)'[reply]

ALl of the sources have tons of secondary coverage that I will gladly cite if asked and there is no indication that any of them are paid promotions... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to have ever played in a notable league BFC Aspie (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I wanted to vote the opposite way, because this article is absolutely atrocious in its current state, but there is clearly enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To the closer, all delete votes are by users who seldom vote on football deletion debates who still think that players have to both meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Cleary was significant figure in Indian lower league football and was even called up to the senior India national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"called up to the senior India national team" is not notability. If he played for national team, that would be something to consider. If he was just called up then it is also case of WP:TOOSOON. RangersRus (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats one of my more minor points, my point is that he was considered such a good player and significant figure in Indian lower leagues that he was called up to senior nationl team. This proves my point that all delete votes are by users who seldom vote on football deletion debates who still think that players have to both meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Either way, he has many secondary sources about him. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swadhin Axom[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, India, and Assam. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete/Repurpose~~ Dratify EDIT: vote changed since one source shows potential, see below;/ @Flyingphoenixchips, moving the discussion here in the appropriate discussion channel. The movement for an independent Assam might pass WP:GNG and be worth an article. However, it should be an article about the movement, not a proposed state- and it needs to be supported by sources that talk about "Swadhin Axom" as an idea specifically rather than as an alternative name for Assam used by those who want independence. If you believe there are many sources in Google, then WP:DOIT and fix this article. We don't do original research on wikipedia. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks, the sources I mentioned do support it as an idea, and not as an alternative name. All sources are listed in the reference page. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In no way was the article I have written am original research. Additionally many such articles on proposed states exist, and a separate category in wikipedia exists as well. Will those pages be deleted or just this, since its against a particular POV Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swadhin Axom was never used as an alternate name for assam. Swadhin means Independent and the proposed independent state is just refered to as Assam or Axom- both are the same literals. Swadhin axom is used by academics to describe this proposed state. Ref: Prafulla Mohonto, Proposal for Independence. Would suggest you to read it Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To maintain neutrality, would suggest editing existing articles based on your arguments, using credible sources, instead of plain WP:I just don't like it. Wikipedia should never become a battleground of political ideologues. If you read the article its neutral, you can add additional pointers in the article, if you have sources for the same. Thanks Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't accuse me baselessly of just not liking it.

You mentioned a google search, another wikipedia article and its sources on the Talk page- that's not enough when the question is whether "Swadhin Axom" as a concept should be a WP:CONTENTFORK from Assam. Wikipedia's neutrality policy is not about giving equal weight to every political opinion. It also doesn't say that we should have a different article for every political way of looking at something.

Sources and GNG

Now let's look at the actual sources in this article:
Source 1 - Ivy Dhar has extensive discussion of the idea of Swadhin Axom, specifically in relation to the ULFA and nationalism

Source 2 - Nipon Haloi only mentions it once

Source 3 - Dutta & Laisram only mention it once

Source 4 - Udayon Misra only mentions it once

Source 5 - Not only does Santana Khanikar only mention it once (outside of the glossary), she proceeds to call the proto-state as simply the ULFA instead of Swadhin Axom.

Source 6 - Swadhin Axom is only mentioned as part of the title of a speech

Source 7 - Does not mention it

Source 8, 9 and 10 - Does not mention it- all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 11 - Does not mention it

Source 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 - Does not mention it, not even in the entire book of Source 17. These are all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 18 - cannot access myself but also looks like a book entirely about the Assam Movement

Source 19, 20, 21, 22 - Does not mention it

etc. etc.

Now, I couldn't keep going through the remaining 40+ sources but this is only to highlight one issue: the article doesn't really meet WP:GNG standards. Not every sources need to meet WP:GNG, but there should be at least one to establish that the article is notable. Source 1 is a good source for this article, and there may be more in the 40+ citations I couldn't get to.

However, I would still delete this article and draftify it (I changed my vote) because:

WP:V - Verifiability

Just from the first 20, I suspect a lot of these sources were thrown on there because they came up in the Google Scholar search for "Swadhin Axom". Wikipedia requires that the content be verified based on the content of the sources. We don't do original research by giving our own analysis of the source.

For specific example, let's take the sentence "Figures like Bishnu Prasad Rabha, a multifaceted artist and social reformer, Tarun Ram Phukan, a prominent political leader, and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, a key figure in the Assam Movement and a former Chief Minister of Assam, have played crucial roles in advancing the cause of Swadhin Axom" It's supported by Sources 14-18. If you will recall from my list above, these are all about the 1970s Assam Movement that don't mention the idea of Swadhin Axom. If Swadhin Axom is really not just a local name for the English phrase 'independent Assam', then you would need a source to connect Swadhin Axom and the Assam Movement, instead of providing the original analysis that the Assam Movement was an important part of the Swadhin Axom proposed state.

I will reiterate that I think that the article Assamese nationalism would make more sense for the sources you are using. If the article is just about providing more WP:NPOV perspectives about Assam- those should go in the Assam article. If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state. From what I see, it might be better focused on the ULFA explicitly, their governing structures etc. In its current state, this article is not fit for mainspace. And it's not because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your careful work in checking all the sources. But I am not convinced that the single source (Ivy Dhar) that you mention can save the article. First of all, the source is a Master's thesis, which is normally not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Secondly, it is only a small section (4.04) that discusses the concept, and it does so in the context of Assamese nationalism and most of the section deals with ULFA, both of which already have their own pages on Wikipedia. I don't agree that this source establishes "Swadhin Axom" as an independent topic that merits its own page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes- I'm saying that it can be draftified and potentially reworked into an article actually about the specific idea- based on assuming good faith that maybe one of the 40 sources I didnt check have something useful. Not particularly opposed to deletion, and if there are no other sources this should be a section of Assamese nationalism as you propose.

A master's thesis is a reliable source- the policy you link to cautions against blimdly accepting since many theses do original research and are therefore sometime primary sources. But that's not the case here where the author is describing existing sentiment, not coming up the idea of Swadhin Axom outright. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright let me have a look a this article again, and try finding secondary articles on the idea. However i don't feel this should be merged with the ULFA page as its solely not connected to ulfa, and is something like Dravida Nadu Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article is WP:SYNTH. United Liberation Front of Asom could be a redirect target ... but this title is misspelled (Axom instead of Asom). Walsh90210 (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to disagree, since the idea of "Swadhin Axom" (Independent Assam) deserves nuanced understanding and should not be exclusively linked to the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). While ULFA has prominently championed this cause of an independent Assam through armed struggle, the concept of Swadhin Axom encompasses a broader spectrum of historical, cultural, and socio-political aspirations that predate and extend beyond ULFA's formation. Also both Axom and Asom are used, you will find articles using both the terms.

Pre-ULFA Aspirations: The desire for a distinct Assamese identity and autonomy can be traced back to the colonial and pre-colonial eras. Movements and sentiments advocating for Assam's self-determination existed well before ULFA's establishment in 1979 (Guha, 1991, 56). Cultural and Ethnic Diversity: The idea of Swadhin Axom also reflects the rich cultural and ethnic diversity of the region. It includes the voices of various indigenous communities who have sought to preserve their unique identities and heritage (Baruah, 2005, 112).

Political Autonomy Movements: Throughout Assam's history, various groups and political entities have called for greater autonomy and recognition of Assam's distinct status within India. These movements have often been peaceful and democratic, emphasizing dialogue over armed conflict (Misra, 2012, 143).

Both of the 3 papers are important sources

Therefore, I propose renaming the Wikipedia article to "Proposal for Swadhin Axom" instead, because it is of relevance to the geopolitics concerning greater southeast asia as well

Ref:

Baruah, Sanjib. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Dutta, Anuradha. Assam and the Northeast: Development and Conflict. Guwahati: Eastern Book House, 2010.

Goswami, Priyadarshini. Ethnicity, Insurgency and Identity in Northeast India. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2001.

Guha, Amalendu. Planter Raj to Swaraj: Freedom Struggle and Electoral Politics in Assam 1826-1947. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research, 1991.

Misra, Udayon. The Periphery Strikes Back: Challenges to the Nation-State in Assam and Nagaland. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 2012.

Sharma, Monirul Hussain. The Assam Movement: Class, Ideology, and Identity. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2004. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3and @Walsh90210 @EmeraldRange Hey also wanted to point out 3 volumes of books that looked into this topic. Swadhinataar Prostab & Economics of Swadhin Axom. I feel these sources

You mentioned the following:

" If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state."

I was only looking at english sources, and there is a lack of literature when it comes to Northeast India.

There is one article from a newspaper that briefly talks about this idea, but does not elaborate on it: https://www-asomiyapratidin-in.translate.goog/assam/parag-kumar-das-memorial-lecture?_x_tr_sl=bn&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

I am offering a brief translation below from assamese :

However, the proposal or demand for independence is not limited to generations. After the Greco-Roman period, proposals for independence were raised. Buli commented that Tetia's memory is still alive today due to Dr. Mishra's agitation in the Indian freedom struggle. But that freedom was not real freedom, many people raised the issue of muklikoi quora during this period.

Teon Koy, 1947 The freedom that was gained in Chant country was not real freedom. That freedom was in political freedom. Without social freedom, there will be total freedom. Therefore, many of those freedoms are not complete freedom, many of them were promoting social equality and elimination of discrimination in order to achieve complete freedom.

The disillusionment was largely disillusioned with the passage of time after independence. All those who hoped for independence were disappointed. During the 60s and 70s, the common people were angry about the socio-economic inequality. About which the movement was started. Protests were held by university and college students. Around that time revolutions were starting in different countries of the world. Apart from political freedom, social freedom, social and economic discrimination, women's freedom was also raised.

This movement started in Europe and reached America. The Vietnam war was forced to end on the basis of this protest. In the next period, the black people's movement was influenced by this movement, which was the global judge. Kakat also made posters on this topic in Indian schools, and propagated about this movement through discussion.

Dr. Mishra thought that period of 60-70s was the golden age. Because there was a lot of hope in this demand or movement at that time. The literary majesty of that time was influenced by this movement. A new curriculum was being prepared with the support of intellectuals, college teachers and others who supported the movement to raise the demand for curriculum change. Slogans were being written for the liberation of poor women.

ofc the two books would be the primary source for this article, and there are several sources - secondary analysis done on these books which can be taken as the secondary supporting sources Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that "Swadhin Asom" (there is a misspelling) literally means Independent Assam, and this should be the article instead, an article that describes the motives for an independent Assam. as there are many different sources that describe this movement as a whole. — Karnataka 09:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon review, I don't think the sources in the article necessarily support an article on this specific topic - it does not mean that there should not be coverage of those wanting independence in Assam, but this appears to be possibly about a geographical region and the sources do not support that. WP:NOTESSAY also applies. Drafitfying is fine, but I'm not sure there's a clear topic here after a BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Assam separatist movements or United Liberation Front of Asom. These appear to be the appropriate places for discussion of the causes for an independence movement and related activism, but there doesn't need to be a separate page for the proposed state like this. Flyingphoenixchips's sources and some of this article's content belong in those articles.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A fuller deletion rationale is preferred rather than a brief reference to a general policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kicko & Super Speedo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. It lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. The references cited are mainly announcements and TV schedules, which do not provide the necessary independent verification of the show's notability. It has "additional citations needed for verification" tag since May 2023. M S Hassan (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Sony_YAY!#Former_programming - Not opposed to Keep, see User:Eastmain's comment during 1st Afd.My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC) (the tag " It has "additional citations needed for verification" tag, even since May 2023, indicates more a cleanup issue than a notability one).[reply]
Redirect to Green_Gold_Animations#Television. RangersRus (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to Green Gold Animations? Or to List of programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singara Chennai[edit]

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

No reliable reviews or other sources other than a single production source. A search in Sify ([19]), Chennai Online ([20]), and BizHat ([21]) proves futile. Please find the Kalki and Cine South reviews or redirect to Chennai as all online sources prove to be a description for the city. A WP:BEFORE found a fleeting mention here (சிங்கார சென்னை). DareshMohan (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chennai: Per nom. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Kalabhavan_Mani#Tamil_films. Poor sources with no significant coverage and reliable critic reviews. RangersRus (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I, the nominator, withdraw, my nomination in light of 3 new production sources. Thanks @Srivin:. DareshMohan (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus and two different redirect target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to keep if sources covering production are judged sufficient; if redirected, Kalabhavan_Mani#Tamil_films is imv a much better target, but List of Tamil films of 2004#July—September (where it's also listed) would seem even more appropriate, as other cast members have a page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars[edit]

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

The article is nothing but a complete product of original research. There is not a single WP:RS that treats the conflicts between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as involving all the Sultanates (Mamluk dynasty, Khalji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, and the Lodi dynasty) allied together against Mewar. Ironically, the timeline of the war/conflicts presented in the article is completely fabricated, and no sources support this notion. There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. The article is completely a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment:Note for the closer: Please analyze the background and contributions of the voters, as meatpuppetry is common among Indian military-history articles. Do not consider the votes of newly created users or common PoV pushers as valid, whether for Delete or Keep. Ironically, I noticed that the author of this article supported the deletion of a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha–Nizam wars, yet surprisingly promotes this article by linking to other articles. --Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have named the article "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate" but a user named Flemmish changed it to the current name. I suggest the name of the article to be changed to the previous one, "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate", and this is a list where as your article Maratha-Nizam was a conflict which is entirely different from this one. Both articles can't be compared, use common sense at least Imperial. Also, I did not remove the dynasties (Guhila, Sisodiya, Khalji, etc.) another user named Padfoot2008 removed it so you better have this discussion with him. Also when did I add Mewar victory in the article, if some editor adds it (which nobody did you could see page history), you could simply undo that edit, nominating the article for deletion isn't appropriate. And there are several similar articles in Wikipedia like List of wars involving the Delhi Sultanate so why can't this be? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the title to Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars because all parts of the actual text were portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic rather than just a list of conflicts between the states — changing the title back wouldn't fix anything, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict rather than whether it is called a "list" or not. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which line of the article portrays this as a single conflict? It seems you have a problem in understanding English. Better work on it. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one with an English problem here — I did say portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic — obviously this was not one 300 year war and by the latter saying of "treating it as a single conflict" I mean, as I and Imperial said, that you are treating these wars between non-unified entities as a series of conflicts, and thus one topic rather than just different conflicts between polities which happened to be located in the same region. You can't take multiple wars between any two states and treat it as one topic if sources do not treat it as one. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you simply don't want to understand what is meant by a list. I m saying that this is a list of wars between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. When am I saying (when is the article saying) this is a single conflict? And what do you mean by non-unified entities? Clearly you are the one who is having difficulty in understanding English or even your own comments. See what you wrote, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read Imperial's initial reasoning? Non-unified means, in addition to a lack of centralization, that the "Delhi Sultanate" was not one single country and was ruled by four different dynasties. Quoting Imperial's reasoning, which it seems you can't comprehend, Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. As I said, you're taking the fact that there were multiple wars between the "Delhi Sultanate" and the "Kingdom of Mewar", both ruled by different dynasties throughout their history, and, as a quote from your writing on the article, claiming that the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century with a set victor. I changed the title from a list because by your writing, it wasn't a list; you claimed in the lead, before the page was moved, that there is something called the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" which is clearly just a made up name of conflicts between different entities; I was simply adjusting the title to more accurately reflect the outlandish claim your POVish article is trying to make. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, You want me to change just first line of the article that is "The Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century"? And even if multiple dynasties are involved that does not support the deletion as it is a list. And what is my POV push in the article, all wars are supported by multiple reliable sources (WP:RS). Also, list of wars articles are perfectly suitable for inclusion in Wikipidea. And different dynasties ruling Mewar and Delhi doesn't make any sense for deletion of the article, for example you could see Afghan-Sikh War. If you changed the title for first line of the article you should have consulted me first as I was the author of this article rather than having this discussion now. Besides where did I mention a set victor in the article since the day it was accepted?Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These battles did happen between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate over a long period of time as both vied for control in northern India. What did u mean by this:

There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties.

How Mewar wasn't a unified entity? Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty are not distinct, Sisodia are a sub-clan of Guhila. Krayon95 (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single WP:RS that treated the conflicts between Sisodia+Guhila vs Mamluk+Khalji+Tughlaq+Lodi as a single war. So, a clear synthesis is presented here. And your user talk page history is full of clearing warnings and AFD notices on caste-related issues? Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado Well, indeed, battles took place between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as they were both powerful entities, particularly Mewar as it was going towards its peak, but as explained by you, there is no source mentioning the war overwall, or, in a better way, an organised millitary standoff. Hence, I would request to rename the article to its older name, which is "List of battles between the Kingdom of Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate," or another name, which is Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Conflicts. Let's have a consensus.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Majority of the users pushing for “keep” seem to be POV pushers from newly created accounts. They didn’t even give any good reasons for its inclusion. As imperial mentioned, the Delhi sultanate was not a single entity. There’s no proof that all the dynasties(khalji, tughlaq, Mamluk, ETC) participated. Nor is there evidence of a supposed “Mewar victory”. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even read the previous discussion? And for your information I am active on Wikipedia for over 6 months which falsify your claim that Keeps are from newly created users. This is list of wars between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. I don't understand why are you even mentioning the dynasties. Kingdom of Mewar existed from 6th century till 1947 (now are titular monarchs under Constitution of India) and Delhi Sultanate from 1206-1526. This article deals with the List of wars (is not a single 300 year war) between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. And please point out where the article shows Mewar victory? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the Closer : I have addressed all concerns which users Flemmish and Imperial had regarding page name, some sentences of the intro para and the dynasties of the involved belligerents in my recent edits of this page. Please see these links [22], [23], [24], [25]. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep It's a perfect page that passes WP:GNG. These battles did happen and I don't think this page should be deleted. User:Hashid Khan Blocked user

Delete: Yes, some of my concerns were addressed by MuA, but if this article is really just going to be a list of conflicts between the two states (who again were ruled by many different dynasties throughout these "conflicts"), there doesn't need to be an infobox, this much prose, (see list of wars between Russia and Sweden for an example) or any aftermath section, in which again it is treated as one conflict "The conflict ultimately ended after the defeat and death...". As it is this article is still too POV-pushy, and even if all of this is addressed, a good reason was never given why this article should actually exist instead of why it should not be deleted — we obviously don't have a list of conflicts between every two states that have fought more than one war between each other, so why do we need this article just for it to say "Mewar victory" 12 times in bold text? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, If there is a series of battles between two states for over Two centuries then a article can be made for that. Both Mewar and Delhi Sultanate were dominat states of medival era and these battles were one of many reasons of the decline of Delhi Sultanate and rise of Mewar as the most powerful state in the Northern India, for result section you can see List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs. Aside of that the "Khalji Victory" is also written in bold texts. It's just a style of writing because beneath the bold text, there is is a description of event as a whole. Hope your all points are addressed.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Seems definitely somewhat biased and all, should be reworded to fit WP:MOS... In general, does this information exist elsewhere on Wikipedia? If not, we shouldn't delete. If it does, we could maybe condense and merge. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.

Please do not move articles while an AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Imperial's and Flemmish's arguments seem very convincing. The wars between these two kingdoms were not a series of related conflicts but involving different entities (the various dynasties of Mewar and Delhi) ruling the same kingdoms and thus are completely unrelated. PadFoot (talk)

Arjun – Prince of Bali[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails all notability guidelines. While the before search turned up nothing useful, the existing four sources in the article are not reliable. The first source in the article which does not appear reliable is just two short paragraphs and it is about a game developed to popularise the the series. The other three sources are from a single publisher with lengthy quotes from the producers themselves without an independent review. Piscili (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. Owen× ☎ 13:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Redirect to Chhota Bheem and the Throne of Bali for example if sources on the page are not judged sufficient, and for example, also see https://www.afaqs.com/news/media/44417_game-for-disneys-new-show-arjun-the-prince-of-bali ; (https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tv/chhota-bheem-gets-musical/articleshow/63977507.cms (brief mention)); 3 years on Disney Channel... Opposed to deletion -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green_Gold_Animations#Television. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Gold Animations#Television: per nom, no WP:SIGCOV C F A 💬 16:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not sure why editors are voting to "redirect per nom" if the nom doesn't appear to be proposing a redirect? Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I believe the subject is not significant enough and doesn't meet the notability guidelines. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Files for deletion[edit]

Category discussion debates[edit]

Template discussion debates[edit]

Redirects for deletion[edit]

MFD discussion debates[edit]

Other deletion discussions[edit]

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]

^ "Andhra Pradesh రాష్ట్రంలో ఎందరు సలహాదారులున్నారు.. ఆరా తీస్తున్న ప్రభుత్వం". Samayam Telugu (in Telugu).

[1] "Andhra Pradesh రాష్ట్రంలో ఎందరు సలహాదారులున్నారు.. ఆరా తీస్తున్న ప్రభుత్వం". Samayam Telugu (in Telugu).

[1]