Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:02, 1 May 2022

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.
Related delsorts: Kerala

India

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raunaq Ahuja

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

Non notable actor. Doesn’t have reliable news coverage even not a single source. Fails WP:NACTOR. IndaneLove (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and India. IndaneLove (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He does seem to have acted in some films here -[1], I think it is him. RS6784 (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB isn’t a reliable source.

IndaneLove (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:N issue is definitely there.RS6784 (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sourcing has been identified and the n/cs were three years ago so not particularly relevant to this discussion, Star Mississippi 01:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Merit

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

Films appears to fail WP:NFILM with not enough reviews to pass the guidelines, with none found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already. This article has had two other chances, and both were closed as "no consensus" due to a complete lack of participation. It's clear that there is no interest in improvement, nor any resources to improve it with, so just put it out of its misery already and stop dragging this out any longer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG without going to the regional coverage in Hindi and other Indian regional languages .Covered in The Hindu ,Scroll.in,Hindustan Times,Business Standard , ThePrint ,The Wire (India) ,The Globe and Mail amongst others.The Wire (India), calls it The Death of Merit, remains one of the most crucial documentations of forms of discrimination faced by Bahujan students in university spaces. The documentary is about real life suicides and is discussed in this context.

^[1]

References

^

Keep the sources found above by Pharaoh of the Wizards are enough for WP:GNG as they discuss the documentary and its subject in depth. Hemantha (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable. There is plenty of discussion around the work in reliable sources in an independent way. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Upadhyay

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

Fails GNG. My WP:BEFORE wasn't helpful. This doesn't meet WP:NFILMMAKER as well. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 20:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 20:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see his imdb and got one notable project that I have heard of. My friend Ganesha. That alone is not enough I feel. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:SEC, WP:SIGCOV and everything to list here. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 07:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILMMAKER.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This discussion also shows that the page needs to be moved to Shaku Atre. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shakuntala Atre

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

Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, and most of the references are rather collateral. The overall notability is not substantiated by the article. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on very low GS record, far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Her works has been used as reference in some books but there is very low overall coverage, a case of WP:N as well. I think unless we have more details regarding the Professor, I am not sure that this deserves a page of its own. RS6784 (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She appears to be better known as Shaku Atre, and she's also founder of The Atre Group. I think the most likely claim to notability would be via WP:NAUTHOR and her textbooks. pburka (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and New York. pburka (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For additional opportunity to find coverage under the name "Shaku Atre" as noted above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not my area but ~~leaning~~ keep. Assuming the subject is indeed Shaku Atre, there's high citations for two books and an article in Google Scholar, perhaps sufficient to meet WP:PROF (977,310,168), though their other publications appear to have only modest citations. There's also a great many news/interviews hits in Proquest quoting the subject as an expert, going all the way back to the 1980s. Book reviews would be nice if anyone can track them down; ETA: WorldCat[2] shows Data base : structured techniques for design, performance, and management : with case studies (held in 770 libraries, 27 editions), Business intelligence roadmap : the complete project lifecycle for decision-support applications (462 libraries, 33 editions), Distributed databases, cooperative processing, and networking (168 libraries, 14 editions), Data base management systems for the eighties (94 libraries, 4 editions) as well as some other less widely held books. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: More indept coverage (from Proquest search, which has 183 hits for "Shaku Atre"): Stoltenberg, John. Turning Problems into Profits. Working Woman; New York Vol. 13, Iss. 5, (May 1988): 63 (can't access article but 4pp article, abstract reads "Janice Schooler, Trisha Garrity Warringer, Shaku Atre and Vicki C. McConnell each built businesses that teach employees how to use high-tech computer software and hardware.") Also five paragraphs in Radding, Alan. The Education of an Expert. Computerworld; Framingham Vol. 22, Iss. 18, (May 2, 1988): 74. [3] (long before she became a columnist there). Also Snyders, Jan. Create That Opportunity Infosystems; Wheaton Vol. 31, Iss. 10, (Oct 1984): 104. (one-page profile, can't access). Espresso Addict (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: Publishing a couple of books is nowhere near enough to meet NPROF unless they can be showm to have made a major impact in the field. Can you please link to where you found these "high citations". My own search of gscholar turned up only two citations, both for the Spanish language version of her book. One of those is to a Master's thesis, which unlike a PhD, is not considered part of the peer reviewed corpus and hence not relevant for establishing notability. SpinningSpark 12:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: As I said above: GS search for "Shaku Atre".[4] Espresso Addict (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly looks a lot better, but for me that is still not enough to get past NPROF. Even counting the iffy citations and publications, that only amounts to an h-index of 9, which is low. Nothing else has been offered with the in-depth coverage needed to pass GNG, but I'm less hostile to keeping this now and am open to persuasion. SpinningSpark 09:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could take another look, Spinningspark, in the light of the coverage found by SusunW. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW's argument is not entirely logical. She says we should not be assessing Atre under PROF but then goes on to say she has written a lot of stuff and is cited a lot. That's an NPROF argument and still does not get past the guideline. To meet GNG we need independent, in-depth discussion of the subject. SusunW, in amongst a lot of irrelevant stuff, has offered an "about the author" blurb in one of her books, a similar thing in the agenda for a conference (almost certainly written by Atre herself), and an interview. None of that is considered independent. Still, if we had at the beginning what we have now I would probably not have commented on this AFD at all. I'm striking my delete to neutral. SpinningSpark 08:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually her writing and citation isn't an NPROF argument at all. It is an argument in favor of CREATIVE, #1 and #2, which I am clarifying for whoever closes this. And as for the non-independent sources, they're allowed as long as they are only descriptive statements of facts and notability has been verified by reliable secondary sources. In-depth discussion of the subject is not required to be contained in a single source, but rather can be combined from information in multiple sources, which is what we have here. SusunW (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral. Fails NPROF - very low citations, no evidence of any substantial impact, and holds only a minor professorship. SpinningSpark 12:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to neutral per abpve discussion. SpinningSpark 08:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is detailed coverage of Shaku Atre here [5]. Google Scholar does show some high citation counts for some textbooks. I haven't found any reviews in JSTOR. TJMSmith (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper article is useful: "wrote one of the first books on managing databases", which sold 150,000 copies, translated into 3 languages, used as university textbook. Also mentions (in future tense) her writing a column in Computerworld. I couldn't find anything on JSTOR either; not sure where computing textbooks were reviewed in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; first, per Espresso Addict, as an early and - by sales - influential author on databases which, let us remember, were obscure and in their infancy in 1980 - so, a pioneer in this field; and then, second, 25-years or more of exposure as a columnist and as a repeatedly cited database expert in mainstream trade publications, for which see https://archive.org/search.php?query=Shaku%20Atre&sin=TXT and, especially, https://archive.org/search.php?query=according%20to%20Shaku%20Atre&sin=TXT --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the further discoveries mentioned above but the article needs to be expanded.--Ipigott (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per comment of @Ipigott, and draft would be a good option rather then delete. Fade258 (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the logic of this nomination makes no sense to me. Why are we examining an "adjunct professor" as an academic? The very nature of that title infers that she lectures because of expertise and work in another sphere. Clearly that field is business development and clearly specifically in the use of technology in business. So, 1) do we have evidence of a claim to verified notability. Yes, the clip TJMSmith found says she was a pioneer in database management and wrote an influential book about it. Her definition of business intelligence is cited in numerous publications in a variety of languages.[6],[7],[8],[9], she apparently developed a system for analyzing data (not my area of expertise)[10] and she was often referred to as a consulting expert.[11] While at IBM, she was a referee for the selection of articles to be peer reviewed, i.e. indicates she was an expert in the field.[12] 2) Is there sufficient media over time to confirm that we can create a reasonably complete and detailed biography? Yes, and she meets at the very least WP:BASIC and probably also WP:CREATIVE. Besides sources cited above:[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19]. Obviously a lot more out there under Shaku Atre and that should probably be the title of the article. SusunW (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that we should move to the name the subject has worked under. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Atre is quoted in her capacity as an expert on DB business news fairly often, but unfortunately these are largely in publications that are not independent of her. These include Computerworld, where she has written multiple articles since 1982, and DBMS, where she has been an editor. Any magazine advertising the Atre Group also cannot be considered independent, which would eliminate all Computerworld citations (ads started appearing in at least 1983, and some of her "articles" there are actually contained within "special advertising supplements"; her group later seems to have even partnered with the magazine). I would honestly be skeptical of any trade mag, since "expert consultancy" in those is a widespread marketing tool and her group explicitly notes it contributes writers/experts to them. But counting those, her opinion is cited nontrivially in around four magazines:

Software Magazine, MIS Week, Infosystems, and Network World.

However, despite the case for NPROF C7 being rather weak, she does appear to meet GNG through her profile in Working Woman and the interview in Infosystems, which provides just enough independent commentary to count. JoelleJay (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: As a matter of transparency, I should note I was brought here by an arguably non-neutral alert at WiR. JoelleJay (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those JoelleJay. I'm working the sources shown on this page into the article, though discussing her "12-step approach" to analysis and planning is beyond my abilities and expertise. If anyone wants to take a crack this and this could be used. Do you want to add your info or should I come back to it tomorrow and try to work those in? SusunW (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW, it takes me about three hours two write a paragraph summarizing even things I am extremely familiar with (hello, PhD dissertation...), so I'd say even if I tried tonight to incorporate info from those sources into the article you'd probably do a quicker and more competent job starting tomorrow. JoelleJay (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm on it. SusunW (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can do. Hopefully someone with a better grasp of technology than me can discuss her works. When this closes we definitely need to change the title to Shaku Atre to comply with WP:commonname. SusunW (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:GNG rather than WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While the "vote count" here is roughly evenly divided, there is a policy based issue when there are complaints about the article being promotional in nature and being sourced by press releases. In particular WP:NPOV and WP:PROMOTION apply. That Wikipedia shall not be used as promotion for a company is a crucial to Wikipedia's reputation. I have not reviewed all 50 sources in the article, but looking at the sources discussed in this discussion, the issue that they are based on company releases has not been adequately adressed.

For example, looking at three of the sources listed by Nanpofira:

[20] is clearly promotional in nature, containing lines such as "Harnessing AI, CropIn provided technical support to conduct reliable, accurate, and large scale CCE within a short harvesting window and limited manpower."
[21] only mentions Cropin once, and that is a promotional sentence "...SmartRisk and CropIn also equip farmers with accessible intelligence in connection with crop cycle planning and yield maximization."
[22] contains the clearly promotional "CropIn has been able to revolutionise farming by incorporating technology into daily field operation."

As such, the "delete" side have made a clear and convincing argument that the article, as it stands, is clearly in violation of Wikipedia's prohibition against advertising. In theory, an overly promotional tone can be resolved by editorial processes such as stubbing the article and rebuilding based on more neutral sourcing. However, the lack of independent sourcing providded here also creates an unresolved notability issue.

For this reason, I find that the clear policy based issues brought up by the "delete" side remain unrefuted and do indeed mandate deletion in this instance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cropin

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

Not notable as per WP:COMPANY. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Despite 50 references, none meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability, just announcements or articles based entirely on company info, brief mentions and additions to lists. Fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per the reasons given by nom. and HighKing. - Hatchens (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to my understanding the policy WP:COMPANY requires multiple significant coverage in independent and reliable media. Cropin passes this criteria very clearly. To illustrate this, I will like to cite the references from India Government Portal, The Hindu Business Lines, The Financial Express, The Economic Times, The Hindu Business Lines again, The Economic Times again, Agriculture Post, Bloomberg, Economics Times again, Economics Times again , Business World, Live Mint, Forbes India, Livemint again. These must be enough. There are many more references and anyone can verify that. -- Khemotaj (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi Khemotaj, you are correct that WP:COMPANY is the appropriate guideline but I don't see how any of those references meets the criteria for establishing notability. NCORP has two important sections - WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. ORGIND defines "Independent content" and say in order to count towards establishing notability, references must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Once you remove that information, whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH. Lets look at your references and when I say the article is "based" on an announcement or infomation provided by the company, it means that there is nothing I can find in the article that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company:

This from IndiaAI] is entirely based and relies on an announcement from the company using quotes and information provided by the company. Fails ORGIND
This from the Hindu Business Line is entirely based on an interview with the CEO. No "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
This from Financial Express is a puff profile based on an interview with the founder, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
This from India Times is another puff profile based on information and quotes provided by the company, fails ORGIND
This next from Hindu Business Line is based on a company announcement and fails ORGIND
This next from The Economic Times is based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
This from Agriculture Post is based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
This from The Economic Times is based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
This next from The Economic Times is likewise based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
This from LiveMint is entirely based on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND
This from Forbes India is a puff profile entirely based on company information and interview, fails ORGIND
This from LiveMint is based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND

Not a single reference contains any "Independent Content" (as per ORGIND) which meets CORPDEPTH. Can you point to any reference and paragraph which you believe meet ORGIND crieria? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HighKing, thanks for your detailed analysis. You are very thorough I must admit, but your entire analysis is based on a subjective assumption which is false and thus the entire analysis is flawed. To illustrate, let me repeat what ORGIND says about "Independent content"; it demands references in order to be counted towards establishing notability must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. it also states the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose.

Now, if you see, for the content or announcement which are affiliated to the primary entity, which is Cropin here, all the credible media mention such content as press release or sponsored post or something similar. In those cases, all the media houses make a very clear disclaimer that such content do come directly from the entity so they don't take any of its responsibility. The case is entirely different when any news is published under a byline of an independent journalist. Whenever any news is published with byline of a journalists or editor of credible media, they take responsibility of what they are saying, which means it satisfy Wikipedia's requirement of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If I accept your opinion , then no matter what references are there, any entity can always be said as non-notable just because the information published are 'based on announcement'. Now, how can people know something about a company if the company doesn't provide the information? So, every news about any organization be it notable or not comes from the organization at its origin. The concentration should not be on 'based on announcement' because all the company or organizational info irrespective of the kind and nature of the organization happen to come from the respective company or organization. We need to see if the mediation between company information and published news is relaibly mediated or not, you may agree this is how the concept of primary and secondary sources are developed. The concentration rather should be on whether the published news are passing through reliable editorial oversight and in case of all major, respected media like The Hindu Business Lines, Financial Express, Live Mint, Economic Times whenever any news comes out under an independent author's byline, the media house takes the responsibility of the content, which means they are implicitly agreeing that they verify the information, fact checking everything and of course adding independent opinion since writing independently is the fundamental requirement of journalism. Khemotaj (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi Khemotaj, that is not correct. The ORGIND section lists a series of what is called "Dependent Coverage" which among other things includes any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources. If a company announces that they're laying off 100 people and it is reported by a journalist that the company is making 100 people redundant, that is not "Independent Content" just because some words were changed. It is not "original and independent", it is regurgitating a company announcement (or quotes or interviews etc). There is no original analysis/investigation/etc carried out by the journalist (which must be *clearly attributable* to a source that is not unaffiliated with the company). The journalist/editor/etc takes responsibility for what is being written only in so far as ensuring that the text accurately reflects the announcement and doesn't report the information incorrectly by (for example) saying the company is laying off 1,000 people when the announcement said 100 people. That is what reliable editorial oversight means in that context. There are examples of "Independent Content" involving company announcements where, for example, the journalist might provide an in-depth opinion on the impact the news might have on the company or their competitors or the industry. We see this when analysts report on companies for example. Finally, you should be aware of the practice of paying for positive news in Indian publications. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi HighKing, thanks again for your response. My argumentations were primarily to dispute your claim that any references "based on" organizational announcements are not independent. Let me extend the argument further and concentrate on the set of references of this article. Firstly, there is a different between based on and entirely based on; so I think very few of the references can be actually accused of Dependent Coverage here in this case. Just at per the ORGIND, if you see this reference from The Hindu Business Lines, is an excellent comparative analysis of agro-tech startups which covers Cropin significantly. Same is true for this article from Forbes India, that discuses a comparative study of competing agro-tech firms from a neutral perspective. I am not sure why this article seemed to be a puff profile to you (did you read the article?). The article is an excellent insightful story on the agro-tech landscape of India and its challenges with the current supply chain mechanism. Also, you will find how Cropin took a very crucial role in digitizing the gigantic project Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana of Governmental of India from this article. Along with these, there are lot more references I can cite which satisfy ORGIND very well. I think you will surely find those if you dig a little more and read the references thoroughly.

Regarding your interpretation about how journalists or media houses declare their responsibilities about the content they produce (only to correspond properly to what they receive from any organization), I must say such conditional interpretation does not hold any logical ground as there are editorial oversights just to ensure that they can confidently take the responsibility of the content fully and wholly. They take the responsibility of the content that they produce under staff editor's byline wholly without any such condition. Lastly, Paid news in India is possibly a real issue apart from the fact that such corrupt practice is known to exist beyond any national horizon [23] [24], but none claimed it to be a widespread practice so I think its a minority phenomenon and it will not be right to try to extend this to generality more importantly when we lack any evidence that such practices affected the concerned references that we are discussing here. Khemotaj (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response I think we're nearing the end of this discussion. I disagree with what you are saying and for me, your interpretation of what is required falls well short of the reality. For example, this reference from The Hindu Business Lines you say meets NCORP. It doesn't. It has a standard description of the company, mentions some recent company expansion activity and has a quote from the CEO and information provided by the CEO. Once you take away the ORGIND material (and arguably, that just about everything describing the company), the remainder is not enough to meet CORPDEPTH. There is certainly no "comparative analysis" as you claim. Nor is this coverage "significant" in any way. This Forbes India reference profiles a number of companies including Cropin but again, the article relies entirely on information/quotes from the company and has no "Independent Content". This next [Forbes India reference consists of a total of four sentences which are directly linked to Cropin (two of which are credited to the CEO), this is not WP:CORPDEPTH material. Also, Ritu Verma is an investor and therefore is not an unaffiliated source. Perhaps describing it as a "puff profile" is harsh but Cropin themselves describe it as a highlighted mention, nothing more. I cannot understand why you've pointed to the India AI reference seeing as the Government of India is a partner on this project and therefore not unaffiliated, this fails ORGIND. So no, you are merely demonstrating that you don't understand NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. As per WP:SIRS, each individual reference must meet all the criteria (for notability) - both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND at the same time - and none of those references even come close.

Finally, your ideas about newspapers taking responsibility for the content "fully and wholly" is nonsense. In much the same way that a Wikipedia editor takes some responsibility for ensuring that the content in an article is verifiable and referenced correctly, a publisher will only stand over the verifiable accuracy of content, not the veracity of the actual content. You are simply wikilawyering to impose your interpretation that everything a journalist write which isn't a quote therefore meets ORGIND's criteria for "Independent Content" that is clearly from a source unaffiliated with the topic company. That is nonsense and the context of the articles shows it to be so. As I said, there's little point in continuing this discussion, I believe we both understand each other's point of view and have different opinions on interpretation. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable organization having a good amount of activities, works etc. which are covered extensively by credible sources. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP comfortably. Cirton (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kirtos67 can you provide a link to any reference that meets NCORP? What I've seen so far fails ORGIND, all based on company announcements/interviews, perhaps I've missed something. Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per rationale provided by Khemotaj, passes notability criteria WP:SIGCOV, WP:ORGIND and per guideline WP:THREE. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 03:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've read the sources Khemotaj cites in a comment above as ORGIND-worthy. They touch different topics, but when it comes to the company, everything they say is directly from the company and the articles are very clear about it. The assertion that those articles pass ORGIND in any manner is plainly wrong. While I haven't gone through every source listed in the article, I agree with the HighKing's assessment above of the handful and do not see any reference that is WP:SIRS. Hemantha (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been updated considerably by me. I have added new references and have added a section that refers to books and journals that discuss about Cropin. There are many books and journals that have extensively discussed Cropin's business model to evaluate different metrics in agro-tech farming in India. I have added only a few to illustrate the point. Khemotaj (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I disagree that the article has been "updated considerably" with some very minor changes and two new references (which adds to the WP:REFBOMB problem as it brings the total of references (mostly announcements and PR) to 53. There's a new "Further readings" section which lists some publications but none have been linked nor have been listed with IBAN or any other identifier. For example, the paper "When Implementation Goes Wrong: Lessons From Crop Insurance in India" doesn't even mention the topic company. The book "Cyber Technological Paradigms and Threat Landscape in India" has a single mention of the company (name) on page 86 in a list of other "AI-related start-ups". The Unleash the Neurons: Design Thinking book is another mention in passing with a standard description. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks The above Response made by HighKing has multiple false claims. Firstly, "When Implementation Goes Wrong: Lessons From Crop Insurance in India" does indeed discuss cropin in page 19 (available in Google Books). Secondly, majority of the books in further reading section has ISBN which is updated now. I have added a set of further books which cover the organization. In fact the book "Socio-Tech Innovation: Harnessing Technology for Social Good" published by Springer has a dedicated chapter on Cropin (Chapter 15, page 289). The Book Innovate India: A Roadmap for Atmanirbhar Bharat published by Bloomsbury Publishing has a detailed case study on Cropin (in Chapter 7). Not sure what else can be required for to establish ORGIND. Khemotaj (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to me a prominent entity with numerous consequential collaborations with Government of India and its states as mentioned in [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. Also, there are a good number of prominent media coverage so passes WP:GNG and WP:SIRS. Nanpofira (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, and highly promotional. The references are essentially advertisements or press releases--the wikipedia article in its surrent form reads also like a press release, and given the lack of independence of the references, there doesn't seem too be the possibility of writing something better. DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 16:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Mishra death case

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

Not notable as per WP:NCRIME, also a highly localized event. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

as per WP:NCRIME, this is not a breaking news. A simple google search could tell the notability of the case. It involved students of a reputed college and Chief Minister and Cabinet Minister of government of India. There was political uproar over it. Neither is the news localized, it involves pan India individuals and central ministers. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

these are some National newspapers who have covered this incident, its not a localized event.[30] [31] [32] [33]. Also need to take into consideration this is a 2006 incident and there was limited coverage in backland areas like Bihar, still this reached national news. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This [34] a book which covers this , and this[35] is India Today international magazine which covered it in 2006 on page 39. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources suggest it is more than the run of the mill crime and has met the notability and sourcing thresholds we require. Atchom (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Millions of crimes get investigated, doesn't mean they require an article here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of low profile crimes that only attracted local coverage. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Gold

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

Couldn't find any sources. Already been to PROD once. No confirmation that this film ever released and why it is a notable unreleased film (this film is not in Preity Zinta's filmography page). Could anyone translate what the one source in the article says? DareshMohan (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- see here 2009 section- [[36]], I suspect a movie with the same name was planned/rumoured but didn't got finalised. RS6784 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- My stand is the movie may have been planned but didn't got finalised. Overall there is lack of conclusive information on it, not fulfilling WP:N. RS6784 (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhushita Ahuja

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

non-notable author. Lacks significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. fails WP:BASIC DMySon (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and India. DMySon (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. – robertsky (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 06:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable.IndaneLove (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- there are information available on the Google but the article may not be fulfilling WP:N. RS6784 (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment there is an article at Bhuhashita Ahuja that appears to be the same subject. Please consider that in your discussion. I have no opinion on the notability of the subject for this AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 00:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RK Prajapati

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

Self-written promo article, dubious notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jimfbleak initiated this discussion literally while I was in the process of typing out an AFD nomination in Twinkle myself, so I'm obviously going to just repeat the reasoning I was trying to use. This is indeed an AUTOBIO (creator = "Imrkprajapati"), and is referenced to a mixture of his own self-published content on his own company's website and mere directory entries, with absolutely no reliable source coverage about him in real media shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which people are automatically entitled to have articles (much less to create their own articles themselves) just because they have jobs — notability is a question of showing media coverage about the person to demonstrate that their work has been externally validated as significant, such as by winning notable awards for it or by being the subject of significant critical analysis. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of any WP:GNG-worthy coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources, self-published, no filmography listed. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What everyone else said. Seungri400 (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.IndaneLove (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't fulfill WP:DIRECTOR. RS6784 (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without any doubt. Doesn't fall any criteria of listing. --_{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 07:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aliyaanwar

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

No evidence of any notability at all could be found. We don't have a speedy deletion criterion for books, so here we are. Fram (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India. Fram (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBOOK. IndaneLove (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article has WP:NBOOK and WP:NPOV concerns. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's basically just somebody saying how cool the book is. I've seen other articles from the creator before, and this is one of the most POV. Asparagusus (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1 (film series)

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

This article of a supposed film series is nothing but WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The films listed have nothing in common except the lead actor and "No. 1" title. Not a single source discusses topic as a "film series" as whole, thus failing WP:GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Ab207 (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources I can find are this and this. The sources call it a film series/franchise although there is no relation between the films. It is not a notable series like Akki's Khiladi. It is similar to Chiranjeevi's Khaidi films. There is not enough content to warrant a separate article. DareshMohan (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No penalty against creating a draft should better sources appear as his career progresses. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Emtiaj

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

No evidence of notability. Subject has had significant roles in only one film. Sources are generally passing mentions , adverts and listings. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. He is quite famous in Bangladesh. Many people write her name Shah Imtiaz instead of Shah Emtiaj. He played the side rule. Md Joni Hossain (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. There are enough references in his name. TV Guide Profile, Filmi Beat Profile, Alpha News, Netflix Movies Credit, Upcoming Film Liger(Cast) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ueteach (talk • contribs) 20:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No WP:SIGCOV. Sources are generally passing mentions , adverts and listings. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per nom. Purely promotional without any SIG:COV. Not even in WP:SEC. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 07:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Bbb23: CSD A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikh Sajid Ali

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

Nothing is notable about the topic. Repeatedly re-creation of a non-notable subject. Un-referenced article fails WP:GNG. And the subject must be salted.DMySon (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Music, Entertainment, and India. DMySon (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage coming up in searches, not otherwise notable Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Churaman Ahir

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

A quick Google search doesn’t bring anything notable about this individual other than Wikipedia mirror pages. The only source itself is not very reliable either. Little evidence of this individual being notable or worthy of an article. RuudVanClerk (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. RuudVanClerk (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominator obviously didn't do WP:BEFORE. They clearly didn't conduct a search in the native language, provided by the corresponding article in Hindi Wikipedia, which also has a number of sources. Curbon7 (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The “corresponding” article on Hindi Wikipedia is for a Churaman (commonly known as Churaman Jat) who is a separate individual entirely. Passive aggressive comment notwithstanding, a basic knowledge of Indian history would help in this situation. Nice try though. RuudVanClerk (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the linked Hindi article, which is clearly about the same person. In fact the articles are so similar that one seems to be a translation of the other. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is another source which refers to the same person [37] Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source in any language. So unless someone can explain exactly why the sources found are reliable, just having a Wikipedia article in another language is not at all a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse commentary about nominator etc. Abecedare (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not aware much about the topic but i have a fair idea that the nominator lacks the proper knowledge about WP:GNG. I am observing a number of articles where they have kept the notability tag, despite the fact that they are notable topic. May be this nomination is because of same issue.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Heba Aisha: who is they here? There is a single person nominating here Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about him only. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See singular they. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Heba Aisha: wasn't aware, my apologies. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination but allow redirect to any suitable target, if found. Mehta (1984), cited in hi.wiki, is not a (HIST)RS. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: what about this source? [38] Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the article is mentioned in a few sources, though not usually as "Churaman Ahir", but given the shallowness of coverage and the borderline quality of sources, he doesn't meet WP:GNG or merit a stand-alone article. And the current title is not a suitable one for even creating a redirect.

And now for the longer explanation with example of typical coverage:

Mishra (2008) (not necessarily WP:RS/WP:HISTRS), says that "Rao Churaman who was of Ahir caste" was granted 22 villages near Kaimori (sp?) in Jabalpur district in 1722 for his services as a garrison leader to Narendrashah; Churaman established his son Hamirdev there; Churaman's influence extended up to Deori, Sagar until 1731, when Narendrashah snatched Deori back. That's the extent of coverage to which ~5 lines of the book are devoted in a para that begins with (rough translation) We also have knowledge of some ordinary dealings during Narendrashah's time.
The 1968 district-level gazetteer for Japalpur says under its entry for Kaimuri that the town was founded in the beginning of the 17th century by one Rao Churaman employed in the military service of Raja Narind Shah (1679-1727), the Gond Raja of Garha-Mandla. For the military service offered, the Raja granted to the Rao a jagir of 22 villages around Kaimuri and the Rao named the place after the neighbouring range of hills. No mention of Ahir Similar coverage, with no added depth, can be found in later editions.

As far as I could determine, wikipedia does not have coverage of the ruler who granted the land to Rao Churaman, or of Kaimori village/town. If an article on the latter is created, that can contain a one-line mention of, and a redirect from, Rao Churaman. Abecedare (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge. "22 villages around Kaimuri and the Rao named the place after the neighbouring range of hills." This range of hills is the Kaimur Range and it states clearly the range extends up to Katangi. SpinningSpark 15:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madhuja Mukherjee

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

Blatant advert with inline links to various things created by the subject. WP:BOMBARD. Three paragraphs and a couple of tables do not warrant 30 references. Disputed draftification. WP:ADMASQ, fails WP:NPROF and WP:NCREATIVE. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Education, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly via G5 depending on how Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khorang shakes out. Bad faith creation for sure. Star Mississippi 14:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Draftify with Protection at this time, pending further review - It is clear from the conduct of the author(s) of the article that they are more interested in having an article accepted than in discussing whether an article should be accepted. There are too many references, which is an obvious attempt to overwhelm the review process, but too many of them are to her own work or are otherwise not independent and reliable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I pared down the references by creating a Works section and removing reprints and excess citations, and then added a few more citations, including from the WP Library about her work as an inter-media artist. She is a professor and has edited several books, but I have only so far found one review for one of the books. There are also a few reviews related to her work in film. Beccaynr (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India–Albania Friendship Association

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

Fails WP:ORG, I could find no sources. The sources provided are from http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/ which is a primary source. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Albania. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only one reference available on Google books that too a very casual reference- here [[39]] and nothing much can be found on any reputed sources. RS6784 (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overwhelming community consensus is that members of a parliament are accorded presumed notability, per WP:NPOL. Regards, (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P. K. Jayalakshmi

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

Non-notable individual. Stub has little information, scant sourcing, and no evidence of encyclopedic notability. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article doesn't make it clear, but she was a member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly, awarding WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep As Curbon7 says, this article passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. I've updated the infobox and the lead to make this more clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NPOL is clearly met. Atchom (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- She is has been a minister in Govt of Kerala, and was also a MLA in the Kerala Assembly, fulfills WP:POLITICIAN. RS6784 (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shruti Prakash

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

No evidence of playing "multiple significant roles" in notable productions per WP:NACTOR. Lacks significant coverage to meet GNG. She was a Bigg Boss contestant but that alone cannot be a claim for notability as per WP:BIGBROTHER. Ab207 (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Ab207 (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Too early. Possibly redirect to Bigg Boss or her debut film. DareshMohan (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable actress. SL93 (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Phougat

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

Doesn't appear to be notable, also was deleted previously. AmirŞah 19:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Fashion. AmirŞah 19:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Sources appear to be sufficient to provide notability under WP:NBIO, though the language barrier may be preventing me from doing a full breadth check. (However, if this is an exact copy of the previously deleted article I'm all for a WP:G4.) Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete browsing through the sources (I've even removed some) this is nothing more than the effort of a PR person to get her name out there - both our article and the majority of the sources. They're almost entirely churnalism or blackhat SEO. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Prax pointed out, this is an evidently PR-driven article. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep current sources in article are covering context of article and unreliable sources was removed by Praxidicae. Meets WP:NBIO. Mahdiar86 (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - similar to my !vote in the previous AfD discussion, based on my WP:BEFORE and a review of the article and its sources, it continues to appear to be WP:TOOSOON for WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE notability to be supported by independent and reliable sources. During my search for sources, I found a 2021 Deccan Herald interview with some biographical content that appears independent, with an overall focus on her Cannes award, a 2021 Tribune interview with secondary content essentially limited to the headline, a brief 2021 Tribune interview where she offers advice to youth, and a brief statement from her about her mother in a 2021 Free Press Journal article. In the WP article, there is a glowing but vague 2021 profile with no byline from APN News (e.g. the profile: "She has designed outfits and has been involved in a number of fashion events such as the New York Fashion Week, Miss New Jersey and so on. Her works have featured in Miss India contests as well" which can be compared to the current WP:CLOP in the article); based on a quick scan of APN related articles, this outlet appears to package product promotion as news. Beccaynr (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject doesn't seem to be notable. Lacks significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Fails WP:BASIC. DMySon (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- lacks notability, WP:NBASIC. RS6784 (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avitesh Shrivastava

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

He has released a single, however he does not meet WP:SINGER. He is making his film debut, however it is in production. Parents are notable, however independently WP:GNG is not satisfied. Jay (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KVN Productions

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

non notable production company pushed into mainspace repeatedly by socks PRAXIDICAE💕 15:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The citations do not support notability, as they are not in-depth significant coverage, but are simply name checks that say noting about KVN. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The history of the article in relation to sockpuppets leads one to think that it may be a conflict of interest or likely WP:UPE. Netherzone (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources in the article are significant coverage of KVN; I didn't find anything other than promotional type stuff elsewhere.Jacona (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kanakesa Thevar

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

Deprodded with addition of sources, but if anything, they only made the article a million times worse. In fact, most of them just appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. I could find no better sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Garbage sources, non-notable individual. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. JoyStick101 (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find any sources. A panchayat president fails WP:NPOL. - SUN EYE 1 17:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pade Puje

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

Unsourced since creation in 2009, and doesn't really say anything - fails to describe this ritual, merely says it takes place. Not encyclopedia-worthy. Googling produces mutliple copies of this text, little else. PamD 21:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. PamD 21:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, possible WP:HOAX as I get no non-Wikipedia mirrors. Should this be added to WP:LOHOW? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced trivia that is unlikely to merit an article of its own. If (and only if) a reliable secondary source is located before this discussion closes, the page can be redirected to Hindu wedding, where a one line mention can be made of the ritual. Looking at the article history, the creator Prksh1 uploaded a programme for a 1938 royal wedding that had been in his family's possession, and then created a series of articles based on that primary document, including, The Marriage of a Prince of the Mysore Royal Family, Pade Puje, Khasa Pada Puje, Kankana Dharane, Balle Mallarada Puje, Shakunamanojaya, and Yenne Saastra. A few of these have been deleted or redirected (see this discussion), while the remaining persist as permanent unsourced stubs. I propose that whatever the consensus of this discussion also be applied to the remaining stubs. Pinging @PamD and TenPoundHammer: to check if they agree. Abecedare (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I doubt this article is a hoax. Pade puje literally means "feet worship" and ritualized cleaning of feet of idols, the elders, the venerated, the poor, etc is part of several Hindu rituals (cf Maundy (foot washing) and Wudu). So I wouldn't be surprised if in some regions and families, this custom exists as part of the wedding ceremony. Its just that the article, extrapolating from a single primary document, both extrapolates the custom to supposedly all "Hindu marriages" and simultaneously narrows it to "Hindu marriages". Abecedare (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amey Pandya

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

Fails WP:ENT as well as WP:GNG. ManaliJain (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and India. ManaliJain (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person appears to have had multiple roles as a child from 2006-2010, and to have since totally vanished from public view. It is less than clear, but he may well be an adult by now. The sourcing just does not justify having an article on this person who is now as far as we can tell a non-public individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am strongly agree to John Pack Lambert. Mahdiar86 (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riyanka Chanda

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

Though the subject has played many roles, but these roles are minor and aren't significant enough to pass WP:NBIO and fails WP:GNG too. ManaliJain (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and India. ManaliJain (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 01:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Kaliveer

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

It may be a transliteration issue or something else, but I can't find any sources for this Durgāradeshadipati Baba Kaliveer (also when looking separately, "Durgāradeshadipati" "Baba Kaliveer"). The online sources in the article are either unreliable (TheReaderApp) or don't mention this at all (sacred texts.com vedabase.io, and the article as written is very confusing to find out what it is actually about (it reads like some religious story written here as truth), so even if verified would need a complete overhaul to become encyclopedic. But without verification we shouldn't have an article of course. Fram (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and India. Fram (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note; I have reinstated the AfD tag repeatedly at the article, and tried explaining to the editor that removing the tag isn't allowed (something which they already did at other AfDs and were warned about by others). This didn't help, but I leave it to others (or a bot) to readd the tag and educate the editor involved. Fram (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note page moved to Baba Kaliveer, and Durgāradeshadipati Baba Kaliveer is now a redirect. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajja100 has a long history of disruptive editing. Their recent attempt to blank this discussion moved me to drop a 72 hr block. No comment or opinion on the AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Also, nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) HighKing⁺⁺ 19:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All India Progressive Women's Association

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

a non-notable organization fails WP:NORG. Lack of significant coverage from reliable resources which are independent of the subject. Previously deleted under A7 and G11. DMySon (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Srivastava, Sumit S. (2007). "Violence and Dalit Women's Resistance in Rural Bihar". Indian Anthropologist. 37 (2): 31–44. ISSN 0970-0927.
^ Wilson, Kalpana (January 1999). "Patterns of accumulation and struggles of rural labour: Some aspects of Agrarian change in Central Bihar". Journal of Peasant Studies. 26 (2–3): 316–354. doi:10.1080/03066159908438710.
^ Misra, Amaresh (1995). "Fresh Life for Uttarakhand Movement". Economic and Political Weekly. 30 (2): 82–83. ISSN 0012-9976.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral at this time having not reviewed the sources. The article as written does not establish organizational notability, and an article should speak for itself without requiring the reader to read the sources, which is not why readers use Wikipedia. So if the article is kept, it should be expanded. User:Soman has provided only a URL dump, which is useless, because even if the sources listed as reliable, they may or may not be significant coverage. Providing only a URL dump, rather than adding the references to the article, can even be seen as insulting to the reviewers, but I assume that they simply were in too much of a hurry. I either will or will not review the footnoted sources, and will not review the dump. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep - AIPWA is an notable and second biggest organised womens association in India. So It's need to add on WIKIPEDIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudip Karmakar23 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have a list of URLs and citations, but there are no arguments as to how these sources provide the required substantial coverage of the organization.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is established:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41920038 (several pages of coverage, using their acronym, 23 mentions)
I wasn't able to access it, but seems like a whole article about them in Times of India: Women exploitation focus at All India Progressive Women’s Association meet. The Times of India, [s. l.], 10 maio. 2012. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbig&AN=edsbig.A289127995&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 2 maio. 2022.
Likewise here: All India progressive women’s association protests lifeterm to Rupam Pathak. The Times of India, [s. l.], 15 abr. 2012. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbig&AN=edsbig.A286394719&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 2 maio. 2022.

While it does seem weird to argue based on the headline without being able to see the text, it's difficult to imagine circumstances where the articles did not cover them. CT55555 (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Highway Public School

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

Had my PROD declined, and concerns weren't met - mainly that it did not meet WP:NSCHOOL, which the primary source provided didn't solve even if it met the "no sources at all" complaint. In addition, this might be promotional. WP:BEFORE check didn't appear to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 08:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 08:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It must be a speedy. No indication of notability. Absolutely fails WP:NSCHOOL. DMySon (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:A7, speedy deletion for no indication of notability does not apply to articles about educational institutions. I switched to PROD (which led us to this AFD) after realizing that myself. Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Also, for what it's worth, logo is a copyright violation. 174.212.212.106 (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Delete as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HOP Electric

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

a non-notable startup. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Most of the provided references are either press releases or just a passing mention. DMySon (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. DMySon (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antakshri (film)

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

Film that does not satisfy any version of film notability guidelines or general notability guidelines. This article reads like a blurb, and says nothing about what third parties have written about the film. There are two copies of the article, in both draft space and article space, that have been tagged for history merge, which is not necessary because the article can be deleted instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no indication of notability. Fails WP:NFILM. DMySon (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:NFILM and no assertion of notability under other WP:GNG guidelines. Mike1901 (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom KylieTastic (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - CafeGurrier66 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K. Ahmed Khan

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. References have mentions, but not significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. PepperBeast (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kovvuri Gangireddy

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

No indication of notability or significant coverage PepperBeast (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. PepperBeast (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:BIO, has never held elected office or appointed governmental office, so does not qualify as politician.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly does not satisfy Wikipedia’s notability criteria. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lalit Narayan Mithila University#Constituent colleges. – Joe (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marwari College, Darbhanga

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

This article has been blanked and redirected twice: by @Onel5969: "Not enough in-depth coverage to show notability"; and previously by @Muhandes: "No evidence of notability, boldly redirecting". The problem is that a redirect to Lalit Narayan Mithila University is confusing if "Marwari College, Darbhanga" is not mentioned in that article. I suggest deletion without creating a redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lalit Narayan Mithila University#Constituent colleges. I don't object the deletion, but Marwari College, Darbhanga is listed in the article, under Constituent colleges, item #212, so I'm not sure why this is a WP:CONRED, and leaving the search term seems preferable. --Muhandes (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find the entry because it's "Marwai" not "Marwari". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I believe that was a typo, see source. I corrected it. --Muhandes (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. None of the comments are policy based, in that they don't address why she should be an exception to the guidelines. While consensus here is thin, the prior AfD was well attended and there's no evidence the situation has changed. Star Mississippi 23:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpam_Priya_Choudhary

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable politican, not elected to any office as of yet. party lost all seats it contested in last elections and fails notability validation. the article was deleted previously but I thought to include it for discussion before nominating for deletion. Rohan9082 (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Rohan9082[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rohan9082,

Pushpam Priya Choudhary is well known politician from Bihar belongs to a political background family and the founder of highly discussed party 'The Plurals Party'. The first time party not elected to any offices and failed to form the government but gain 7 lakhs+ votes in Bihar in very few days.

The article was deleted previously, it doesn't means that can't be created next time. Notability proves by all the article I mentioned in the articles references not by winning or losing the seats.

Thanks!

Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Lekkala R Reddy, thanks for the comment. According to Wikipedia's policy on notability of politicians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(politics)), the candidate must have been elected to a government office/ notable diplomatic office in order to qualify for inclusion. No one gains a Wikipedia article solely on the basis of 7 lakh votes (which is very low considering there have been crores of electors who voted) and that so many minor parties announced nominations for Chief Ministerial candidates. Certainly, the person might be suitable for inclusion in a future date, given she gains the criteria aforementioned (see to the link), but as of now, I believe, it is not so notable a topic. Also, talking about the references and citations, most appear to be Press Releases and the article itself has a very promotional tone, that might hint at something fishy. Thanks! Rohan9082 (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted. She is budding politicians and surely will do well in future. We should not promote deletion just because she has not got elected. Robinindian (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Ishapore

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kendriya vidyalaya no-1,ishapore

Articles for deletion/Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Ishapore

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since the previous deletion discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Secondary schools are not inherently notable, and in this case the GNG doesn't seem to be met: my search did not find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. No logical alternatives to deletion come to mind. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom and others. - Hatchens (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amitriyaan

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

Was CSD for promotional purposes, article does not appear to be hence not a speedy delete. Contested on talk page. Sending to AfD for discussion administratively. Tawker (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tawker (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure in what universe this isn't a raging advertisement, but he also doesn't appear to be notable. He's had a few film roles but nothing that's received particularly significant coverage and most of what is in the article is blatant mass produced Indian churnalism. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With more than 8 movies as a lead and parallel lead roles and 2 webseries and still page is being discussed to be deleted is lil strange . Many actors who have not even done even half of Amit Riyaan's work profile are already on Wikipedia . Someone called praxidicae put the point it's ' Indian churnalism ' . It itself sound RACIST and biased with half knowledge . regarding coverage in today's world

almost everything is bought in media world and gets covered. That is real advertisement more than work profile. Someone who has niche fan following and isn't into bought media coverage is being discussed for advertisement issue is not at all logical and fair . Sandeepth2785 (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandeepth2785 The media in India, especially the entertainment media, has a few respected outlets. Those which are not respected rehash PR stories. This is termed churnalism. While Praxidicae might possibly have explained this in more detail it is an unfortunate fact that most entertainment media in India has a less than stellar reputation.

Since churnalism in this class of media is a fact, and 'Indian food' is not a racially unacceptable term, it is a large leap to suggest that the deployment of the term 'Indian churnalism' is racially motivated. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see WP:ADMASQ here. I have sample checked the references and find interviews with Riyaan, material about some of the things he has been in but not necessarily mentioning him, and nothing to show that he passes WP:NACTOR. I see a jobbig actor who may make it one day. At best it is WP:TOOSOON 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The outcome of the deletion discussion is not helped by a copyright picture having been uploaded to Commons and included (for now) in the Infobox 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And now a further unpermissioned picture added to the article is at Commons 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:15, 25 April 2022 (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/2022 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the transclusion issue
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first order of notability of a living person is sourcing. The bar is raised higher than with other articles and must follow Wikipedia:policies and guidelines. There should be multiple independent and reliable sources that providing significant coverage to advance notability.

There is no set number but at least three would be enough to "convince anybody". There is a difference in a source that supports content and one that advance notability even though the last can certainly also support content.

The first source I checked, about a feature film titled "Zee5 Movie: Atkan Chatkan; Cast: Lydian Nadhaswaram, Yash Rane, Sachin Chaudhary, Tamanna Dipak, Ayesha Vindhara; Direction: Shiv Hare; Rating", was confusing and disappointing.

I am not up to date on "Indian churnalism" but coud imagine this might be an appropriate discription. I do not think anyone should have to dig around to try to be convinced there is notability. If sourcing is not improvable then notability is absolutetly not proven. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. This AfD was in fact correctly transcluded in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 23 when it was nominated, but a subsequent move confused cyberbot and XFDcloser and led to it appearing in multiple daily logs. It is now only listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 1 and can be closed or relisted as normal after 2022-05-08. – Joe (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the explanation! I figured it was listed somewhere given the early votes but wanted to err on the side of caution/full visibility. Star Mississippi 14:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 06:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shubhra Gupta

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

The subject does not pass general notability guidelines or WP:ANYBIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and India. DMySon (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of online sources exist, and she seems quite notable - a noted and veteran film critic, recently an author of a notable book (I see quite a few book reviews by major publications), who has won a Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award for her film criticism. It's no mean achievement. Sources exist, they just need to be added. I suggest that someone be bold and expand it, I would if I had more time. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Source Analysis:

1. Indianexpress: a biography profile which is not independent of the subject, hence failed WP:GNG.
2. thereviewmonk: a self published biography profile on a non reliable website which is not meeting WP:SIGCOV.
3. harpercollins.co.in: Again a bio profile which is not independent of the subject and does not pass WP:GNG.
4. fipresci: a self published bio profile not independent of the subject failed WP:SIGCOV.
DMySon (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO, her having recieved an RNG Award; also per WP:CREATIVE as she is frequently refered to and quoted for film industry related topics (see for example Foreign Policy, The Hindu, Financial Times, etc) and her works subject to significant critical attention (see Outlook, etc). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foreignpolicy: Just a passing mention, but we can think to consider this.
thehindu: No in-depth coverage, just a passing mention.
ft: Couldn't check due to It's paid subscription, if anyone having its paid subscription, please let us know.
DMySon (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can view a different FT article on ProQuest, where she is quoted for her expertise: "Hindu nationalists take aim at Bollywood" (Oct 17, 2020, e.g. discussing the BJP and Bollywood, "...said Shubhra Gupta, author of 50 Films that Changed Bollywood.") I'm not able to view the Foreign Policy article, but The Hindu seems like more than a passing mention because it is a paragraph about her, in the context of the commentary of the larger article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC - I updated the article to add two book reviews and two interviews with some independent content, and verification of her appointment to the Central Board of Film Certification. I have found research challenging because on both GNews and ProQuest, results are flooded with hits to her own work as a critic. However, she is quoted as an expert in a variety of sources and has received critical attention for her work, including in the notable award, so WP:BASIC notability as a film critic appears to be sufficiently supported. Beccaynr (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr. She is an award-winning film critic who is frequently cited. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr and Tayi Arajakate. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nadir Ali Khan

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has remained completely unsourced since the last 12 years. There is no coverage of the subject's death (at the least), even by Indian Muslim news portals. That said, this subject fails WP:GNG and there's no indication of any subjective criteria being met. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 12:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Islam, and India. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 12:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searched on google and found three Hindi sources about him. These sources published after his death, but these are written in detail about him.[40][41] [42]

IndaneLove (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I'm not sure if the third source is a reliable one. All the three sources overlap with a lot of content. I do not feel these are helpful in getting WP:GNG passed. All those are published in a day or two. Likely the subject would be more discussed in nearby future, but currently, neither it passes GNG nor does it pass WP:NAUTHOR. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:TheAafi I am also not sure about third one. Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran are reliable sources.

IndaneLove (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:TheAafi found one more source of Aligarh Muslim University’s official website.[43] — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndaneLove (talk • contribs) 04:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources don't establish notability. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 05:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Congrats, your AfD is the first in a new delsort! –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete English-language results in search engine and Google Scholar are primarily about other people with the same name, and without an Urdu-language name or urwiki article we cannot search in Urdu. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LaundryPizza03, I didn't get anything significant in Urdu-language as well during my WP:BEFORE search. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 15:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raaste Pyar Ke

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

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a BEFORE to meets the notability guidelines. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Hinduism, and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema includes it in significant works of Shabana Azmi and Om Puri, Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema for Jeetendra, Azmi etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redtigerxyz (talk • contribs)
Keep - per above. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 16:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loktantrik Samajwadi Party

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

Non-notable political party. Very old prod declined without comment. Doesn't even have an intro, just a random list of crap. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Note that there is a party in Nepal with exactly the same name which is notable, Loktantrik Samajwadi Party, Nepal. I'm surprised that no reliable sources seem to exist for a party that held a seat in a regional parliament. A search in both English and Hindi returned no sources, and the Wikidata item indicates no other language version exists. Curbon7 (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - here a reminder of AfD basics is necessary. AfD is not the place to complain about the quality of articles. If the article is missing intro etc, please improve it. The key point here is notability, which per WP:NPOL is easily confirmed with the party having held a seat in state legislature (which btw, is sourced). --Soman (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Improve it with what? The sources that Curbon7 (talk · contribs) just proved don't exist? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political parties operate under WP:NORG, not WP:NPOL. NORG explicitly states that "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools". Curbon7 (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the representation in state legislature, this is sourced. You can also find the election result here https://ceorajasthan.nic.in/List-stat.htm Party is mentioned https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/fissures-over-symbol-divide-janata-parivar (as part of Janata merger process), Lohia anniversary celebrated by party https://www.dailypioneer.com/2021/state-editions/---lohia-dedicated-his-life-to-fight-against-discrimination---.html , another ref on 2008 Rajasthan state legislature https://www.indiatoday.in/latest-headlines/story/gehlot-wins-trust-vote-bsp-backs-govt-36517-2009-01-03 , https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/bjp-says-ram-jethmalani-is-party-rs-candidate-from-rajasthan/story-KOC4lUYlUr5q1oEimXy0iL.html , party website http://www.lspindia.org/ , glimpse of party flag https://thehinduimages.com/listing-page.php?searchTerm=searchImage&searchKeywords=LOKTANTRIK%20SAMAJWADI%20PARTY , alliance in 2008 Chhattisgarh election https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/left-gives-us-an-idea-of-third-alternative/articleshow/3715322.cms?from=mdr , founded in 1994 by members of parliament https://books.google.at/books?id=VLShQ-Zq8TMC&pg=PA31 , 1999 protest against NATO bombing Serbia https://books.google.at/books?id=B6aqciIXBdQC&pg=PA113 , roots in Janata Dal, led by Raghu Thakur https://books.google.at/books?id=ViZuAAAAMAAJ (p. 126), " In July 2006 , Chhattisgarh State General Secretary of Loktantrik Samajwadi Party , Ashok Panda" https://books.google.at/books?id=jwgNAQAAMAAJ (p. 32), " A court in Jabalpur on Oct 24 issued arrest warrants against Union Labour Minister Sharad Yadav , president of All India Loktantrik Samajwadi Party Raghu Thakur and 67 others in connection with a case of “ attempted murder ” ." https://books.google.at/books?id=dXtDAAAAYAAJ (p. 962) --Soman (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Key word "mentioned". Those all seem like passing mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some Hindi references https://www.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/sidharth-nagar-12480465.html , https://www.bhaskar.com/news/MP-OTH-MAT-latest-bhind-news-043003-1284625-NOR.html , https://www.raigarhtopnews.com/national-president-of-loktantrik-samajwadi-party-raghu-thakur-will-also-reach-kharsia-from-bhopal-to-pay-tribute-to-bhakta/ , https://halehulchal.com/memorandum-submitted-to-collector-regarding-5-point-demands-in-democratic-samajwadi-party/ , https://www.naidunia.com/madhya-pradesh/sagar-sagar-news-188617 , https://sathisandesh.in/?p=38800 , https://www.pragatimedia.org/2020/09/Madhya-pradesh-breaking-pm-news.html , http://cnin.co.in/single.php?id=6705 --Soman (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman: if you have all these sources, please put them in the article yourself rather than on the AFD page. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that it is perfectly acceptable for sources to be denoted in AfD discussions. The provision of said sources is often crucial to demonstrate topic notability, or lack thereof. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think we should endevour to have articles on all parties that have had seats in state or national assemblies. There is something on its founding in this book (which involved three sitting MPs (all notable enough to have WP articles). It's a stretch for NORG, but at least its enough to write a meaningful stub which is better than the random list of factoids we have now. SpinningSpark 14:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There has been no policy-based input on why this article should be kept. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid Party of India

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

Previously prodded in 2010. No notability asserted, only one source Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage in mainstream media per https://www.vice.com/en/article/j57y7p/political-party-believes-meditation-and-vegetarianism-will-solve-indias-problems-elections , http://www.uniindia.net/pyramid-party-of-india-holds-silent-rally-in-delhi-pledges-go-vegan/india/news/1548951.html, note here https://www.facebook.com/pyramidspiritualsocietiesmovement/photos/a.294463297379382/1153957071429996/ , https://www.facebook.com/PyramidPartyOfIndia/photos/a.561216164369426/568368026987573/ material of mainstream media coverage not available online. Party got 130,362 votes in 2004 election (contesting 13 out of 543 seats). --Soman (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The appropriate guideline is NCORP. By itself, "coverage" is not sufficient to establish notability, rather the "content" of the references in question. The Vice reference takes all its information from the website and from quotes made by the leaders. There is very little "Independent Content" (ORGIND) and not enough to meet CORPDEPTH. The UNI India reference appears to be a copy of this Millennium Port article published a day earlier which fails CORPDEPTH and/or ORGIND. Facebook isn't a reliable source. I'm unable to locate any references that provides good in-depth details on the organization and which doesn't rely entirely on information provided by their website or organizers. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are noticeable. KhinMoTi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My close as a functional PROD was challenged, so I have restored it for further discussion per policy. Policy-based input would be very helpful for the next closer. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since this is an organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. As such we therefore require references that discuss the *organization* itself in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the organization* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". None of the references meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG, lacking indepth sources. 05:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Shenanigans around creation push this over the edge, despite zero input and I don't see a third relist changing that. Star Mississippi 01:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Mirch Lal Mirch – Ek Tikhi Ek Karari

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

Article has been moved from draft into main space by one of the main creators (the other was a sock of another user) after being moved several times by other editors back into draft space. The sources are generally minimal and all from prior to release.

tvindialive.in - half and half show and main actor, gives some basic info about show (which would be helpful to actually put in the article as premise...), but a couple of paragraphs from a pre-release publicity article pushes the boundaries of significant coverage.
tribuneindia.com - pre-release publicity blurb
prabhasakshi.com - mostly interview, again part of pre-release publicity
updatenownews.com - basic info on show, paragraphs on the main actors, pre-release

Nothing about production, nothing about receptions / reviews - this is a draft article and should be there while it gets more work. It's moved to main space, so on it's merits, I don't see WP:GNG met here. Ravensfire (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Ravensfire (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For more of the history of this article, look at the protected page Hari Mirch Lal Mirch - Ek Tikhi Ek Karari. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arunita Kanjilal

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

GNG not met. The subject comes after Pawandeep Rajan, which was recently redirected to Indian Idol 12 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pawandeep Rajan. Suggesting a redirect but inviting community discussion for more clarity. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and India. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the argument for deletion, happy to fix it. All irrelevant references will be removed. Musicwikilover (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : Fixed encyclopedic references and multiple references. This article was clean earlier, removed unecessary references. Musicwikilover (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP :~~ Added notable e-Patrika (newspaper) publication inviting the subject as guest editor on their e-paper. https://epaper.patrika.com/imageview_535372_1763729408_4_78_17-04-2022_4_i_1_sf.html

Significant independent published work of the subject meeting the notability (music) criteria of "to include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries" Musicwikilover (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources is helpful in establishing notability. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the e-Patrika (newspaper publication). It is a significant independent publication. Hope this source has been checked before the claim that none of sources establish notability. Musicwikilover (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack WP:RS. Besides that, its WP:TOOSOON case. -Hatchens (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I don't think it was necessary to open this discussion. She is notable and source are reliable. Montubhai (talk) 2:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Montubhai, How do you feel she is notable? Most of the sources cited are unreliable and puff, others don't have significant coverage. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 12:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is notable , the sources are reliable Indian publications including the independent e-newspapers where she was invited as guest editor. Musicwikilover (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
being invited as a guest editor doesn't make someone notable. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sir -

As per below - The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.
WP:NEXIST , WP:NPOSSIBLE

I would suggest to search for sources rather than just propose for deletion as indicated above.

Also , as I said the independent e-newspaper publication from a State of India asked the subject to be their editor for a day is surely notable for me. There is no affiliation of the subject with the said publication. Musicwikilover (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In order to be notable, one needs to either pass the WP:GNG criteria or any WP:SNG criteria and the subject passes none of these. I agree a plenty of coverage exists but it doesn't meet the guidelines such as WP:SIGCOV, WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RS. That's to say, someone doesn't become notable if they receive some advertorial and routine coverage. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the main problem is with respect to WP:SIGCOV and even with WP:RS here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RS6784 (talk • contribs)
Delete Lacks coverage. Looked at the first five references. Very poor, no specifically about her, mostly about the competitions. No other reliable coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps too soon, but currently non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 11:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Users are kindly asked to refrain from moving (renaming) articles while they are on AFD as it breaks a number of maintenance scripts. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next Assam Legislative Assembly Election

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

Per WP:CRYSTALBALL. The event that may take place after 4 years from now. Presented sources are basically about the previous election. Entire article is based on speculation. The article was draftified initially so that the creator may take an opportunity to fix references but entire article appears to be based on presumptions. Hitro talk 08:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Hitro talk 08:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: CiteInformation has been repeatedly removing the AfD notice on this article. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 08:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The next scheduled election can be an appropriate exemption to WP:CRYSTALBALL as mentioned and can include the addition of opinion polls or changes to the Legislature such as through by-elections subsequent to the last election. I note by-elections have been held. AusLondonder (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a note that this article has been moved to a different page, Next Assam Legislative Assembly election. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I can see, there have been two AfD discussions previously on an Indian state/territory upcoming election: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Karnataka Legislative Assembly election and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election. For obvious reasons (ie the disbanding of that state) the latter was deleted. In the case of the former, there was clear sourcing in existence to justify the article and nothing to indicate that the upcoming election was anything but certain. There's nothing to indicate otherwise with Assam; no reason the article cannot be cleaned up to act as a placeholder of information. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Karnataka Legislative Assembly election was brought at AfD 15 months before the scheduled election that is why there were enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. You were the one to point that out during the discussion which led to the withdrawal of nomination. This election is going to take place after 48 months from now. Just 12 months have passed since last edition of these elections. I do not think referring that AfD to make case for keeping this article has any relevance. Unless WP:GNG is met, this is a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Hitro talk 13:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HitroMilanese To quote myself, quoting, from that same AfD: WP:CHRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This format of "Next XXXX election" is standard in dealing with regular elections which have a unspecified cycle. There's nothing to suggest the election will not take place. Moreover, at some point we're going to move from "Next Assam election" to "2026 election", which would entail another round of deletes... or just leave this in place as a placeholder and save everyone the bother. FWIW - electoral politics in India is on a scale no where else on earth...there's already sourcing discussing the 2026 Assam election and even 2031. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Comment - In 2026, this will be the previous Assam legislative assembly election. Why should it have a name that is going to be wrong later? If it is to exist, shouldn't this be called something like Assam 2026 legislative assembly election instead of Next Assam Legislative Assembly election? Jacona (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacona As mentioned above, "Next XXX election" is a somewhat common format for dealing with elections which do not have a specified cycle (eg UK elections as against US elections). Often elections can be called with only a few weeks notice, although it is well known that an election is approaching because of the term limit of a parliament. So, we can have both, and when an election has been called with an official date, for a period, the "Next" article can redirect until that election has completed. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Inclusion criteria clearly suggest that the topic is deemed notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Presented rationales for inclusion are not policy based. Whether this topic is exempted from WP:CRYSTALBALL is a discussion for another day, currently for retaining this article, demonstration of notability per WP:GNG is required. Hitro talk 09:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not actually WP:CRYSTALBALL, this event actually will occur. It needs some work though for sure. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 01:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gruhalakshmi Swarnakankanam

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

While language is no doubt an issue, the Telugu article isn't any better sourced nor does Google translate provide an assertion of notability. Bringing it here for discussion Star Mississippi 18:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Literature, and India. Star Mississippi 18:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though there are several people that have received this award, I am not able to find source that establish this award to be notable. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 12:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morchopna

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

There is citation tag added since 2017, no reference has been provided. It is a simple village and not even princely state, the content of the page is itself dubious. Considering all this is the appropriate step RS6784 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. RS6784 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of Raj-era sources for this by I'm struggling to find anything after 1947. Is this village now known by a different name? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to get more information from post-1947 days but didn't got much data, to me it looks like a case of promotional stuff. If the village name has changed then it is a misleading page to the viewers. RS6784 (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to consist of a lot of OR, Yes I think I lean delete. Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Star Mississippi 03:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish " Foot Soldier of India "

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

Although He does have sources but "Foot Soldier" is not a Notable category in existence and as mentioned a Social Activist sources doesn't shares spotlight on that aspect, A Consensus would do the justice, Let others decide Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 08:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Education. Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 08:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. There's quite a bit of coverage even in reliable outlets, although much of it is interviews, ephemeral news coverage, and the like. A delete !vote might be justifiable, but I think draftification would be a better solution: it gives the article's creator (who, judging from the username, likely has a COI) time to shore up notability by citing sources that are independent and secondary (i.e. analysis, not just repeating what Sharma has to say) and also to fix the article's rather promotional tone before submitting it through articles for creation. If the article is kept, it should be moved to a more appropriate title such as Ashish Sharma (activist); the current one is not neutral. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity in full agreement with Extraordinary Writ CT55555 (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Bathwal

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

Non notable dietatian with minor passing mentions and interviews in some references. I did a WP:BEFORE search but nothing better was found. Some positions mentioned in the article are also non notable positions or non-notable organizations. Some claims couldn't be verified also. Nanpofira (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local level representative of a government program to increase fitness. This is not the thing notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Health and fitness, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after adding other references from reliable resources the topic shows significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources hence passes WP:GNG. Also the subject is the author of school textbooks for CBSE, approved by NCERT, Government of India and author of various podcasts, hence passes WP:NAUTHOR. JoyStick101 (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC) SOCK Strike[reply]

The references you have added are all self promotional materials which do not contribute to notability. Please see WP:SPIP. I have removed those references as those aren't reliable. Please see WP:SPONSORED. Nanpofira (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JoyStick101:, would you be kind enough to show wherefrom you came to know that she is an author of NCERT books? I couldn't find any references that satisfy such claims. - Nanpofira (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor mentions, nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Existing and newly added sources:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/food-news/is-silicone-cookware-safe/photostory/78388898.cms https://epaper.hindustantimes.com/Home/ShareArticle?OrgId=131f36370fa&imageview=0 https://www.timesnownews.com/videos/times-now/india/is-the-black-water-or-alkaline-water-a-health-booster-or-just-a-gimmick-video-90305376 https://recipes.timesofindia.com/videos/watch-top-5-nutrients-to-prevent-hair-fall/videoshow/81784615.cms https://zeenews.india.com/health/exclusive-what-food-items-help-in-preventing-seasonal-flu-or-virus-celebrity-dietician-and-nutritionist-swati-bathwal-explains-2432998 https://ndtv.in/food-lifestyle/best-diet-for-managing-pcos-how-to-control-pcos-know-here-foods-suggested-by-experts-2854709 https://fitindia.gov.in/fit-india-ambassador?page=6 https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/business-news-deal-or-no-deal/397706 https://english.jagran.com/lifestyle/how-climate-change-can-impact-human-health-10041720 https://www.ibtimes.sg/author-swati-bathwals-successful-journey-public-health-expert-climate-change-activist-64233 https://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/report-nutritionist-swati-bathwal-explains-foods-to-uplift-your-mood-2899277 https://www.dailypioneer.com/2018/state-editions/you-have-to-be-best-friends-with-your-dietitian--swati-bathwal.html https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/48358 https://www.nescoexhibitions.in/worldofsports/ https://www.firstpost.com/9-months/season-5#about https://english.jagran.com/lifestyle/onlymyhealthcom-announces-1st-edition-of-healthcare-heroes-awards2020-10017230
JoyStick101 (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Sock strike[reply]

Can you please select WP:THREE best sources that you think cover the subject in depth? I'm asking you since you are the author and know the area best. As it stands, I agree with Oaktree b that the coverage isn't the kind suitable for an article here. Hemantha (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After a close look of all the references and as per WP:HEY, the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Most of the references seem significant and independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Sock strike[reply]

Delete - There are two articles that could be considered significant - IBTimes and Daily Pioneer. WP:IBTIMES is considered unreliable. Both the articles are highly flattering ("A multi faceted person", "renowned dietitian" etc) and are mostly made up of quotes; thus neither appears independent. Search hits are quotes or PR content. Hemantha (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Source Analysis:

1 - Hindustan Times considered a reliable resource as per concensus. It is independent of the subject published in secondary source and meets WP:SIGCOV.
:2- Times of India article written independently by on a generic topic generally consider reliable as per discussion and it is used as reference on millions of Wiki articles.
:3 - Zee News: An independently written article by an editor Ritika Handoo. She writes about fashion, lifestyle and health. Normally considered as reliable reference used on many articles.
:4 - Another reliable reference is from NDTV independently written by Aradhana Singh who regularly writes articles on health, fitness and Foods. Passes WP:SIGCOV.
:5 - Fit India Movement website, an Indian Government entity generally consder reliable as per consensus. This is a list of Fit India Movement ambassadors. Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view passes WP:LISTBIO as per WP:TRIVIA and WP:SOURCELIST.
:6 - International Business Times, Independently written by Chris David. The website used as reference on many Wikipedia articles. Passes WP:SIGCOV.
:7 - Outlook (Indian magazine) a reliable resource, an article which is independent of the subject written by Sneha Kanchan. Passes WP:SIGCOV.
: The above references are enough to passes WP:THREE. DMySon (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HT - two quotes in a recipe article
ToI - quote in pure churnalist article
Zee News - straight away says interview. Please review WP:BASIC which says primary sources (which interview are) don't count towards notability.
NDTV - a listicle of five foods suggested by the subject. Has nothing on the subject herself.
FitIndia - a simple list of people
IBT - already said in my vote that it's unreliable and extremely promotional.
Outlook - again only quotes; hence primary and doesn't count towards notability.

Not a single one of the above is even barely WP:SIRS. You've simply dumped a list once more without engaging in any of the points raised in previous comments. Hemantha (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the socking surrounding JoyStick101 and DMySon, would like more uninvolved input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to the following:

1. Insufficient coverage. No sources found in books. Turning to news sources, I am not satisfied these meet the standards of significant coverage as the articles do not address the subject directly and in detail. These articles merely describe the nutrition advice given by the subject and I find this to be trivial mention of the subject, the focus of the material is actually on the nutritional advice.

2. Even if (which I do not believe) the sources could be reliable, they cover nutritional advice given by this person only. So the articles focus on a single context. Other than the advice given in these articles, the subject is likely to remain a low-profile individual and so a biographical article on this individual is not really appropriate for an encyclopaedia.

3. I really find the news sources available are not a valid route to inclusion on Wikipedia, the real test of notability is whether anyone independent of this topic has or even could publish non-trivial works of their own and I do not consider this the case.

4. Wikipedia is not a place for ones resume, or to advertise or promote. This article really reads like a resume in essay style, appears self-promotional (although I have no evidence this was written by the subject so happy to just say promotional instead).

So for these reasons, I think there is a strong cause for deletion. I do not normally go into such detail on AFD, and I do apologise in advance if anyone thinks what I have written is Wikilawyering. I do trawl through AFD looking for cases that need an extra consideration before closure. I see this one was re-listed for further consideration and so read through a few policies to truly establish whether this article warrants inclusion. On balance, I feel it does not and it ought to be deleted. - Such-change47 (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the source analysis as above. Many sources, few if any help to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 12:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dhone revenue division

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

Dhone revenue division

This article appears to be about a division of a state government in India, but has two problems. First, it has no references, and so fails verifiability. Second, it does not provide enough information to establish context, let along to determine organizational notability. This does not even provide enough information to locate reliable sources. An earlier version was already created in article space and moved to draft space, so that this version cannot be moved to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the author wishes to use citations, I see no way to verify what's said. Oaktree b (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GEOLAND I've added sources. I apologise for my proactive draftification to Draft:Dhone revenue division. I should have marked it as {{Sources exist}} — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying further, I actually wanted to add refs after draftifying when I get time. However, I didn’t contemplate the user would simply recreate the article — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · c) 13:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moulvi Abdul Ali

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

Trivial namedrops in half-a-dozen sources cannot lead to the passage of GNG. If he was the founder of DCS, he might have claimed notability; sadly, he was among the first students. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notable Jamindar. Prodipto Deloar (Talk • Contribute) 08:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Explanations are needed - this is not a ballot poll. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participation with policy-based opinions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TrangaBellam says the sources contain "trivial namedrops". Newsline BD, the Daily Purbodesh, and Banglapedia all contain mere passing mentions. (Moreover, Newsline BD does not have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and the Daily Purbodesh fails verification for the statement where it is cited.) The remaining two sources are offline and thinly held. I have been unable to examine them, but judging from the fact that only one page of each is cited, and only five sentences and one sentence are traced to them respectively, they do not seem to contain significant coverage. My own searches found brief mentions in Syed Muhammed Taifoor's 1952 Glimpses of Old Dhaka,[44] and a brief footnote in Hassan's 2008 Commercial History of Dhaka. In the absence of significant coverage, should not be the topic of a stand alone article. No obvious redirect target, but if the market is notable, an article could be written about it, and Ali could be mentioned there. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to FIR (2022 film). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manu Anand

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

Film director is not meeting WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and India. Jeni Wolf (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heyy Jeni Wolf, Why is the page nominated for deletion, i believe it has been created with the policies and guidlines. Vinothcj (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FIR (2022 film). >>> Extorc.talk 16:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FIR (2022 film) - There are no articles that connect the director to any other project. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Torab

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

Historical scholarship in English language does not document, much less discuss, the existence of our subject except at this (p. 245) single line. India's subaltern response to colonialism, esp. working class revolts, have been studied extensively and for someone, who was (apparently) the first Bengali rebel against EIC and a hero in the history of Bengal, this absence is striking. (One Abu Torab, Fauzdar of "Chakla Bhushna", is mentioned in some sources but they are not identical; the Fauzdar Torab was killed by a Sitaram in around 1714!)

A couple of romantic historical fictions (Chowdhury and Shahidullah) in vernacular is cited in our article, alongside a newspaper editorial. One blog has been cited. A book on farmer revolts in East Bengal (Jalil) has been cited; this would have been significant if it were not published by a local press and authored by a lawyer. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found. In page 17 of [Tempest: A Monthly Review of National Affairs] it says "Choudhury Abu Torab was also a powerful Zaminder who was the owner of Sandwip , Hatia and Bamani. He had a position in the royal court of Murshidabad . After the fall of Dilwar Khan of Sandwip Choudhury Abu Torab became its owner". [Cambridge South Asian Studies] - Issue 7 - Page 245 it says "Abu Torab Choudhury of Sandwip who opposed him was branded a rebel and killed in action , and his military commander Mulkan was publicly hanged at Verelst's instance". In [District Gazetteers - Volume 9 - Page 477] it says "Chowdhury Abu Turab Khan was the Zaminder of Sandwip , Hatiya and Bamni islands . He later on became a Zaminder of a Nizampur Pargana . He claimed descent from Bakhtear Mahiswar of Sandwip . His son was Ali Raza and Chowdhury Jamal Khan". He is also covered in the Hisory of Chittagong written by Syed Murtaza Ali and History of Banglesh by Sirajul Islam.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Tempest: A Monthly Review of National Affairs" is precisely the kind of source that we shall strive to use when writing an article on S. Asian History. Not RS for our purposes.

I did find the second source and mentioned it in nomination.

District gazetteers contain rank nonsense, written by career bureaucrats with no training in history. Not RS for our purposes.

Murtaza Ali was not a historian and his romantic sub-nationalist histories, drafted about fifty years ago, are not reliable for Wikipedia. Ten citations (acc. to GScholar), most of which are in articles on regional biogeography. Reviews of his other works are neither impressive. Not RS for our purposes. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge It seems like the subject is notable enough to merit a mention. It may just be easier to merge the content into an article about the history of Bengal. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it fails WP:V, notability requires reliable sources which is yet to be presented. It's preferable to not have an article on the subject than reproduce a semi-mythological narrative as a factual one. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge It is better to be deleted or at most to merge it in an adequate related article. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. and none likely to emerge with the language issues facing this discussion. Star Mississippi 01:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zamindars of Mahipur

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

A non-notable aristocracy; our article is a glorified genealogical register. No reliable sources, excluding the Banglapedia entry, exist that cover "Mahipur Zamindars" or "Mahipur Estate" or "মহীপুর জমিদারি" or "মহিপুর জমিদারি" or "মহিপুর জমিদার" or "মহিপুরের জমিদার" in any significant detail. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My philosophy is that if another reputable encyclopedia, such as Banglapedia: the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh, has an article on a topic, then Wikipedia presumably should have one too. So for me, the question is whether this article is so problematic that WP:TNT is called for. I have concerns about whether the cited sources actually support the content. Several sources are so obscure, or described so incompletely, that I cannot obtain them for verification. SalamAlayka, you cited these, can you supply copies of:
- Ahmed, Wakil (1983). উনিশ শতকে বাঙালী মুসলমানের চিন্তাচেতনার ধারা (in Bengali). Bangla Academy. p. 238.
- Sakkhatkar (2011)
- Alam, Muhammad Mahmudul (2013). গংগাচড়া উপজেলার ইতিহাস ও ঐতিহ্য. Rangpur: Lekhak Sangsad. p. 26.
- ইতিহাস (in Bengali). Vol. 38. Itihas Parishad. 2004. p. 40.
- বাংলা একাডেমী গবেশণা পত্রিকা (in Bengali). 22: 92. 1977. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

--Worldbruce (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banglapedia ought not be treated as a RS; no sources, no author-bios etc. I have spotted errors dime a dozen in their entries. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not require that sources contain author bios in order to be reliable. The Muhammad Moniruzzaman in question seems to be the one who earned his PhD in 1996 from the University of Rajshahi for his thesis on Zamindars in Rangpur, and has since written several books on the history of districts in the Rangpur Division.[45] They are available only in print, but are a logical place to look for more information on this topic. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stronge Oppose. This article find on Banglapedia. This is Bangladeshi encyclopedia. Prodipto Deloar (Talk • Contribute) 02:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and History. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time for LaundryPizza's deletion sorting to garner some input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Calcutta Football League. Discarding the "keep" vote from a certain IPv6 user which cites WP:ITSIMPORTANT. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Calcutta Football League

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

Reviewed under New Page patrol. Stats-only article with one source. Does not pass wp:GNG or wp:Nsports North8000 (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The league happened in the pre internet era and I am sure it's difficult to find the same online. When I created the article, I have mentioned that, the article is based on a page from The Sportstar. I hope sports loving editors will support this page. Rajeshbieee (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calcutta Football League. No independent notability. Giant Snowman 11:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Asia's oldest football league and it has (should have) independent page for each season. Rajeshbieee (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Calcutta Football League. Doesn't appear to be enough for independent notability for a season article. Only one source provided.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 06:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am surprised to see this article. As an Indian football lover, this page is very much informative and you can't get it from anywhere. It is important to have all seasons updated with these type of info. Benny2409:4072:594:DB0D:6D6B:4414:94FC:C17F (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide multiple sources discussing this season in depth to show a passing of WP:GNG if you want this kept Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Condense and redirect to Calcutta Football League Adding recommendation. Already gave current critique as nominator. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Updated two important references and this one ^[1] is very important. Requesting @Titodutta to check the same.Rajeshbieee (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://twitter.com/MB_ELibrary/status/1493184006568828928

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Calcutta Football League - severe lack of sourcing and I'm not convinced by the WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES arguments made. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Shah Bukhari

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

This article is a full promo and there is nothing that suggests notability. According to only one significant article about him in Greater Kashmir, he ran for Legislative Assembly elections several times, but did he even win? I fail to find any sources. This fails GNG, and there is nothing that helps WP:NPOL being met. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 11:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Islam, and India. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 11:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Norm and It has a lot of copyrighted stuffs which I removed. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor who created the article says that the newspaper copied the material from Wikipedia and, from what I can see they are correct. Wikipedia's content predates the news report by a couple of years. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well RP, then this article has been a blatant OR piece ever since it has existed on this encyclopedia. We do not have any other sources that verify this information, apart from the Greater Kashmir piece, which is interestingly a copy-paste newspaper piece of this very Wikipedia article. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 10:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was only about the copyvio. The rest is ...! --RegentsPark (comment) 12:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's no discussion, but the article is entirely unsourced, which means WP:V mandates deletion. Sandstein 16:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Anthony's English School, Ambajogai

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

Couldn't find sources for this WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since this article was created. Previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One Mic Stand

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

Fails WP:GNG. Impossibly poorly referenced advert for Amazon Prime TV show. Likely Fancruft. WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to and add details to List of Amazon India originals#Comedy Does need better sourcing to remain an article. I have moved the article to One Mic Stand at the very least to meet titling standards. Nate • (chatter) 06:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems a reasonable television article about a show that has had its second season back in October-November so its not an obvious advert. Better references would help but refs 2, 4 and 6 are not as bad as the nominator suggests, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do definitely disagree with the ADVERT/FANCRUFT article suggested by the nom; compared to truly cruft-polluted articles for Zee, Sony and Colors soaps and dramas, this is hardly at the levels of those articles at all. Nate • (chatter) 00:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Refs in the article are useless, but on searching elsewhere I find it to meet WP:GNG based on these sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] Hemantha (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Duggal, Deepansh. "Shashi Tharoor | 'One Mic Stand': Shashi Tharoor calls out PM Modi, speaks millennial lingo; his stand-up act becomes a massive hit". The Economic Times.
^ Das, Shreemayee (21 October 2021). "One Mic Stand writers room on making stand-up sets for celebrities, and training them to be 'losers' on stage-Entertainment News , Firstpost". Firstpost.
^ Jha, Lata (14 October 2021). "Karan Johar, Chetan Bhagat in new comedy special on Amazon Prime". mint.
^ Parasuraman, Prathyush (22 October 2021). "One Mic Stand Season 2 On Amazon Prime Video Review: Comedy That Can Be Easily Ranked From Most To Least Charming". Film Companion.
^ "One Mic Stand: Shashi Tharoor, Taapsee Pannu take the stage for comedy special". The News Minute. 14 November 2019.

Keep – Meet's WP:GNG. Here's another source from The Hindu that provides significant coverage. Also, the article does not have a promotional tone. It is not pitching to readers to view the show, it is not interlaced with promotional buzzwords, and it is not extolling the show. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - such coverage as there is is not independent of the subject, being essentially publicity packed as interview or article. Not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Springnuts (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The hindu ref above is PR and and lot of the above is PR, e.g. Mint. What is fintech company hosting an advert. Seems to mostly primary. I'm not seeing any real secondary coverage that is not being paid for. scope_creep^Talk 16:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The Hindu article I posted above is a bylined news article written by two staff writers. This is not a press release or public relations piece, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the title of the article, in which links are only present for the article itself and a couple of copies/mirrors of the original article. Conversely, press releases typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. The difference is typically glaring when utilizing such searches. I also doubt that the article was "paid for", particularly without any proof of this being provided; all that has been provided to qualify this claim is proof by assertion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that Mint, it's Mint (newspaper) from Hindustan Times' publisher. That article has a by-line and some independent content like mentions of past controversies. I agree that it wouldn't be sufficient on it's own, but in combination with other sources, I thought it had value towards establishing GNG. On the advert point, I disagree, per Northamerica1000's reasoning. Hemantha (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more obvious consensus on whether the subject passes WP:N
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources now in article and mentioned above here, including [46] (10 lengthy paragraphs), [47], a very lengthy article that made financial/political news, and [48] a very lengthy article. These are very significant coverage. This show has been successful in both India with it's billion-plus population and the United States. The article needs improvement, but not only do sources WP:NEXIST to show notability via WP:GNG, there are plenty that are now in the article. Jacona (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: disagree that this coverage is:

independent

- sources 1 and 3 read as press release dressed up as interview -eg: "When Sapan Verma first came up with the idea of One Mic Stand four years ago, it wasn’t a feasible project for multiple reasons ..."; “We were all YouTubers back then"While getting these celebrities would have been easy, we wondered how he managed to get Shashi Tharoor to take up the challenge. “That, I think was our biggest luck. So not many know but a few years back ..."

significant -

- source 2 is only peripherally about the show; it's substantial coverage about an MP.

Springnuts (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riju Jhunjhunwala

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

Biography of living person who does not satisfy general notability or political notability. Both a draft and an article have been created, possibly to prevent moving the article into draft space. None of the references in the article are independent significant coverage. They include passing mentions, an interview, and profiles of his company and his foundation. It has not been necessary to check reliability of sources, but many of them are in the Times of India, which is not considered reliable, but it has not been necessary to check reliability of sources, because they do not pass the independent secondary significant coverage test.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Myneta.info	A profile of political candidate information	Yes	No	Probably	No
2	EconomicTimes of Times of India	Long story, but did not find mention of subject	Yes	No, might be a passing mention	Probably not	No
3	WSJ.com	Company profile listing subject as chairman	Yes	No	Yes	No
4	EconomicTimes of Times of India	Did not find mention of subject	Yes	No, might be a passing mention	Probably not	No
5	Indianexpress.com	Story about Panama Papers, passing mention of subject	Yes	No, passing mention	Yes	Yes
6	EconomicTimes of Times of India	Passing mention of subject in long story	Yes	No, passing mention	Probably not	No
7	EconomicTimes of Times of India	404 error		No
8	Business Standard	Profile of subject's company	Yes	No	Yes	No
9	EconomicTimes of Times of India	Another corporate profile	Yes	No	Probably not	No
10	EconomicTimes of Times of India	An interview with the subject	No	Yes	Probably not	No
11	DaijiWorld	Profile of foundation established by subject	Yes	Not of subject	?	No
12	Jawahar Foundation	Web site of subject's foundation	No	Not of subject		No
13	The Times of India	News story about an election which the subject ran in and lost	Yes	No	Mostly not	Yes
14	The Times of India	Story about his wedding	Yes	Not with respect to GNG	Probably not	No
15	News.abplive.com	Story about his wedding	Yes	Not with respect to GNG	?	No

The draft has 8 footnotes, which are mostly the same as in the article, and a URL dump, which has not been checked.

Either the article can be simply deleted, or the draft can be deleted and the article moved into draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Business, and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom's detailed examination. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per available Significant coverage, the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Below is the list of published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. And passes WP:THREE.

https://myneta.info/loksabha2019/candidate.php?candidate_id=11147 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/stocks-that-may-not-have-achche-din/articleshow/69464219.cms https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/IN/XNSE/RSWM/company-people/executive-profile/86357100 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/elections/lok-sabha/india/13-of-25-seats-in-rajasthan-to-go-to-polls-on-monday-115-candidates-in-fray/articleshow/69083194.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-products/garments-/-textiles/pli-for-man-made-fibre-technical-textile-to-boost-sectors-growth-says-rswm-cmd/articleshow/83430692.cms https://www.business-standard.com/company/heg-251/info https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/panama-papers-bhilwara-group-panama-papers-india-list-mossack-fonseca-bhilwara-group-of-companies-2785032/ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/heg-ltd/infocompanymanagement/companyid-13630.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ground-level-problems-can-enable-development/articleshow/74795027.cms https://www.daijiworld.com/news/newsDisplay?newsID=936764 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/elections/lok-sabha-elections-2019/rajasthan/news/songs-music-dance-to-woo-voters-in-ajmer/articleshow/68772828.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/events/delhi/A-grand-wedding-reception/articleshow/6002713.cms https://news.abplive.com/movies/salman-khan-in-bina-kaks-daughter-amritas-wedding-throwback-pics-is-something-you-cant-miss-1001809 https://www.newsnationtv.com/india/news/jawahar-foundation-empowering-women-in-rajathan-for-a-brighter-future-258168.html
Thefinaldestiny (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after analysis of all the references provided by the creator, i can find few significant coverage that passes WP:THREE and i can say the subject passes WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per above article passes WP:ANYBIO. MickyShy (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sources provided don't help exactly. Several WP:TOI sources aren't explicitly reliable. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 13:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable in the sources as examined. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets Wikipedia's WP:RS. There are many sources which are independently written these are in published reliable sources. 1. The Wall Street Journal - It is a general reliable sources as discussed in Perennial sources, 2 Indian Express resource accepted as reliable per WP:INDIANEXP. 3. Economic Times considered as generally reliable and notable. And passes WP:THREE. JoyStick101 (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The keep votes simply repeat the same links questioned in the source analysis without explaining why. Of the WP:THREE sources provided in the previous vote, WSJ is a simple company listing; ET articles are interviews and IE just a quote. Hemantha (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After doing a close analysis of all the references i would go with Robert McClenon. And changing my vote to Delete. DMySon (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to source analysis by Robert McClenon. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: Struck various sock !votes, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GermanKity. --Blablubbs (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: DMySon is a sock of GermanKitty and was blocked today, 3 May 2022. He reviewed his own article (this article) on New Page Patrol. Reverted. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable in the sources as examined.--Whiteguru (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Robert's excelent source analysis NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Nom's source analysis. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prajesh Sen

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The sources are not valuable. Kadı Message 21:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, and India. Kadı Message 21:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly remove the deletion notice from the page -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajesh_Sen

The page should not be a deletion candidate. The person is active and page is also active as well. not sure the criteria for deletion selection. Please do the needful. Strangerqwer (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajesh_Sen should not be a candidate for deletion. Not sure what is the reason for selecting this page for the same. kindly remove the deletion notice from the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangerqwer (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't examined the sources but this is a director of several films with articles on Wikipedia. There should be coverage of his work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough media coverage for this filmmaker and thus passes WP:FILMMAKER. MickyShy (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above subject passes WP:FILMMAKER.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Vinod Mehra

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Disputed CSD and disputed edit to become a redirect to Baazaar. Created by sockpuppet after master's block. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dhirenmb. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is worth staying. This actor has also played the role of writer, director and composer for a few short films. He also happens to be son of a very very successful Indian actor. Thanks, Vikram Maingi (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every single ref is an interview. Primary sources don't count towards notability per WP:BASIC. Hemantha (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 00:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suryamal Mishran Shikhar Award

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

While Suryamal Misran is notable, there's no evidence this prize is. Article creator is not inclined to fix the problems in draft space, so we are here. References are not in depth and simply seem to verify a recipient and the award's existence. A merger to Mishran would also be fine Star Mississippi 01:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, Awards, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The award is notable. It is one of the top awards in Rajasthan literature conferred by Rajasthani Bhasha Sahitya and Sanskriti Akademi which is the official government body for Rajasthani language by state of Rajasthan. Other than Sahitya Akademi awards for Rajasthani which is Union government body, this is the only other government recognized body.

Since its a Rajasthani language award, its hard to find sources in this language other than news articles when it is conferred on someone.

The official website is "सूर्यमल्ल मीसण शिखर पुरस्कार though its not properly maintained. Finally, it would be better to add it as a section to Suryamal Misran article for now, better sources might be avaialble in future. Krayon95 (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - An article should speak for itself and explain why the subject is notable, and this one does not. The read cannot be expected to check all of the references. The article has been reference-bombed, which makes it difficult for a reviewer to check all of the references, but the reviewer should not be expected to check all of the references. (The originator may identify between three and five sources to check, but should also clarify in the article why the award is notable.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start this article originally but translated it from Hindi Wikipedia. Since then, more than 25 sources have been added also referencing the awards for the recipient list. This award was started in 1985 and has been covered in books and news sources:

Dutt, K. C. (1999). Who's who of Indian Writers: 1999 : In 2 Vol. Vol. 1 A-M. Sahitya Akademi. p. 1168. ISBN 978-81-260-0873-5.
Rājasthāna vārshikī (in Hindi). Pañcagaṅgā Prakāśana. 1988. p. 13.
Aṇuvrata (in Hindi). Bālacandra Jaina. 2006. p. 38.
Hindī sāhityakāra sandarbha kośa (in Hindi). Hindī Sāhitya Niketana. 1997. p. 136. ISBN 978-81-85139-29-6.
Kanhaiyālāla Seṭhiyā By Kanhaiyālāla Seṭhiyā, Rādhādevī Bhāloṭiyā, Kanhaiyālāla Ojhā · 1989

These are standard books and also prove the early coverage of the award since its beginning. Again, the award is notable and is one of the top-one for Rajasthani language given by Rajasthan Governement official body. Krayon95 (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Also the sources are mostly in non english languages, there are enough reliable sources provided on the page, although a few are blogs and a couple of exam preparation books which I removed for being not reliable, the rest look pretty good. Since the award is given by the government, government websites are reliable for this, which is what are provided in it. On a cursory glance hindi sources looks good and reliable for such a topic. Even then if notability issue is raised then it can even be merged with Suryamal Misran. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S. Bethannan

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

This individual does not seem to meet WP:NPOL or the GNG. Municipal chairmen are not presumptively notable under NPOL, and I cannot find significant coverage in independent reliable sources: the cited sources do not reference Bethannan at all (in fact, they seem to have been copied from an unrelated article), and my fairly exhaustive WP:BEFORE search in English and Tamil didn't identify anything beyond a few passing mentions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I responded earlier, but could not see that now.

There is a open air auditorium named after Mr. S.Bethannan, next to the historic landmark - Thanjavur Big temple Refer - https://maps.mapmyindia.com/place-bethannan+open+air+auditorium-balaganapathy+nagar-thanjavur-tamil+nadu-613009-87T325@zdata=MTAuNzgzNjUzKzc5LjEzMTcxNisxNys4N1QzMjUrKw==ed
Currently not all Tamilnadu Government websites carry the list of past municipal chairmans, hence could not refer any government websites.@

Cmanimaran (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Satguru Mata Sudiksha

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

Fails WP:GNG. There are many religious movements and many leaders of religious movements. I aim unable to determine what she is notable for in a Wikipedia sense. That she appears to be a decent human being is excellent, but I cannot see that an article n Wikipedia is merited. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source.

The article has more than the minimum threshold in both English and Indian sources and so should be retained.

There are many leaders of religious movements but those leaders do not necessarily have references in mainstream media and so would not be eligible for an entry into Wikipedia. ES (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As ES pointed out she does seem to meet WP:GNG. --WestCD (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination doesn't seem to advance any reason for deletion except that OP doesn't think this person deserves an article. But the SIGCOV is here and so are the sources. Atchom (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed deletions

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Redirects for deletion

MFD discussion debates

Other deletion discussions

[1] 
This tragic documentary series tells the stories of Dalit students who were driven to suicide Scroll.in

Suicide by Dalit students in 4 years The Hindu

BEYOND POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT: CASTE DYNAMICS AND ACCESS TO MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IN INDIA Jayasree Subramanian Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Hyderabad, India

If there’s no caste bias, why are Dalit students killing themselves? Hindustan Times

If IITs had more Dalit professors, would Aniket Ambhore be alive? Business Standard

The mythology of the Dalit student suicide Firstpost

Casteism in Education SystemDr. Shashi Nautiyal Dept. of History, J.V. Jain College, Saharanpur, UP, India

If IITs had more Dalit professors, would Aniket Ambhore be alive? Zee News

Rohith Vemula's Suicide Triggered a New Political Wave The Wire (India)

Further reading on Dalits and India's caste system The Globe and Mail

The Death of Merit Countercurrents.org

2,400 students dropped out of IITs in 2 years, nearly half were SC, ST, OBC ThePrint

[2] This tragic documentary series tells the stories of Dalit students who were driven to suicide Scroll.in

[3] Suicide by Dalit students in 4 years The Hindu

[4] BEYOND POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT: CASTE DYNAMICS AND ACCESS TO MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IN INDIA Jayasree Subramanian Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Hyderabad, India

[5] If there’s no caste bias, why are Dalit students killing themselves? Hindustan Times

[6] If IITs had more Dalit professors, would Aniket Ambhore be alive? Business Standard

[7] The mythology of the Dalit student suicide Firstpost

[8] Casteism in Education SystemDr. Shashi Nautiyal Dept. of History, J.V. Jain College, Saharanpur, UP, India

[9] If IITs had more Dalit professors, would Aniket Ambhore be alive? Zee News

[10] Rohith Vemula's Suicide Triggered a New Political Wave The Wire (India)

[11] Further reading on Dalits and India's caste system The Globe and Mail

[12] The Death of Merit Countercurrents.org

[13] 2,400 students dropped out of IITs in 2 years, nearly half were SC, ST, OBC ThePrint

[2] Srivastava, Sumit S. (2007). "Violence and Dalit Women's Resistance in Rural Bihar". Indian Anthropologist. 37 (2): 31–44. ISSN 0970-0927.

[3] Wilson, Kalpana (January 1999). "Patterns of accumulation and struggles of rural labour: Some aspects of Agrarian change in Central Bihar". Journal of Peasant Studies. 26 (2–3): 316–354. doi:10.1080/03066159908438710.

[4] Misra, Amaresh (1995). "Fresh Life for Uttarakhand Movement". Economic and Political Weekly. 30 (2): 82–83. ISSN 0012-9976.

[5] ttps://twitter.com/MB_ELibrary/status/1493184006568828928

[6] Duggal, Deepansh. "Shashi Tharoor | 'One Mic Stand': Shashi Tharoor calls out PM Modi, speaks millennial lingo; his stand-up act becomes a massive hit". The Economic Times.

[7] Das, Shreemayee (21 October 2021). "One Mic Stand writers room on making stand-up sets for celebrities, and training them to be 'losers' on stage-Entertainment News , Firstpost". Firstpost.

[8] Jha, Lata (14 October 2021). "Karan Johar, Chetan Bhagat in new comedy special on Amazon Prime". mint.

[9] Parasuraman, Prathyush (22 October 2021). "One Mic Stand Season 2 On Amazon Prime Video Review: Comedy That Can Be Easily Ranked From Most To Least Charming". Film Companion.

[10] "One Mic Stand: Shashi Tharoor, Taapsee Pannu take the stage for comedy special". The News Minute. 14 November 2019.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 == India ==
 <!--New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raunaq Ahuja}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Merit (3rd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rakesh Upadhyay}}