Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:48, 2 July 2012

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

See also: Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics

Note: The wubbot removes and archives closed debates from this page a few times a day, so there is no need to manually remove such pages.

India

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edewcate

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

Non-notable company, no reliable independent sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. WWGB (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Googling turned up absolutely nothing useful. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have created a separate AfD page for Satyadev chada at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satyadev chada. Msnicki (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. - Mailer Diablo 10:41, 6 July 2012 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aasman (2013)

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

Unreferenced, violates WP:CRYSTAL Man way 17:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 16:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no reliable sources in the article, should be deleted as WP:CRYSTAL.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom & WP:NFF. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closing Admin: The creator had moved the article to Not Confirmed and that redirect needs to be deleted irrespective of whether this article stays or gets deleted. (Ofcourse unless the film is now named "Not Confirmed"!) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2012 (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phadke Road

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

No sign of notability.No references at all. Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 10:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has no context and fails WP:OBVIOUS. Normally this could be remedied but here the topic doesn't appear in any way encyclopaedic and there is nothing to work with. In fact the nominator is being generous: the article is probably liable for WP:SPEEDY as A1: "no context". --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While obviously an article on a road could meet the general notability guidelines, equally obviously this one doesn't, as it contains nothing other than unsubstantiated personal opinions. George Ponderevo (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as failing WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 15:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Delete Wp:notability is not defined by the existence of an article on Wikipedia or the content of any such article. This article has no notability problems, because no one has provided any evidence that the topic fails notability, and we assume good faith that such exists. This article can be deleted because it fails WP:V, as per our WP:Deletion policy. The real problem here, IMO, is with the WMF, when this article should not have been allowed in mainspace. Unscintillating (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't for anyone here to provide evidence that the aticle fails notability. Rather, it is the job of the article's editors to make the case for notability, which clearly hasn't been done, and from my searching would be difficult; WP:V is neither here nor there. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cited a policy. What is the source of your opinion? Unscintillating (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR, like WP:V, is a content policy; not a notability guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may of course choose to support the article's deletion on the grounds of notability, but I'm supporting its deletion on the grounds of original research. I really don't understand why you're arguing the toss with me, as we're both in favour of deletion. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"no one has provided any evidence that the topic fails notability, and we assume good faith that such exists" - No, I'm sorry, Wikipedia does not work that way. If you honestly think it does then I strongly suggest you re-read WP:N and WP:NOR - and also read WP:ONUS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reason requires evidence, otherwise it is opinion. If I have mis-stated a policy or guideline, then please identify the text, this will in turn allow a reasoned discussion to follow. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Wikilinks previously cited, WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:ONUS (better known as WP:BURDEN), are all part of the content policies. The lede of WP:N states, "notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article". There is more at WP:NNC, "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content". This is also a handy place to find Category:Wikipedia_content_policies. There is more at WP:NRVE, "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Hope this helps. Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If independent reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article cannot be produced, and in this case they haven't been and likely can't be, then the subject by definition fails the notability test. Your "good faith" assumption that such sources must exist, just that nobody's yet managed to find them, while it may earn you brownie points at the Gates of Heaven, doesn't here on terra firma. But as I've already said, notability isn't really the issue here; the article in its curent state is simply an essay, completely unsuitable for a serious encyclopedia. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:N guideline says that an absence of citations does not indicate non-notability. Therefore, there is no failure of the notability test. This is also known by the phrase, "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Saying that sources "must" exist is not what I said, I said that in the absence of evidence, we assume as per good faith that they exist. An absence of evidence no more tells us that sources exist, than it tells us that they don't exist. Also, I agree with the previous comment, "notability isn't really the issue here". Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I wasn't referring to an absence of citations, I was referring to an absence of independent reliable sources that address this topic. In any event, as we seem to be broadly in agreement there's seems little point in prolonging this discussion. George Ponderevo (talk)

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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manit Dani

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

PROD tag removed with no explanation. Original reason given for PROD (with which I agree): "It's not entirely clear what it is he's supposedly notable for, and he doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO." Singularity42 (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as editor who PROD'd the article. Note that the same anon IP just removed the AFD (which I've since reverted); I expect to see a lot more of this before this AFD closes. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 20:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has a little bit of local interest coverage but nothing significant. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable yet. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2012 (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BIG Star IMA Awards

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

Indian music awards that started in 2011. Has not received any coverage in news. Fails WP:GNG. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per multiple news articles in Google News archives, including The Economic Times ([1]) and Times of India ([2]). Cavarrone (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. TV show owned by Reliance Broadcasting, completed their second show this June. Article offers one cite, to the show's own website. Yes, there are Google hits--press releases and trivial mentions (such as Cavarrone's two examples), and various bits from non-reliable sources. Could not find the substantial coverage from reliable sources needed to evidence notability. If anyone can find something better amid the fluff, happy to look again. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maanvi Gagroo

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

This subject fails WP:GNG for lack of multiple reliable sources giving significant coverage, namely on which to base encyclopedic biographical content. She also fails WP:ANYBIO (received a well-known and significant award or honor or made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record) and WP:NACTOR (significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions). Right now, it seems WP:TOOSOON to clearly establish notability. JFHJr (㊟) 07:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The subject has been mentioned in critical reviews (1) and acted in a film that was widely recognized. WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO are merely additional criteria and not a sole indicator of notability as quoted: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included." Google News search indicate a few hits which do provide encyclopedic information that would be sufficient enough for a stub article. Secret of success (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — You've misrepresented the standard: WP:GNG is the floor, the basic standard, and it is not met. Let's see a full quote from WP:NACTOR: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Care to re-factor, without presenting only one half of an alternative criterion? JFHJr (㊟) 18:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are opposing my comment purely on the thought that the subject is not satisfying WP:GNG. That is not right. When he/she has received critical acclaim and acted in a notable film, what more do you need for satisfying the standard? Secret of success (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:ACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. While the GNG is easiest tool for determing notability, that guideline is not the only tool. It serves the project for this stub to remain and grow and improve over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:27, 17 July 2012 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Petal Awards

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

In-house awards function held by an Indian TV channel Colors for their own shows. Has no notability in the outside world. Fails WP:GNG. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. Though there is sufficient coverage, there is no use of having an article if the awards are purely commercial for their own company. Secret of success (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, quick Google search does come up with news articles on the subject. [3] - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only routine coverage from an in-house awards ceremony. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2012 (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) —Hue Sat Lum 00:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rape in Northeast India

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

Originally speedied by RaviC claiming of WP:COI, contested by Recorderz who was reverted as sock. Speedied declined by Magog the Ogre who PROD'd with the rational "This article currently looks like a POV-pushing nightmare" and prod-2 by Vibhijain with "The article has many controversial statements which desperately need sources". Prod contested by Shrigley who "believe a neutral article on this topic can exist". So here we are. KTC (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KTC (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what's your rationale for believing this should be permanently deleted? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have one. It's an article that I saw has legitimate concerns expressed by multiple users, including the person who contested the PROD. I felt it was best for this to go to AfD for a community discussion instead of quietly removed from CAT:PROD after a contest. (And before anyone say, deletion rationale had been advanced in the nomination even if they weren't originally from me, so this fails WP:SK#1 even if DBigXray & Vibhijain hasn't posted already.) KTC (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Human rights abuses in Assam, Human rights abuses in Manipur: Looking at the article itself, I don't see any justification for outright deletion. The tone could use some refinement, certainly, as regards NPOV, the but the facts are largely sourced by very reputable sources. If anything I just wonder if the content is in the right place. It seems that, as we already have pages for human rights abuses in this region, the content could find a home there and be more accessible to readers and integrated into the larger context. Well documented mass rape or rape as a terrorist weapon certainly passes notability guidelines, but I just don't know if its practical or desirable to have an article for every occupation in modern history where it has occurred. That being said, whether on one article or another, this is clearly keepable content (though again, it could use some tweaking). Snow (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, upon closer examination of the article I've found there's at least one instance of a claim that was not verified by the source that was attached to it (though the source was relevant to the article at large), while several other controversial claims are not supported by sources at all. Easily addressed issues but better sooner than later. Snow (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, with several reliable sources being present which discuss rape in the ongoing conflict in Northeast India. This article should be kept as it documents human rights abuses concerning rape and has a similar purpose as many other location-related rape articles. Some things are easily verifiable and corroborate with other sources. Cleanup or content dispute on a few things is itself not a reason to start am AfD. Mar4d (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~comment WP:POV article written as a WP:COATRACK against Indian forces by cherry picking incidents of rape and adding in the article. Just a cursory look on the infobox explains it all. WP:COI also seems to be valid here. Also agree with User:Magog the Ogre that this is a POV-pushing nightmare--DBig Xray 05:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

as several people feel the WP:COATRACK needs to be kept, so will edit the article accordingly--DBig Xray 22:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet Magog does not seem to support the delete, or at least he has not endorsed it despite participating here. Probably because he is aware that, per AfD guidelines: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." POV issues are not sufficient reason to delete; the article has been established in both notability and verifiability in its sources and no one here (even those who claim that the original contributors have cherry-picked sources to present the facts in a certain light) really seems to disagree that the events (or at least the claims) are significant. If anyone feels the current material presents a lop-sided account of the events in question, then I'd postulate they probably are familiar enough with the events to know of alternative and balancing sources. Acquiring them and adapting the article's content is probably no more time consuming than engaging in an AfD which, honestly, approaches SNOW territory. No condescension intended. Snow (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written completely in a non-neutral manner. I though that someone will neutralize the article before removing the PROD tag, but that doesn't happened. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that it is written non-neutral at the moment is really not a reason for deletion. More so a reason to keep and re-write it. Its a notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies GNG, just needs to be re written. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see what the "pov pushing nightmare" is article is well sourced with neutral western sources which are highly respected and it seems to be a very notable issue Dozenlegalrty (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)This account has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously sourced and notable topic. No attempts of discussion have been made on talkpage by any editor who has an opinion on neutrality. AFD is not clean up. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean it up for neutrality. It's notable and sourced. Vertium (talk to me) 02:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is non-neutral but that's not a reason for deletion, but in fact it's a reason for us to improve the article. Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, current state of the article says why it was created, to serve as a WP:COATRACK the edits to rectify it will be reverted and we will have an AFD 2 soon.--DBig Xray 14:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not nearly coatrack. It addresses genuine cases. If you think there are other perpetrators too, add them by all means... but if you want to remove the current ones, that would be censorship as the material is sourced. If there's another objection that belongs to the article talk page. Deletion is not for this purpose. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adequately referenced. A good candidate for cleanup and a possible merge if the subject matter is deemed too specific and it is thought that the information would be more effective as part of a broader article. But I don't see a reason to kill it outright. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2012 (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 05:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shambhavi Patel

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

A homeopathy practitioner and Executive Director of Welling Healthcare. Only primary refs in the article. Unable to find any independent, reliable references about her. Prod was contested in that other references will be forthcoming. None so far have been added. Bgwhite (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG, BLP also, nothing suitable as a secondary reference, not adequately sourced either. Needs removing. BarkingFish 22:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY and not helpful. I was unable to find any better sources, poking through the usual Google searches. Further, the article offers little reason why the subject even might be notable. There are probably thousands of young doctors world-wide with similar or better credentials. Msnicki (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Secret of success (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Practitioner in private practice, no indication that she passes WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2012 (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 05:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tu Hi Mera

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

The article does have several references online but few of them provide encyclopedic information for the article to pass WP:NSONG. Secret of success (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No encyclopedic value. No critical acclaims. And personally i don't think it would win any over the year. In case it does, we are always open. Until then delete. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 00:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSONG--DBig Xray 13:35, 2 July 2012 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Haath Main

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

Fails WP:NSONG: "Articles which are unlikely to grow beyond stubs should not have a separate article." Secret of success (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not even a slightest hint of notability. It's existence is no reason for it's existence here. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 00:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Des Rangila

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

Fails WP:NSONG: "Articles which are unlikely to grow beyond stubs should not have a separate article." Secret of success (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not even a slightest hint of notability. It's existence is no reason for it's existence here. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:35, 9 July 2012 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fanaa For You

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

Fails WP:NSONG: "Articles which are unlikely to grow beyond stubs should not have a separate article." Secret of success (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not even a slightest hint of notability. It's existence is no reason for it's existence here. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 00:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not deserve separate article as per WP:NSONG. -Anbu121 (talk me) 08:16, 6 July 2012 (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 05:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mourya Re

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

The article does not pass WP:NSONG which says "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Secret of success (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable and significant enough to have separate article. - Vivvt^Talk 16:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Vivvt. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 00:57, 1 July 2012 (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. Clear consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rubina Dilaik

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

Indian TV actress who acted in one TV show. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it get 45 hits on Google News Search, with most of them being reputed newspapers? Secret of success (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will list out few. Obviously the ones in my favour.

Nine TV stars talk of what they love abt Diwali, Zee TV's new logo came out & subject danced, Holi celebration shown in the show, Zee Rishtey Awards and subject was present, Season 2 is coming, season 2 is here, Season 2 is awesome, Gold Awards presented and subject was present, Aman Verma has negative role, Fire on the set, Television awards ceremony and subject was present, Zee's entertainment evening and subject danced, Cant summarize this, you have to read. My summery will be "TRIVIA"., Article on whats TV fashion, Benaf is coming on show, Aman is coming on show, Season 2 is here, season 2 is back with bang. Listed out 18 out of 25. & hey, i got only 25, not 45. But i dont consider any of them good enough. Good chunck of those are about the show, or subject's presence in some ceremony. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see notability through these four articles exclusively about the actress: [4], [5], [6], [7] --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This person passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found and offered showing a meeting of WP:GNG. Stub article could use improvement certainly, but AFD is not for WP:CLEANUP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question (not just for Michael): Isn't this basically a biography? What are we gonna write in it about notability? That she acted in two seasons of a show, married her co-star & went on honeymoon to Mauritius? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Its "basically" a biography. We share what sources offer for us to share. Or do you mean that we should specificaly report IN the Wikipeidia article that she meets our notability criteria by being the recipient of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for various aspects of her life? We report what the nedia has reported... presenting a neutral and sourced encyclopedic entry for her, based upon coverage in those reliable sources. HOW to present that information, even for someone famous for being famous, is a matter for regular editng... and such "difficulties" do not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean that we should write that she meets our GNG criteria. But when a reader comes across this article and says, "Hmm! Lets see what this lady is notable for for being included in an encyclopedia"; what are we giving that reader? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... one would think we would simply tone down what the press has written to neutralize it, and give our readers exactly what would be expected from a centralized place for information: That she was in Nachle Ve with Saroj Khan, was the lead character in Choti Bahu] and Choti Bahu 2, that she was both Miss Shimla and Miss North and, if verifiable, we also include elements of her personal life such as where she was born, where she was educated, and whom she married. We do not always have momentous things such as first man on the moon or inventor of polio vaccine as assertions of notability... and indeed have far more lesser but none-the-less acceptable "stub" or "start" or "c" articles than we do major when the GNG is met. That the media thinks she's a big enough deal is why she qualifies for inclusion. We share what we can verify. If her career were to stop tomorrow, we might discuss merging the article somewhere else... but it serves the project for now for this to remain and grow over time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:05, 17 July 2012 (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. Many of the delete arguments here do not relate to wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion and so have little weight, while the nominator his withdrawn support for deletion. The keep arguments demonstrate that the article meets the WP:POLITICIAN notability guideline and the copyright concerns appear to have been dealt with. Therefore there is a consensus here for keeping the article based on wikipedia's guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Kishore Shukla

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

Messed up and obviously cannot be fixed. J (t) 06:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn this article's deletion ONLY IF the user chooses to move the article to userspace, so they can fix it. --J (t) 06:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep This was a perfectly good article which one or two editors are for some reason determined to have deleted. Various methods have been tried, including repeatedly tagging for speedy deletion under speedy deletion criterion G7 (one author who has requested deletion) despite the fact that there have been contributions from many different editors, not just one, and putting a whole string of PROD templates on the article. All the references were removed, and the article was then proposed for deletion on the grounds of lacking references. The article was then "messed up", as the nominator says, leaving it in a state that was totally unfit for use as an article, but it is not true that it "obviously cannot be fixed": it can simply be reverted to an earlier version before it was messed up, and I have done that. The article was removed and put in user space, but that was a mistake, as there is a potentially usable article there, containing contributions by many editors. While the move to userspace was no doubt done in good faith, it effectively bypassed the deletion process by removing an article without discussion. It should not have been removed from article space without a chance for editors to discuss it, so I have returned it to main space. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At two points in the above comment I referred to contributions from "many" editors. That was a slip on my part: I meant to write "several", not "many". JamesBWatson (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (I'm still not convinced he's notable) — but the content is entirely the work of Ballisticizer (talk · contribs), with tags by me, and vandalism and vandalism removal. He should be able to userfy it. However, I'm beginning to suspect that (at least) Alcides86 (talk · contribs), RKS4444 (talk · contribs), Dr.pragmatist (talk · contribs), and Ballisticizer, should be blocked for WP:COMPETENCE, which would make article improvement unlikely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is, if they are different people.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep. The official sources provided adequate evidence of notability. The problem that the major contributors do not write standard English of any variety, and are all the subject's family, may make article improvement unlikely, but the factual sections about his political career, trimmed to actual facts, and rewritten in English, would make a reasonable core of an article. (As per WP:NPA, there's no shame in not speaking English. I'm sure the contributors all speak English much better than I speak their native langauge. This is, however, en.Wikipedia.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I am relative of the family of him, but when the real members of the family, like his sons and grand sons came to know about it, they immediately started criticizing me asking who are you to do it? this is the primary reason, secondary one is some unregistered users continuously tried to blank it thus created a lot of nuisance for us primarily by Arthur Rubin, he just kept arguing and filled up all the talk page, if the talk page entries are deleted then i will ask my co-creators not to vote for delete, However we are interested to write it from the beginning we people have the source file. Please Consider, Nothing offensive is going on. Thank You Very Much --Alcides86 (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Members of his family not liking the article is not a reason for deletion under Wikipedia policy. (2) Blanking by unregistered users can be dealt with by blocking the IPs (as has been done) and by page protection if necessary: it is certainly not a reason for deletion, which just gives the vandals what they want. (3) Arthur Rubin has made constructive comments on the talk page. On the other hand, one or more other editors, using both IP addresses and accounts such as Alcides86, Ballisticizer, and Imbot, have repeatedly removed Arthur Rubin's comments without explanation, have refactored those comments to make Arthur Rubin appear to say things that he never said, and Ballisticizer has used the talk page to make personal attacks on him. I am sure that you must be aware of all that. None of this, however, is a reason for deleting the article, by any stretch of the imagination. (4) I can't begin to think why removing the talk page comments that you don't like might be considered to remove reasons for deletion of the article. (4) If you wish to improve the article then why don't you go ahead and do so? That is not a reason for deleting the existing version first. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Prime creator Alcides86 (talk) is absolutely correct i concur with his views. thanks--Ballisticizer (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per JamesWatson the subject was a member of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Beohari (Vidhan Sabha constituency)[8] , a Former Speaker ,Minister in the Madhya Pradesh Government . Former members of a national, state or provincial legislature are clearly notable as per WP:Politician .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respected administrators and users, even i want it be kept but my request is just to start a new talk page for the article, otherwise 'I' specially will quit to the article Although, as per JamesBWatson (talk) the article has Good article standards but when any of us nominated it for Good Article User Arthur Rubin just Canceled it at first. we people are not so fluent in using Wikipedia like you people. The request here is just only to clear the talk page once or Article itself once deleted. I will create it with in ten minutes as i am having the source file complete. please consider the GA nomination, Talk page factor or we will loose our trust a lot. Thank You Very Much --Alcides86 (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not near to GA standards; I removed 12 Google document "sources" written by a single person which appeared unpublished, and it's not entirely (in my opinion, even mostly) written in standard English. (WP:ENGVAR doesn't include pidgin.) That's not even counting the WP:PEACOCK words. (I tagged a few of them while removing the "sources", but there are still dozens more.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still saying please consider our request of talk page or tell us the way to move merge so that it has a fresh talk page, for gods sake its our right here we contributed a lot thanks --Ballisticizer (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tell us the way to clear the talk page or, how to merge to article with the same title THANK YOU --RKS4444 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I agree to administrators but at the same time we have also a great share in contribution, if the article is not deleted to be rewritten to a new page or talk page is cleared, i will suggest to create a new article with similar title and then will PRAY to you people to merge this on that, ultimately to have a fresh talk page, i beg your considerations Thanking you --Dr.pragmatist (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that either of those two posts gives a reason for deletion. As I said above, if you can improve the article then you can do so by editing it, without first deleting. "I can write a better article on the subject" is a reason for improving the article, not a reason for deleting it. Unfortunately, the comments in those two posts about the talk page, together with Alcides86's remark "if the talk page entries are deleted then i will ask my co-creators not to vote for delete", are making me wonder if the primary reason for asking for deletion is a wish for the talk page to disappear from view, to hide the shenanigans that have gone on there, that I mentioned above. I sincerely hope that is not the purpose of seeking deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Withdrawn deletion nomination~~ - I think the article is fine now. :) --J (t) 15:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that is no longer grounds for a speedy keep, as others have !voted DELETE, for reasons that I have been unable to translate into reasons consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I don't really understand what the problem was with this article in the first place. Although there is not that much available about him free, online, and in English, what I can find clearly indicates that the subject was a state-level legislator in India and thus notable under WP:POLITICIAN -- and anyway, sources are not required to be available free, online, or in English to be used. There are certainly some problems with the writing in this article but they can be dealt with through normal editing. I also do not understand some editors' problems with the talk page of this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am withdrawing my "keep" recommendation because much of this article was copied word for word from one of its sources, [9]. The article resembled the source even more closely yesterday, but I had rewritten some of the sentences for grammatical reasons before I realized the possible copyright violation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Removed copyright violation and it is a stub but still notable as per WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate how to resolve this copyright problem in brief. Thanks --Alcides86 (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, in spite i have edited it several times before i knew its copyright issue i suggest it to be deleted, as violated copyrights, not having sufficient resources beyond his representation of his constituency therefore cannot be expanded beyond a stub. --Dr.pragmatist (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you have already given a "delete" message: it is unhelpful to duplicate that, as it may give the misleading impression of another user saying "delete". Secondly, the fact that the article is now much shorter is not a reason for deleting it. If you, or anyone else, can expand it, then fine: if not, then we can keep the present short article. I really don't see what problem you have with that. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, per WP:POLITICIAN. There's clearly an agenda among those who are calling for deletion, and the best way to get any of their concerns taken into account would be for them to tell us exactly what their problem is. If there's anything in the talk page or its history that violates our policy on avoiding harm to living people then that can be addressed without deleting the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respected, Phil Bridger (talk) however i have already requested to above present administrators here to solve the issue of talk page, that is to restore it to the beginning for one time for Christ's sake, as this article was understood as a homage to him, but its talk page turned into some thing day by day made us to abandon ourselves from Wikipedia since we were never as fluent as you people, please consider my request for one time on moral grounds. Please consider my helpless requests, i apologize on my side, Thanks a lot --Alcides86 (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, writing a page as a "homage" is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Every time you edit Wikipedia, just under the "save" button, there is a message (admittedly a small one) which says "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Once you post content to Wikipedia you voluntarily give up control of it, and you cannot decide to have an article deleted because you want to hide what other editors have subsequently done to the page you started. It is also not at all clear what it is about the talk page that you wish to hide from public view. Is it the fact that other editors have criticised aspects of the article? Or the methods that you and your collaborators have attempted to use? Or what? Whatever it is, the fact remains that, when you write anything in Wikipedia, you cannot then have it deleted because you don't like what subsequently happens to what you have started. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy~~ Article will be once again grown under official sources arriving very soon from Govt. archives. Thank you very much --Alcides86 (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable under WP:POLITICIAN - we should therefore have an article on him, even if it's only a stub. The main motivation behind most of the above delete !votes seems to be deletion of the talkpage - that isn't, nor has it ever been, a reason to delete an article. Given the severe COI and COMPETENCE issues, I am giving serious consideration to proposing article bans for Alcides86, Dr.pragmatist, RKS4444 and Ballisticizer at AN, to allow the article to be developed by uninvolved editors. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Since some sources have been given recently seems to be found reliable and copyright issue is not there. Thanks --Dr.pragmatist (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly meets notability as a politician. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2012 (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 evidence of notability under WP:GNG, WP:POLITICAN j⚛e decker ^talk 03:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Sharma

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

A civil engineer and Indian Legislative Assembly candidate. He was one of 20 candidates in his district of 100,000 voters. Only on ref showing he was a candidate. Unable to find any other refs, but has a common name. Prod was contested with, "Removing Proposed deletion Tag, I believe in spite of not having sufficient references on Google, the person has maintained a state level image in philanthropy , social works, infrastructure development etc, please consider, Thank You" Bgwhite (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG for the biography. --DBig Xray 21:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He was a candidate who didn't succeed and this doesn't establish notability. →TSU ^tp* 10:57, 4 July 2012 (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Management and Development, New Delhi

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

Reason Agmat2 (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Disinformation of the Institute hence Deleting[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 27. Snotbot t • c » 18:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator didn't give much of a deletion rationale, but I don't think that that should be a reason for speedy keeping, because I can't find any verification that this is an accredited college or is otherwise notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete because it is an unremarkable company, group or organisation. See CSD A7. Adjkasi (discuss me | changes) 09:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The official website of the Post graduate college is here, It claims to be recognized by Joint Committee of AICTE, UGC, DEC, Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India. And has an A+ rating in BSchool Survey - 2010. The sources prove existence and notability for keeping the article. --DBig Xray 22:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school or college whose existence is verified. In addition to the accreditation mentioned, it receives some mentions in news articles.[10] --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single reference confirms existence, nothing more. From that just another business school. Only coverage I found [11] was coverage incidental or secondary to the topic. Does not appear notable. If is notable needs some evidence.Oranjblud (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, Oranjblud, according to Common Outcomes, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Secondary schools and beyond don't have to meet WP:ORG notability standards as long as their existence is confirmed. This is not an official policy, but it has become the usual result at AfD discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found several references to the school to demonstrate existence (and I have added 2 of the first ones I found). It may not be the most well-known of schools, but it meets the criteria for inclusion, partly as an institution of higher education which exists, and secondly for having some references at reliable independent sources PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:31, 6 July 2012 (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. T. Canens (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polu Khenpo Dorje

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

Was a BLPPROD, was removed and unreliable sources added. Fails WP:GNG Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 11:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep based upon this Google Books search. I'm going to have to do some more work, but I think this is one that's probably worth saving. LadyofShalott 05:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a look at LadyofShalott's Google Books results and wasn't particularly satisfied. Here's a list of the books listed in the Google Books search result and a little analysis of the issues:
- Blazing Splendor: The Memoirs of Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche (ISBN 9789627341568 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum) – no mention of Polu Khenpo Dorje
- Wellsprings of the Great Perfection: The Lives and Insights of the Early Masters (ISBN 9789627341574) – as far as I can tell, there's a mention on page 421 in endnote 6. If the endnote is accurate, this is one reasonably reliable source...
- Mipam on Buddha-Nature: The Ground of the Nyingma Tradition (ISBN 9780791475218) – this looks like a fine source, but says nothing about Polu Khenpo Dorje.
- Three books by Peter Dickinson, which are fictionalized retellings of religious stories (see City of Gold (book) for the sort of genre) which obviously aren't reliable sources for biographical information.
Given the issue in question is notability, we've basically got a mention in one book and some web sources that aren't particularly reliable (a blogspot and a wiki). Without some more sources, this doesn't meet WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. and move to Murder of Anuj Bidve. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 23:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anuj Bidve

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

The man was murdered. So what? A lot of people are killed. This would be a BLP1E if he wasn't dead. If he never did anything notable while alive, why should he have an article because he copped it? This criminal-kills-man stuff doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Rcsprinter (converse) 18:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REname to Murder of Anuj Bidve. The murder was widely reported when it happened and may have a long term effect on the reputation of Britain. I am not clear where the investigation of the murder has got to, but I suspect that there will be a trial in due course. Unfortunately the wheels of justice move slowly. Reporting restrictions mean that the press cannot say much at present. Keep for now. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the case has got to. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With a trial in progress, this is definitely not the point at which to decide what to do, one way or ther other. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Murder of Anuj Bidve. Very high profile case heavily covered in the British media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to name I should have given it in the first place! Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If only every murdered person covered in the press is included in Wiki. This is not the case and therefore, this person is no different. Further, the initiator of this article was perhaps in a rush to create an article with no regard for the cause of justice, which I find grossly irresponsible considering the fact that the case is still ongoing. Even if this article should be here, it should not be now (too soon). Wikipedia is not here to contravene the natural cause of justice and editors should be very careful when creating these kinds of artilces. The name of the article is also wrong which further demonstrates the hastiness in which the editor wrote this article.Tamsier (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this case is different from "every murdered person covered in the press". It has received far more coverage in the national press in both the UK and India than an "average" killing, largely because this kind of seemingly random shooting is much rarer in the UK than in some other countries, and that coverage has continued. I would add that, at least until the trial is over, the title should be "Killing of Anuj Bidve" rather than "Murder of Anuj Bidve", because there is the possibility that the court will decide that this was manslaughter rather than murder. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what we're waiting for, really. The accused denies murder but admits manslaughter (what's the difference?) so "Killing of Anuj Bidve" would be the better title. Even though I'm actually vouching for this to be deleted. But yeah. Rcsprinter (deliver) 19:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Tamsier, I really do not appreciate being called grossly irresponsible. There was no reason I could see not to create the article and some good reasons to create it (they aren't relevant to this AfD though). At that time I thought just the victim's name was appropriate, and Phil points out a good reason why murder would still be inappropriate. This was high-profile when I created it, certainly not an average killing, and we create this sort of article routinely long before a court case is settled or even begun. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Hi Dougweller, perhaps I should have been a bit more delicate and if I offended you, I'm sorry. Having sat in jury service I know the damage this can do. But I take your point and once again I apologise.Tamsier (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Thank you, that was gracious. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and rename for consistency. Case - and victim - is highly notable. --Dweller (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2012 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative Dravidian Linguistics

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

This page should be deleted as it is written like a foreign language dictionary, which Wikipedia shouldn't be. Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 10:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page should not be deleted for the following reasons:

It speaks to the gap in the literature on Wikipedia pertaining to Comparative Dravidian Linguistics which has hitherto remained unaddressed.
The inclusion of the comparative phonetic table of Dravidian words serves to illuminate the methodology of Comparative Dravidian Linguistics.
The inclusion of Tamil script in the table is in accordance with current academic research in Comparative Dravidian Linguistics which employs Tamil script as the standard script in which phonetic, and morphological research is carried out.
It is, therefore, not 'written like a foreign language dictionary' which Wikipedia certainly should not be.
It is written like any other encyclopedic entry, and designed to be edited, amended, and refined which is precisely what Wikipedia should be. -- புகழ் 11:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with the proposer's reason for deletion: this is an article about comparative linguistics, and it presents some information in the form of a table comparing languages, which is proper.

However, it does duplicate material that is either already covered or could be included in the articles Dravidian languages and Robert Caldwell, and we should consider whether this article content should be merged or deleted as unnecessary duplication. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with proposer, and this also appears to be a list WP:NOT. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does WP:NOT prohibit lists per se? That will certainly come as news to the editors of all of Wikipedia's featured lists. Angr (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing useful in this article that isn't already at Dravidian languages. Angr (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (if there's anything not redundant) into Dravidian languages. It appears to have been written in ignorance that the latter exists. (There's no separate article on Comparative Indo-European Linguistics.) — As for the standard academic usage of Tamil script, can we at least also have the standard romanisation? —Tamfang (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered the option of merging, but (1) the article is basically completely unsourced except for the uncontroversial claim that Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, and Kannada are genetically related languages, and (2) the article really has nothing useful that isn't already at Dravidian languages. The table of related forms should be deleted no matter what, because even with a romanization tables like that don't prove anything. They're actually worse than useless, because they can mislead readers into thinking they convey meaningful information, when they don't. Angr (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, given that Wikipedia is an English language encyclopedia, the chart should be romanized. As for being 'useless', it certainly is not. Enthusiasts who can read Tamil script are given easy access to comparative methodology, which is the primary analytical tool with which linguistic data from each distinct language is manipulated, and knowledge extracted. The reader can easily, and instantly see how the morphemes individually, and collectively converge, and diverge. It really is a treat to see such painstakingly meticulous work presented with such facility. -- புகழ் 16:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, in fact, they can't. A table of cognates cannot show how the comparative method works or why related forms are related. At best it shows superficial similarities, but those alone are not enough to prove that words are related. Our articles on language families are full of these tables – I'm not singling this article out by any means! – and they frankly do more harm than good in my opinion. Angr (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is nothing useful. The so called comparative study is already covered in Dravidian languages. The table just provides translation, nothing about the topic. Anbu121 (talk me) 19:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. The table is a sample of the comparative method displaying the distinct phonological, and morphological forms for the same meanings across the four primary Dravidian languages: Kannada, Telugu, Tamil, and Malayalam. Thus, given the topic being illuminated it is an instructive demonstration of the comparative method in action. -- புகழ் 16:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where is the so called 'method'? I cannot see even a single word in the article which explains the method. The table provides just translation. Anbu121 (talk me) 03:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Comparative linguistics is concerned with classifying languages according to language family through the application of the comparative method which exploits phonetic, morphological, and syntactical characteristics of the language under investigation in its analysis." The attached table illustrates how the comparative method is applied to the questions of comparative linguistics in practice. Cheers, -- புகழ் 11:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, the table shows some of the source data. —Tamfang (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the other problems, the "Comparative Phonetic Analysis" appears to be original research, as it is unsourced. Sandstein 05:51, 3 July 2012 (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. Rlendog (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Journal of Science and Technology

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

No indication of notability: no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Article was created by an individual with a clear conflict of interest: User:Indianjournal. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed per nom. Gamble2Win (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~keep~~delete Although the article was created by a COI editor, it was completely re-written within a few days of its creation. I have updated the article: it is abstracted and indexed by CAS and The Zoological Record. The journal's website also claims that it is indexed by the Science Citation Index and Scopus. I have not been able to verify that: the Thomson Reuters master journal list only mentions TZR and I cannot open the Scopus coverage list (my version of Excel is too old...). However, when I search Scopus for this journal, I don't find anything. It is possible, of course, that the journal only recently got accepted for SCI and Scopus and that these databases have not been updated yet. ~~Nevertheless, I think that the listings in CASSI and TZR are just sufficient for a keep, albeit barely.~~ Upon reflection, I don't think that inclusion in TZR and CASSI is suffiecient grounds for a keep !vote (even a weak one...) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:NJournals is an essay not a guideline or policy (although it confusingly states its a guideline in the text). It doesn't met the criteria there either due to it's dubious reliability. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mention NJournals in my !vote at all... TZR and CASSI are reliable sources under WP:GNG and both seem to think that this journal is worthy of inclusion. I think that says something. I'd like to see more, though, which is why I didn't !vote "keep" but only "weak keep". --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that TZR and CASSI are reliable sources. Note that significant coverage in reliable sources is required per WP:GNG though . IRWolfie- (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update by poster A further note. Just to point out, the journal has a dubious level of peer review and is not a reliable source for use in wikipedia except to state the opinions of individual authors. (for example see the paper Everything: Non-Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things and Living Things published by the journal in 2010 which states: "the very concept of space-time has been proved to be a mathematical misrepresentation. A unified theory of forces in nature has been proposed. The theistic Foundation of Theory of Everything also envisages the theory for living things with primary concern of the life of human beings. The characteristics of the ‘soul’ energy has been defined; besides proposal has been put forward regarding the characteristics of the ‘energies’ which being the source of life in all plants and animals. ". Since the journal is unused as a reliable source on wikipedia, WP:IAR for the purpose of providing blue links in references doesn't apply. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rather than going by WP:NJournals, I think the right guidelines for this case are WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Our current article gives the impression (belied by IRWolfie's observations above) that this is a perfectly respectable journal with full peer review. To counter this, we would need reliable sources saying it isn't, which are unavailable. So because of its inadequate level of notability, we are unable to provide an accurate and neutral article about it; I think the best way to resolve this is to just not cover it at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability beyond its own website. Some dubious material contained therein. Very broad topic area and inhomogeneous editorial board, usually an indicator of a dumping-ground. Famous _dog (c) 13:20, 27 June 2012 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zarina Sani

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

Can't find evidence she meets our criteria for notability. I do see some circuitous referencing in articles created by this editor, and note that the publisher of this person's book has only published 12 books, which seem to be also by subjects of articles created by this editor. http://openlibrary.org/publishers/Bazm_e_Seemab Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to see if there was anything out there about her and unless there's sources that aren't posted on the internet and/or in another language, there's just nothing out there to show that she meets any of the notability guidelines here on Wikipedia. I tried to see if maybe she could pass WP:ACADEMIC because she helped create a language dictionary, but I'm not sure that this is enough to really make her pass any of those guidelines since the dictionary doesn't seem to be overwhelmingly notable itself. If anyone can provide sources I'm willing to debate, but the late Sani just doesn't pass notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I created this page. I have restored and added references in evidence of Zarina Sani officially recognised as an Urdu poetess of note which list highlights notable poets from 13th century upto 2006. I have also brought forward in evidence the two books that made her a note-worthy researcher which are in addition to her research effort on Seemab Akbarabadi that earned her a P.hD. In India review of books etc; is not common and most of the opinions etc; on books are not available on the internet. I find no reason why this page on Zarina Sani ought to be deleted.Soni Ruchi (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe only problem is that I see a lot of sources that go to the official site for her and pretty much just confirm that she wrote things. These are considered to be primary sources, which means that they can't show notability. They can confirm that she wrote the books but it doesn't confirm that the works are considered notable per Wikipedia's notability policies. (Just publishing things does not guarantee notability.) Now if they reference books and articles that talk about her in depth, that's slightly different but it would still need to be checked to ensure that the books/articles say what the website claims that they say. I mean no disrespect by this, but in the past we've had a lot of sites that tailor and edit sources to make them appear as complimentary as possible to the subject. As a result we generally do not consider any republishing of information on a primary source to be reliable. (There are exceptions, but those are few and far between.) It shows us that sources might exist and gives us a direction to start out on, but for the most part we can't use anything that has been published by anyone involved with the topic at hand (in this case, the late Ms Sani). The link to a syllabus does help, though. If you can show that many schools use the book (by many I mean more than just one or two schools) then that could help show notability for the book or for Ms Sani through WP:ACADEMIC. The biggie here is that you have to show notability through sources that have not been published by Ms Sani, her people, or by anyone that would fall under WP:PRIMARY. Here's a rundown of the sources:

[12] This just lists her as an Urdu author. It establishes that she did write, but it isn't something that would establish notability.
[13] This is just a list of results on Google books, which is unusable as a source. You need to be more specific with the result. Even if it does establish that she got a degree, getting a degree is not something that establishes notability per Wikipedia guidelines. The only time that obtaining a degree is notable is if it's been established that it's the first time that the degree has been given to someone and even then you'd have to establish through reliable secondary sources that this was notable. Just listing that someone has a degree is not notability.
[14] You listed this twice, but the fact remains that publishing books on a subject does not give notability to the author. It doesn't matter how notable the subject of the book is, that notability is not transferred to the book or the author. Now if you could show through multiple reviews by independent and reliable sources that the books are notable, that would help a lot. If many of the sources are off the internet, you can always establish that the sources exist by scanning a copy of the source or by taking a clear picture that shows that the source exists, goes in depth on Ms Sani (and/or her works), and is by a reliable source.
[15] This is something I listed, but this is considered to be more of a trivial source since it only briefly mentions Ms Sani and one of her books. We'd need more than just this and unfortunately even though this does show that she's accomplished something that could be notable, it wouldn't show notability in and of itself.
[16] This helps, but we need more than just one syllabus showing that a class is using her book(s). We need multiple sources to show that many schools are using her books, not just this one class.

I know this sounds harsh, but the rules for establishing notability are incredibly strict and unfortunately the subjects about people, places, or things from foreign countries usually end up getting removed because of language barriers and a potential lack of sources that can be found online. Since you seem to have access to the sources, it unfortunately puts a lot of emphasis on you to provide the sources. What I can recommend is that you look into getting some of the people from Wikipedia:WikiProject India to help you out on this front. They're a team of people who specialize in focusing on articles that pertain to India, so they'll be a valuable resource when it comes to finding sources that might be in another language or not on the internet. Here's the link to the active members (Wikipedia:WikiProject_India/Members#Active_members).Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://www.urducouncil.nic.in/urdu_wrld/u_auth/index_all.htm is not just a list. It is a list of poets covering almost 800 years of Urdu poetry recognising their noteworthiness amongst thousands of other poets who do not find their names in this list. Kindly do not set aside this list. Here it is considered as a place of pride. I have cited her book Boodha Darakhat in few other articles that I have posted. No, I do not have access to sources that are not on the internet. When I sought those sources for my use in the few articles that I had posted the standard response of surviving members of a few families I could contact was that after their respective demise no papers or books or magazines pertaining to them were preserved, mostly sold as waste paper. In absence of related links try I did but could not locate the originators of those destroyed sources. http://www.mu.ac.in/syllabus/4.10%20Urdu.pdf is the syllabus that is followed by all colleges affliated Mumbai University that hold post graduate Master of Arts (urdu) classes; the book is not meant for schools and the number of colleges can exceed one hundred; it is a big and important university that is over one hundred years old. There is not much time left, how am I to contact the suggested active members?Soni Ruchi (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC) P.S. I have contacted one member and sought his assistance.Soni Ruchi (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Why does the info-box refer to her as a 'Professor'? She was a lecturer at a college, where she was the head of her department, not a professor at a university! Big difference.--Zananiri (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Zananiri Ji, I did not insert the info-box; it is to be corrected. Google Books search revealed two books making mention of Zarina Sani. Her name figures in the book titled - Indian poetesses: past and present published by the Govt. of India which fact cannot be ignored. She died 30 years ago when internet had not arrived in this country, and no one then thought there would be Wikipedia demanding a lot more information than is readily available now. You must have experienced the same kind of difficulty as I am now. I repeat there is no reason for this article to be deleted. Regards.Soni Ruchi (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am familiar with these lists. They simply give the names of poets and writers, verifying their names and dates of birth and death, sometines incorrectly. They do not establish their importance.

Tokyogirl has made a number of valid points and also refers to two identical references cited in the article, from a website created by Sani's family to give publicity to the books she wrote. Many children like to honour their parents in this manner. It has nothing to do with the importance of the subhect or the books.

It would have been more helpful to cite sources outside Google book lists and the family, as book lists simply confirm that the books were published. What is required is evidence of their importance. Hundreds of thousands of people aound the world are published authors. Sani, too, is an author. Notability is another matter.--Zananiri (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: By importance and notabilty, I mean, of course, notabilty per Wikipedia rules. This is the crux of the matter. No disrespect to the late Sani.--Zananiri (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But, Zananiri Sir, you are ignoring the two books I have cited that I found through Google Books search that mention about Zarina Sani (the URLs for these two finds is very long). And then there is her book prescribed for M.A.(Urdu) syllabus by Mumbai University. Is this not notability which is sublime and with dignity? Regards.Soni Ruchi (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have looked at this article and related issues again and have come to the same conclusion again, after considering the following additional points regarding her notabilty per Wikipedia criteria:

Mumbai University course:

The book by Sani, mentioned by the creator of the article to attribute Sani with notability per Wikipedia, appears to be a red herring. It is recommended, not prescribed, for an 'optional' paper not a 'compulsory' one and there are only two affiliated enrolling colleges for this course, apart from a long-distance correspondence course facilty on offer :http://www.mu.ac.in/colleges/List%20of%20Post%20Graduate%20Courses-_new_.pdf

None of the Urdu courses at Indian universities, which are well-known for their Urdu faculties e.g. Aligarh, Lucknow, Allahabad, Jammu, Osmania and several universities in Delhi, recommend her books, as far as I have been able to ascertain. And, as Tokyogirl79 says, far more institutions would have to be using this book to make the author or the book notable. Moreover, courses change, options change and recommended books change, particularly if the book is being used at only two affiliated colleges of one university. In any case, 'recommended' reading lists are never 'required' reading lists. There is a difference. Notabilty, promoted on the grounds that someone's book is being used at a couple of colleges in the world, should and would, by this reasoning, make hundreds of thousands of authors around the world instant candidates for Wikipedia articles.

I note, too, that the person who elevated Sani to a professor in the infobox on 5 May 2011, as the revision history shows, is Sani's son and his own Wikipedia Talk page has an exchange of banter with Soni Ruchi, the creator of this article, as does her own Talk page. These pages provide further clues about Sani's eligibilty for notabilty per Wikipedia criteria or lack of it. His family site has been cited twice in the article. Yet, the misleading bit in the infobox was deleted, only after I referred to it on this AfD page i.e. over a year after it had been inserted in the infobox.

The Urdu Council list mentioned (which merely gives names and years of birth and death of those listed) as being a place of pride for Urdu writers and poets, has a question mark after the year of Sani's birth. Her entry reads: "2284. Zarina Sani, 1930?-84". If she were a renowned literary figure, as the article claims in the opening sentence, that entry should have been correct i.e. 1936-1982. Actually, this is a minor point, but had she been that well-known, the mistake would not have occurred in the first place. I mention this only because the list is being given so much importance by the creator of the article:http://www.urducouncil.nic.in/urdu_wrld/u_auth/index_all.htm

As an academic, Sani stayed on as a lecturer at the same college for well over twenty years, so never, for whatever reason, advanced to a professorship. I could not find Urdu as a degree course subject on the college website. Of course, things may have been different 30 years ago, but strong departments at a college or university generally disappear only for cogent reasons. At present, it appears, one person teaches Persian at that college.

As a writer, her output is limited. She was, apparently, a good friend of the Zia Fatehabadi family and her book on him mentions his children and their activities as well, unusual in a serious academic literary appraisal. I would not have heard of her or this book, if Soni Ruchi had not cited it repeatedly in her Wiki articles. Sani's Ph.D thesis is just that: a dissertation for a Ph.D. Again, there are hundreds of thousands of people, all over the world, who write and have written dissertations on their chosen subjects to obtain a Ph.D. That alone does not make them notable by any standards.

That Sani is listed in the Indian government's list of poetesses, past and present, is neither here nor there. Like the earler list cited in the article, such publications are meant to be quick points of reference, like telephone directories listing trades and professions. They have their usefulness, but they do not pass judgement on the importance or notability of those listed. That is not their aim or function. They are not 'definitive works of reference' on any subject.

Sani, sadly, died too early to have left behind the kind of literary work, for which one remembers most notable Urdu poets and writers. Only a very few attain the notability we are looking for, at the age at which she died. I have come across no sources that indicate that she did either.--Zananiri (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm certainly no expert in Urdu poetry, but I think the fact almost all the sources are webpage ephemera suggests that little note has been taken of her thus far. Agricola44 (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2012 (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 Indian Idol 5. Sandstein 07:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Kar

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

Indian singing-reality-show contestant. Stood 6th. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Also claims to be an upcoming actress of films that haven't started their principal photography. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, coming in 6th on a reality show is not notability, so she shouldn't have an article until those alleged films are made. Specs112 t c 13:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indian Idol 5 for now. Actually a BLP1E, could be re-splitted in a short time when the films in which she starred will be released. Cavarrone (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Indian Idol 5 as suggested by Cavarrone seems to be the way to go, until release and notability check of said films. Zujua (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2012 (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 Indian Idol 5. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 02:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swaroop Khan

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

Indian singing-reality-show contestant. Stood 4th. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:BLP1E. Specs112 t c 13:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indian Idol 5 per WP:BLP1E.Cavarrone (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - as above. No indication that his appearance has started a career that has coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cavarrone. - Mailer Diablo 01:56, 6 July 2012 (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. Davewild (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shivam Pathak

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

Indian singing-reality-show contestant. Stood 5th. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:BLP1E Specs112 t c 13:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indian Idol 5 per WP:BLP1E.Cavarrone (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. SwisterTwister talk 03:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks verifiability. - Mailer Diablo 02:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks references. Google search throws up only passing mentions that he is one of the participants. Should not be redirected to Indian Idol 5 because WP:BLP1E suggests redirect if the subject is notable for one event. But here, notability of the subject is not established. Anbu121 (talk me) 08:27, 6 July 2012 (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. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sachit Bhatia

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

Notability is not inherited. This person's name appears in GSearch primarily as a consequence of his involvement as a representative of Cotton Council International and their various promotional activities, eg: Let's Design. He gets a lot of passing mentions as a consequence of this but I am struggling to discover what it is that makes him notable in his own right.

Anything connected to CCI/Let's Design has attracted problematic behaviour of the COI/puffery/promotional variety, as well as a whole series of socks indulging in it. classic of that type was Govind Kumar Singh. This article may be another attempt in that vein.

CCI itself is probably notable, although most of the sourcing would be of the WP:SPS variety (phenomenal number of press releases etc). His own business, Troika Consulting, appears unlikely to be notable. Consequently, there is nothing to which we could merge this article. Sitush (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nomination. Subject fails WP:BIO although he gets enough Google hits for sitting next to glamour-celebrities. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 18:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see he is quoted in his role with the CCI, but what I cannot find is signficant coverage about him that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2012 (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 evidence of notability presented under WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jheel Mehta

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

Indian TV serial actress (one TV serial). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – In reliable sources, I found additional coverage which was unsubstantial at best (example). Coverage is lacking for GNG, and it is WP:TOOSOON to say the subject passes WP:NACTOR. JFHJr (㊟) 12:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this child artist doesn't even have any notable role in the only series she appears in.--Adamstraw99 (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2012 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanmay Vekaria

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

Indian TV serial actor (one TV serial). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - as per above --Bharathiya (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP His character "Baaga" in Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah has become a household name and increased the popularity of the show by adding comic value of the show. This article will most certainly be improved and expanded over the time.--Adamstraw99 (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... then it would be very easy for you to add references proving how his character "has become a household name and increased the popularity of the show by adding comic value". §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adamstraw99, if you want to get this article kept then you need to provide references supporting your statements. These can be in any language, and don't have to be online. If you can't provide any references yourself then please at least let us know how Tanmay Vekaria's name is written in Devanagari so that other editors can try to look for sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be "तन्मय वेकरिया". §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning towards delete. Much as I was hoping to find something to give us a reason to keep this, I feel like if he was at all notable I would have seen something not user-contributed (Facebook, IMDB, etc.) within the first seven pages of ghits on his name. This and this raise questions about notability, as well. Heather (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no sources about this individual at all, and no one else seems to have been able to either. The one source in the article that talks about the TV show this actor appears in doesn't even mention the actor in question, or the character he plays, so I'm going to assume he's not even a very important part of that show. Rorshacma (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Rorshacma, the tv show's wikipedia article does mention the character. Kindly, use control+f and try to find "Bageshwar" or "baga"... hopefully you will see where its mentioned.....--Adamstraw99 (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rorshacma probably means this link. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2012 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2012 (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. No evidence of notability via WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanuj Mahashabde

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

Indian TV serial actor (one TV serial). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE as per above. (Many actors in the serial Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah have been given the privilege of having their page in wiki. All those who have acted only in a single serial and who are not having any considerable coverage should be deleted as they do not meet wp:gng and wp:nactor) --Bharathiya (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nominator. The info that is in the stub has already been covered in the article on the TV serial Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. Fails WP:NACTOR --DBig Xray 22:51, 29 June 2012 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Munmun Dutta

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

Indian TV actress who has worked in one TV show. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - as per above --Bharathiya (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one TV show reference on IMDB. Not notable at present to merit a wikipedia article. Perhaps in future. --Artene50 (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2012 (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 evidence of sources which would establish notability via WP:GNG, no claims of notability under WP:NACTOR. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trishna Vivek

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

Indian TV actress. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Attributes to IMDB alone since 2009, which also seems to be of some other person with same name. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom: the subject fails WP:NACTOR, and I found one good example of in-depth coverage that would count toward but not satisfy WP:GNG: her wedding announcement. Perhaps WP:GNG could be met if non-English language sources were put forth, but my Hindi is nil. I'll watch in case any are found. JFHJr (㊟) 12:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found only one source about her wedding. Fails Notability. Also WP:TOOSOON applies. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:41, 9 July 2012 (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. Notability has been established. Move requested at WP:RM/TR. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smitha Singh

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

Indian TV actress. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. (Has lacks-notability tag since 2010.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 11:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Take that erant "H" out of her first name in searches and she become sourcable in relationship to her carreer and the series Bhagyavidhaata.WP:GNG looks to be met: [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] and many others that simply need to be gleaned for information from which to build this BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic passes WP:BASIC per the sources posted above by User:MichaelQSchmidt. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple significant secondary sources. Cavarrone (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the identified sources in national newspapers. Should be moved to 'Smita singh' --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the closer doesn't move it, I sure will. Poor Englifcations of Indian names almost always creates issues. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:26, 16 July 2012 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sonarika Bhadoria

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

Indian TV actress who has worked in two TV shows. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 11:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Madras Christian College#Cultural Festival. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Woods

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

Notability issues. As a student of the college in question, I do no believe the fest is notable enough to merit its own article in Wikipedia. La Alquim ista 14:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your first-hand knowledge of the festival should matter in the discussion, per the no-original research policy 70.21.117.227 (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect Although I don't agree with the nominator's rationale for deleting the article (relies on too much original research), I feel that the article fails WP:GNG. From a quick GNews search, I see three articles published by The Hindu - 1 does not cover the festival in detail and has more to with a popular band performing. 2 seems to cover the festival in detail, but again it was published in the "Metro Plus" opinion column. 3 only mentions the festival briefly. Propose to redirect or merge with Madras Christian College. — westeros91 (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Madras Christian College#Cultural Festival. As Westeros91 shows, it does not pass GNG. Anyway, a good merge/redirect destination exists. --Orlady (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to World Konkani Centre. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Konkani Hall Of Fame

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

Could not find significant independent sources that assert notability of this monument. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Merge' I can find some information, but if kept this needs to be stubbed. A Wikipedia should not be their gallery of honorees. It's way too image heavy. Also needs to be rewritten to sound less like a brochure. If it's a copyvio, the source isn't turning up via google. So in essence I'm saying the topic is notable, I'm just not sure this is the article we need on the subect. If not kept, perhaps a merge back into World Konkani Centre which has a section on the HOF until it's ready to be spun out? StarM 02:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to World Konkani Centre#World Konkani Hall Of Fame. The section in that article is sufficient. I can find very littl ein the way of soruces covering the hall of fame. Oddly enough, there is this article about Wikipedian that mention the contribution of all the images that we see in the article. Although not a reason for deletion, it does raise the issue of WP:COI. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/edit A list of hall of fame members is reasonable, as at least half the people here seem to be notable. I'm not sure if a gallery like this is explicitly prohibited by style guides, but a bare list is ok by list policy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can somebody point me to the sources that establish notability? There is one listed in the article, and I'm not really seeing much else of substance. As for all the images, I'd say it is contrary to WP:NOTGALLERY. A list of inductees into a notable hall of fame is a valid element for the article, and a select few images for illustration would be appropriate but not this amount. For an example, consider List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. -- Whpq (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2012 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore

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

DELETE - Not notable. No need for separate article. Either it should be deleted or it should be merged with Coimbatore page. This page does not serve any purpose. -- Bharathiya 02:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment large neighborhoods are generally kept, but smaller areas in my opinion should be deleted. Do we have any idea of the population? Bearian (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. But this is neither a large neighborhood nor an highly important area. It is just an another urban area within the city of Coimbatore. Not notable for wiki in any manner. Even there is not even a single reliable reference, anywhere.--Bharathiya (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found only 12 news Ghits but many Book Ghits. I am still not sure what to make of this one. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page can be deleted as this page does not seem to be containing any important information. --Bharathiya (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can anyone let me know which policy obstructs from creating a location based stub article?? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought Wikipedia talks about notability and not importance.Here are a few links from The Hindu. 1 2 3 4 (Not too certain about the last one). I don't mind cleaning up the article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Coimbatore; as just a neighbourhood/urban area it's best covered in the city article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 11:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you [The Bushranger], every neighborhood of Mumbai has a Wikipedia article. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF may exist, but that doesnt' mean this, or them, should. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With HighBeam Research account, the website threw some 18 sources for me. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as evidences for notability has been mentioned by User:Rsrikanth05 -Anbu121 (talk me) 19:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found one more on ToI: here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone actually add the sources found, so that we could evaluate the results better? Bearian (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would if the article is kept. I see no point in adding sources to something that is going to be deleted. You can use the links provided for 'evaluation' as of now. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2012 (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. Davewild (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Munugala Sudhaker Reddy

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

With greatest respect, it would appear that this article fails the test for Politicians. It would appear that Munugala Sudhaker Reddy was apparently the Sarpanch of a number of villages in Chinna Gollapally. Local government members are only notable if they meet the test outlined in WP:POLITICIAN, where they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Shirt58 (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Sarpanch is no more notable than a kamnan or a puyaiban of a Thai sub-district or village, or the chairperson of an English parish council. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references other than the person's facebook page. Google search does not seem promising. Considering that he is a politician, there should have been references if he is notable. Anbu121 (talk me) 09:29, 27 June 2012 (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. Obviously promotional IP opinions discounted. Sandstein 17:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Govil

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

I don't agree that a "lesser" (term used very loosely) award received 10 years ago evidences this person's continual notability. That seems to be the singular assertion of notability. However I am interested in what other folks have to say. Thorncrag 15:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - Heh, I moved it back to the AfC space before the AfD was filed (I think we were working on it at the same time...). It was clearly copy-pasted from there. Please ping me if you'd like me to undo my actions. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 21:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the reason for being notable for an award received 10 years ago. I think the notability factor lies in how fast he grew the business in the small time frame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alli440 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Alli440 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That doesn't meet WP:BIO, though. And since the aforementioned award was ostensibly for the same reason, that's why I raised the issue. Still interested in seeing what other folks think. Thorncrag 15:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether there was significant coverage noting his rapid rise. Observe also that this article was created by an indef-blocked editor with a possible conflict of interest, and the only other comment above is from an account that mysteriously appeared after the author's account was blocked. Those facts don't make the topic non-notable, but they do make it more difficult to justify keeping this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Govil is one of the most impressive business figures in the Washington DC area in the USA and he has been considered as a role model by many budding entrepreneurs - Growing the company from 0 to 5000+ employees in 12 years is certainly notable. He came from an average middle class and grew to the upper echelons of business in the USA. He made it to the board of Wharton School and is a philanthropist in the areas of education. Given the current Asian immigration levels in the United States, Sanjay Govil is an iconic figure in the American Indian community and there are thousands that are trying hard to emulate him. Therefore, this makes Sanjay Govil a notable figure per the Wikipedia definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.118.61 (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — 71.171.118.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Sanjay Govil is a visionary entrepreneur who has built one of the fastest growing IT services organization in a short span of 12 years. Sanjay's growth from modest roots to a extremely successful entrepreneur clearly epitomizes the American Dream and serves as a ideal example for young people to follow. I do think, that this makes Sanjay a notable figure as per Wikipedia's definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.4.202 (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — 67.62.4.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Two more WP:SPA comments. Here's a free hint for you: You need sources to back up those claims. Otherwise, the topic is not notable by Wikipedia's definition. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete article looks like a personal webpage content. provide evidence for claims and third party sources please--Adamstraw99 (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, the SPAs sure came out of the woodwork on this one, without anybody even registering a !vote. Well here's mine. I originally declined a speedy-delete nomination because the weak claim of notability disqualified it from speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 but I can find nothing further to redeem this article. Delete it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2012 (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 Siolim. Consensus is that this does not merit a separate article, but to preserve attribution have redirected to Siolim, where the merge has already taken place. Davewild (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Chapels in Siolim, Goa

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

Topic is non-notable. Some part has been merged into Siolim#Chapels_in_Siolim The Discoverer (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can and do think that some travel guides would probably be able to establish notability of some churches in Siolim. I am in fact virtually certain of it. However, I do not see that the creator of this page has made any effort to establish the notability of the individual buildings or even of the topic itself as per WP:NOTABILITY. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any notability here. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Siolim Since the material in the article has been merged, redirect needs to be retained for the attribution history. I'm a bit confused as to whether the article intended that chapels were not the same as churches, while this source was interesting. Also, the use of the word "notable" in the article title cannot be construed to mean the same as wp:notable. Unscintillating (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE with Siolim or Delete. Not notable. No reliable sources available or cited. So either Merge or delete. Better merge with Siolim without duplicating the contents already present in that page. --Bharathiya (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Siolim or Delete The article can't stand alone due to its lack of notability. --Artene50 (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; bad article title. The Discoverer (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Siolim per Unscintillating. -- 202.124.73.246 (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2012 (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. Rlendog (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T. P. Senkumar

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

Lacks notability AshLey ^Msg 11:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 07:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Senior police officer and senior civil servant. Appears to meet notability standards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The article has references, but I'm unsure as to whether they substantiate why the article's subject is notable. It's a shame none of the "Delete" voters said specifically why it failed the GNG. --Ritchie333 (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to City Montessori School. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdish Gandhi

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

I am proposing either to delete this or to merge this page with the page of City Montessori School. Because both the pages contain biography type of article of Mr. Jagdish Gandhi. No doubt, the school seems to be a notable one but the person in question may not be notable as per wiki standards. I leave this responsibility to my experienced colleagues on wiki. Bharathiya 08:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merge/redir to City Montessori School -- no other information about the educator is presented. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete and/or merge. I found this news article about his receiving an honorary doctorate, but I don't think it's enough by itself. All the other news stories I found that mention him do so only to give brief quotes by him or mention him as the founder of the school rather than providing independent biographical detail. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 11:01, 25 June 2012 (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.

Automatic delete candidates

Find India related articles from Category:Proposed deletion or WP:PRODSUM and add here

(PROD-tagged) pages, culled from Category:Proposed deletion

Vadasserikavu Bhagavathi Temple (via WP:PROD on 29 April 2012)
Vodafone comedy stars (Asianet) (via WP:PROD on 17 November 2011)

for occasional archiving

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction

Redirects for deletion

MFD discussion debates

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 == India ==
 <!-- New AFD discussions should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Murdabad}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edewcate}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aasman (2013)}}