Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

See also: Points to remember when debating in India related deletion discussions.
Note: AnomieBOT removes and archives closed debates from this page a few times a day, so there is no need to manually remove such pages.

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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Junaid

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

Non-Notable Politician. Fails WP:NPOL, According to WP:POLITICIAN, politicians are notable if they held international, national or state/province post. Also somehow looks promotional to me. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject has never been elected into any legislative bodies thus failing NPOL. In that case he must pass general GNG criteria. As I can see, there are no sources giving him enough significant coverage. I dont know whether there are any sources in local language. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The person fails WP:NPOL but has been covered in mainstream media as social activist. Riteboke (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion needed on notability based on other notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Riteboke, Not significantly tho, Passing mentions don't demonstrate notability. He Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 11:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Ankit (Talk with me) 20:39, 2 May 2021 (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. Hog Farm _Talk 17:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jigar Saraswat

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

Article appears to be a self-promotional BLP of a social media/SEO writer. However, two seemingly reliable source references are provided. But... those profiles are written in an oddly promotional tone too, making outlandish claims like "India’s Best Freelance Content Writer" - which makes it look like paid advertising. I note the article was originally rejected at AfC ([talkpage notice here]). Furthermore, I note that the talkpage of the user who published the article consists entirely of speedy delete notices (and a warning for potential sockpuppetry). Witty lama 14:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, two references are not sufficient. Also, the references though seems reliable, but they don't seem independent. Chirota (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Riteboke (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person!. TheChronium (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SD International Public School

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

Fails WP:ORG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Chirota (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This school is clearly not notable due to the non-existent references (both in the article or anywhere else from what I can tell). Plus, the article is highly promotional and seems to been created/mainly edited by SPAs. So, there's zero policy based reason to keep it. Unless someone can come up with WP:THREE in-depth, reliable, secondary sources. Which, at this point, I highly doubt will happen. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - private educational institute with no claim of notability. Riteboke (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2021 (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. Nomination withdrawn. Would have been a keep anyway (non-admin closure) Jupitus Smart 16:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Arul Mohan

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

~~No indication of Notability. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NACTRESS~~ DMySon 07:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon 07:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon 07:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon 07:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NACTOR ("significant roles in multiple notable films")—Lead roles in Nani's Gang Leader (2019), Sreekaram (2021) and the upcoming film Doctor (2021). -- Ab207 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there was an issue with notability in the past, but with the recently released Sreekaram, it does appear that they now pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per onel5969, i withdrawal my nomination. DMySon 14:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Mandal

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, given sources are either self-published or not verifiable. Had been DEPRODed, WP:BEFORE does provide results only for a scientist with the same name. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has not held any political role that would confer an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL, and the article is referenced to primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that are not about him, which are not notability-building sources. Also, the creator's username was "Uday88mandal", indicating that this is an autobiography. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobio built on passing mentions. Mccapra (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saurav Das

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

No evidence of notability. He appears to be an actor but mentions are just that. No reliable and independent sources discuss him in any way that conveys notability. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Deletion discussions relating to filmmakers, directors and other non-actor film-related people should no longer be listed on this page. Please list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers instead." Kolma8 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sigcov thus failing GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see enough coverage available to pass for GNG. GooeyMitch (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No main roles found. Failing wikipedia notability guidelines. Behind the moors (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NACTOR. Riteboke (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devoke water 16:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KMCT College of Engineering

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

Fails GNG, NORG and NSCHOOLS as no independent sources are there to establish notability Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2007-01 ✗ deleted

Delete - non-notable private educational institute. Riteboke (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2021 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonpreet Jawanda

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

The article was soft-deleted last year after a delete vote by Devokewater and then restored after the deletion was challenged by anon. The subject appears to have played some minor supporting roles in major productions or major roles in minor productions. Almost all the current sources are name checks and I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG and looks like WP:TOOSOON. GSS ^💬 17:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 17:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 17:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he has played lead role in "2 Bol" and "The Blood Street" and played second lead in The Mastermind Jinda Sukha and Saak (film). also acted in Holiday: A Soldier Is Never Off Duty as a supporting character.

2402:8100:394E:4460:4534:2CA5:9FC9:4261 (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2021 (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhgad Institute of Technology and Science

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

No RS found to support NSCHOOLS. Found a few primary sources, press releases, paid content none of which supports notability. Vikram Vincent 15:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete private educational institute with no claim of notability. Riteboke (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. Clearly lacks notability defcon5 (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2021 (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. MBisanz ^talk 14:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mangalam College of Engineering

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

Nothing else other than the college website. WP:Before was also a failure attempt for me. Fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails notability. lacks independent reliable sources as mentioned in nomination defcon5 (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viswajyothi College of Engineering and Technology

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

No independent reliable sources to have an independent article. This [1] is the only reliable source found in doing a WP:BEFORE, which makes a mention about the college regarding an event conducted by their students. The article fails both NORG as well as GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another private educational institute with no claim of notability. Riteboke (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lacks independent reliable sources defcon5 (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2021 (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. Without supplementing the sources the keep arguments allude to, the assertion that this school is notable remains unsubstantiated. ✗plicit 03:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Majilpur J. M. Training School

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

Mentions, listings, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are some basic sources from a quick search. Therefore, highly likely that sources exist, but they are offline, and quite possibly not in English. Neither of which are reasons to delete this article. 42.110.152.67 (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@42.110.152.67: Could you please point out any such sources, particularly if they cover the subject in detail (WP:SIGCOV)? — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete private educational institute with no claim of notability. Riteboke (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Plenty of sourcing, as with any tertiary institution in West Bengal. 42.110.158.21 (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, no references provided satisfy WP:SIGCOV. SunDawn (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the only WP:SECONDARY source I could find for this, and it is probably not significant coverage. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks WP:SIGCOV defcon5 (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus notability not shown Nosebagbear (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaynagar Chamatkarini Balika Vidyalaya

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. There are listings, but no in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references in the article are either primary or extremely trivial, and don't discuss the place in an in-depth direct way. Plus, nothing comes up in a WP:BEFORE from what I can tell that does. So, unless someone can provide WP:THREE good, in-depth independent references the article should clearly be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Govt. sponsored educational institute with no claim of notability. Riteboke (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2021 (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. Hog Farm _Talk 16:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekta 2019

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

An article about a film by one G. Suman Reddy, contributed by Sumanreddydir who has made multiple attempts to place articles about this film, using a variety of titles, and whose promotional editing has previously been commented on their User Talk page. In 2016 an instance entitled "Ekta Movie" was deleted at AfD. In 2018 an "Ekta" article was deleted by PROD, in 2019 a similarly-named article was speedy-deleted as promotional [2]. Already this month another "Ekta Movie" instance has been created and was speedy-deleted [3], after which the same editor has created this newly-titled instance. Donaldd23 placed a PROD with the rationale "Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. All current citations are IMdB.". I am not seeing the substantial coverage needed to demonstrate notability, so agree with the rationale but it cannot stand as a PROD given the previous deletion history. AllyD (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFILM. Riteboke (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination defcon5 (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus around educational institutions has changed since 2013 and there seems to be consensus here that lources are lacking to establish notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhgad Academy of Engineering

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

A private tertiary education institute that has no RS to support NSCHOOLS. A BEFORE shows some paid advertisement, press releases and primary sources. The previous AFD did not address the issue of lack of SIGCOV. There is no inherent notability for an education institution that does not award degrees. Vikram Vincent 09:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 09:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 09:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 09:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a brief news report from 2018 about the arrest of several students. Not enough to demonstrate the notability of the institution itself though. AllyD (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete private educational institute with no claim of notability. Riteboke (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Gakhar

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

Non-notable person, the only politics they have been involved in has been at the student level failing WP:NPOL. The references are all written by the same author, and don't discuss him in any sort of depth failing WP:SIGCOV McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a WP:RESUME. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very much a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete What the hell? A promo article about of minor politician, clearly fail WP:NPOL. VocalIndia (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2021 (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 Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jakanari reserve forest

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

Ok, I know I may be doing this too much, but there are no sources here! JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 20:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Nom RE: "there are no sources here!" lack of sources on the article is not a criteria for deletion. I am sure you have read WP:BEFORE assuming you have searched for references, in the future call out in your nomination that you searched and could not find references. Jeepday (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search does not find anything to meet WP:GNG, there are no reference on the article or claims of notability. Jeepday (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. It's maintained by the forestry institute of that university [4], or at least that's the closest connection I could figure out. Agree there is not enough material to show separate notability - all sources are excerpts from either the linked page, or an unsourced teaching materials page that lists "important Indian forests". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Elmidae. I did some looking and didn't come up with anything other than someone caught a viper nearby once and brought it to the university that Elmidae linked to above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edwise International

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

Ignoring the fact that this article appears to be used as a list of Sushil Sukhwani articles and the fact that the article is promotional, there are no references that meet WP:NCORP. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — the organization lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though WP:PROMO contents have been trimmed down, the article still lacks publications in reliable sources hence doesn't meet WP:N. TheChronium (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karpuragauram Karunavataram

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

One of many hundreds of various verses used in Hindu worship. No indication of independent notability. Also unsourced - the listed references do not point to anything related.

Besides, the article content does not offer much for the reader. The transliteration contains many errors while the English translation, although very good IMO, is either a copyvio or OR of one of the editors. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by nom. Celestina007 (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahrukh Inayet

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

Fails WP:GNG, NO SIGCOV AND RS. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 19:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 19:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, WP:JOURNALIST, and WP:BASIC. There is biographical, education, and early career information from the Verve magazine source that is now added to the article, as well as additional support for WP:JOURNALIST notability, i.e. she is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, in part due to her reporting on the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, e.g. by the Hindustan Times, The Quint, in addition to Verve. She also received a non-trivial mention of her general work for Times Now in The Hindu afterwards. In addition, Aaj Tak reports she won an eNBA award in 2013 for her journalism. Her tweets during the 2014 floods in Jammu and Kashmir were reported on by FirstPost and a contributor to Buzzfeed India. Her tweets during the 2019 telephone and internet blackout in Kashmir were reported by The Times of India and Scroll.in. Her commentary on the media has also been featured by SheThePeople.TV, and quoted by The News Minute. Additional biographical information has been reported by The Quint and her commentary related to some of her biographical information has been commented on by another journalist in the Hindustan Times. Per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and the independent and reliable sources that have been added to the article now appear to demonstrate sufficient notability per the guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG as per the improvements made by Beccaynr. The subject is notable now. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing:- Beccaynr has done some crazy additions. My WP:BEFORE didn’t comeup with so many results. I’m more than happy to withdraw this AfD because it’s in a far better state now. Thanks Beccaynr.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 02:18, 6 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Bhat

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

Fails WP:GNG, The sources are youtube and ETV mostly for which he works and i couldn't find any SIGCOV on the subject. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 19:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 19:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per Jammumylove, there isn’t coverage in reliable sources discussing subject of discussion. Celestina007 (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing useful found on a WP:Before. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Devoke water 17:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Haryana cricketers. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virender Dahiya

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Haryana cricketers Has played 1 FC, 2 List-A and 2 T20 games, but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Seems to have gone into governmental work so cricket career seems to be over. Sources may exist in Indian sources though. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD and maybe could have been BOLDly done instead of AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per Rugbyfan22. StickyWicket (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2021 (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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kant Singh

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played in 15 matches across all three formats, meeting WP:NCRIC. At worst, redirect to List of Chhattisgarh cricketers, per WP:ATD. Or keep simply for having the best name in cricket. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to List of Chhattisgarh cricketers Has played a fair few matches (6 FC, 4 List-A, 5 T20), but a search didn't bring up much coverage. From the career he had sources may well exist locally in Indian sources. Redirect though a good WP:ATD if nothing can be found. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With 6 FC, 4 List A and 5 T20 matches, he is well above the WP:NCRIC threshold, even taking into account any of the proposed amendments to that standard. There does also appear to be some coverage which has not been picked up in the article which would lead to a WP:GNG pass- for example, his name comes up in the (much more limited) English version of cricketnmore.com (quoted on Yahoo Sports), which leads me to suspect that he's likely to have more extensive coverage in the Hindi version of the same website; not being able to read Hindi, I couldn't confirm this. Therefore pretty likely to be able to pass WP:GNG given someone who can read in Hindi spending some time on this. DevaCat1 (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DevaCat1: please provide links to these sources; all I'm seeing on those websites are basic stats profiles. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the coverage in English online sources is limited, but see for example https://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/Badrinath-blazes-with-the-bat-finally/article16671373.ece; https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/top-stories/ranji-trophy-chhattisgarh-create-history-with-first-win/articleshow/54763143.cms; https://www.firstpost.com/firstcricket/sports-news/vijay-hazare-trophy-ms-dhonis-quick-fire-century-guides-jharkhand-to-78-run-win-3303654.html. There has clearly been a reasonable amount of coverage of him, but a combination of geoblocks, the various languages of India, and the fact that much of it is likely to be in hardcopy makes it difficult to access. But none of the linked articles is a scorecard- they're coverage in Indian national newspapers. DevaCat1 (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on. These are the definition of passing mentions in routine match reports. Even if we had fifty of these it wouldn't even come close to WP:SPORTCRIT ("sources... must provide reports beyond routine game coverage") or WP:SIGCOV. They are simply not coverage of Kant Singh and tell us nothing about him. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You think that, I think differently. My point is that if there is coverage in major nationwide Indian newspapers- newspapers covering over 10% of the world's population- in English, there is almost inevitably much deeper coverage in other languages, in hardcopy, or in regional reports (which in India can still encompass more people than a country the size of Scotland). I don't understand the urgency to delete article after article which is likely to pass WP:GNG given some work. We're gonna have to, as usual, agree to disagree. DevaCat1 (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is coverage of the matches, not of Singh himself. At AFD you actually need to produce the sources, not just offer more vague promises of existence in other languages or offline – also this guy played in the internet era so if nothing can be found online, that significantly reduces the chances that any can be found offline. Not all countries cover individual cricketers to the same granularity that happens in England/Australia/New Zealand. If coverage cannot be found, subjects like this are better covered in lists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DevaCat1 has convinced me that more sources exist for this player. And with 15 appearances across the three formats, it isn't an unreasonable number. StickyWicket (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Nothing we have passes WP:SPORTCRIT and therefore WP:GNG yet. If non-English sources exist, that might be enough - a redirect might be the best idea here until we can actually create a decent article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Chhattisgarh cricketers. Per my comments above. No significant coverage found so fails WP:GNG. This supersedes the presumption of notability afforded by NCRIC. Clearly not enough content to warrant a standalone article, so it would serve readers better if covered in the list article (which needs expansion). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete, per Wjemather. When does the cycle of passing off the burden of proving notability to hypothetical future editors end? JoelleJay (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thousands of articles about athletes have the same problem. If we should delete this article, then we have to delete thousands of other articles too. Wasraw (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, but that is not a valid reason for keeping this one. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that for every article under AfD, and then nothing would ever be deleted... JoelleJay (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCRIC. Riteboke (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2021 (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. WP:NCRIC creates a rebuttable presumption of notability, which has been rebutted here because nobody has found WP:GNG-compliant sources. Sandstein 08:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Sinha

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in eight F/C matches. At worst, redirect to List of Chhattisgarh cricketers, per WP:ATD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to List of Chhattisgarh cricketers Has played 8 FC matches, and there is a reasonable amount of coverage in match reports, but probably not enough to pass GNG. Sources may exist in Indian sources though. Redirect is a good WP:ATD though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eight first class matches, including 18 wickets, which were in the Ranji Trophy, so a clear pass of WP:NCRIC. It's unlikely that there has been no newspaper coverage in India of a regular Ranji Trophy player, although that may well be in non-English sources and may not be online. Really strong scope to pass WP:GNG, even if he doesn't play any more first-class games (and, at 28, he might yet do so). DevaCat1 (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing in no way meets GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you should be well aware, John, that's no kind of argument for deletion- it is the notability of the subject which is at issue, not how well the current iteration of the article is sourced (see WP:ARTN). DevaCat1 (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, verifiabilty rules clearly state that articles need to be sourced. No one here has argued in any way such sources exist, and verifiability clearly means they need to be attached to the article. People need to stop invalid claims sources are out there and start actually telling us precisely where they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete, per nom and Rugbyfan. Well within the internet era, if SIGCOV exists it should be online and searchable. NCRIC isn't a free, indefinite pass for everyone who might possibly have coverage in another language. JoelleJay (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NCRIC. Riteboke (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per DevaCat. StickyWicket (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Meeting an SNG such as NCRIC is a shortcut to identify subjectsthat are likely to meet our notability requirements. This is handy when creating new articles or preventing articles to be speedy deleted or PRODded. However, if a subject is challenged at AfD, it is not enough any more to simply say "meets NCRIC". Instead, it actually has to be shown that in this particular instance the SNG correctly predicted notability, that is, it has to be shown that GNG is met. As Johnpacklambert has already observed, no sources meeting GNG have been found by the participants in this debate. Here, GNG is not met. --Randykitty (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2021 (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin Sayyed

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

Has played 7 first-class matches, but there is nothing significant in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played in 12 matches (7 F/C, 5 LA), meets WP:NRIC. Found a bit praising his brief F/C stint, along with a couple of indepth articles about him missing out at playing at the U19 World Cup, and expanded the article with them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A reasonable, if short, career (7 FC, 5 List-A matches and 7 U19 matches for India), but more importantly there does seem to be just enough coverage for him to pass GNG. There seems to be more than just match reports here. List of Maharashtra cricketers a suitable WP:ATD if it's deemed not enough to pass.
Keep 7 first class matches and 5 List A is a reasonable number; at age 25 it's unclear his career his over. Therefore a clear and obvious pass of WP:NCRIC. Also has coverage from several sources in the article; therefore would pass WP:GNG without anything further needing to be found, including potential non-English sources. As with so many other cricket articles, the AfD nomination does not appear to have a clear factual basis, and it seems WP:BEFORE was not adequately conducted. DevaCat1 (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Addition of sources satisfies GNG IMO. StickyWicket (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdeep Baweja

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

Baweja made his first-class debut in the 2015–16 Ranji Trophy, but hardly there is any significant coverage about him. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. –Cupper52^Discuss! 19:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers, per WP:ATD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers 1 FC game, but I couldn't find any significant coverage, although there might be some stuff locally. Redirect is a good WP:ATD, but this one should probably have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to having enough sourcing to pass GNG. It is time we stopped being cricketpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers per Lugnuts and RF22 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Seems sensible here. StickyWicket (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2021 (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 Telugu language#Dialects. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Godavari Telugu

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

A single reference, and sources turn up virtually nothing else. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Searches for "Godavari dialect" do better:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, assuming it is the same thing as "Godavari dialect" per above comment, and I assume it includes both "East Godavari dialect" and "West Godavari dialect", some English sources: Mohan Lal (1992). Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature: Sasay to Zorgot. Sahitya Akademi. p. 4075. ISBN 978-81-260-1221-3. "His (P. S. Subrahmanya Sastri's) stories run into twelve volumes, written in the native idiom of the East Godavari dialect."; Mikhail Sergeevich Andronov (1970). Dravidian Languages. Nauka Publishing House, Central Department of Oriental Literature. p. 20. "Five dialects may be distinguished in Telugu: the dialect of the eastern districts (Guntur, Krishna, Godavari)..." Rinbro (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale by Onel5969, I too don’t see how GNG is met. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Telugu language#Dialects. May not pass GNG but verifiable and a likely search term. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 04:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Telugu language#Dialects as this would be best. Namkongville (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Telugu language#Dialects, Telugu means it's a one Telugu Language, there is no Andhra Telugu, Telangana Telugu, Rayalaseema Telugu etc Applus2021 (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KMP College of Engineering

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

Nothing notable found on doing a WP:Before other than the college website and some blogs. No reliable sources as well as no sigcov, hence failing GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a major college. Just another private college. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's only a single primary reference in the article and I'll could find in a BEFORE about it were a couple of worthless name drops. So, there's nothing about this that passes either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. I'd be glad to change my vote to keep if someone can come up with WP:THREE independent, in-depth references that aren't just glorified name drops though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sonofstar (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajayendra Urmila Tripathi

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

Non notable activists, web programmer. No significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, no indication of notability. fails WP:GNG. DMySon 13:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per rationale by আফতাবুজ্জামান, zero in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources could be observed. Celestina007 (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of his actions add up to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had a discussion with the page creator,Gocorona (talk · contribs), on my talkpage @ User talk:220 of Borg#Help me. They said "This person is a journalist, social media research programmer and social activist and works for Stop Acid attack".
"Stop Acid attack" is not mentioned on the Tripathi BLP page, I advised Gocorona to add it, hasn't. They don't seem to understand how to establish notability, despite me telling the how to, at least twice. They finished with "... will start a campaign against wikipedia on social media." WP:CIR. 220 of ^ßorg 05:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A similarly named page less middle name, Ajayendra Tripathi, has been deleted twice before. See deletion log. 220 of ^ßorg 06:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pretty much A7 material this, but since we are here, better to let this follow the course of the AfD. Java Hurricane 16:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails basic requirement of WP:GNG. Northern Escapee (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2021 (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Bataa Do

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

Non notable book. No significant coverage / book reviews from reliable sources. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to pass WP:NBOOK. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBOOK. Riteboke (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United College of Engineering & Research

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

No evidence that this is a high visibility research institute. Apart from a few press releases, paid advertisement and primary sources, there is no RS to support WP:NSCHOOLS Vikram Vincent 07:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing out there about this is a few trivial name drops in a couple of articles that mentions teachers of the school and a school directory. None of which is enough to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. It doesn't help that there are references in the article either. So, this is a pretty clear delete IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United Group of Institutions

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

Did a clean up of the advertising cruft. The page fails WP:NSCHOOLS. Apart from press releases, paid advertising and primary sources, there are no RS. Creator appears to be a SPA. Vikram Vincent 04:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure about this one, Times of India is clearly not just paid advertising/a press release (1 2 3). FOARP (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources, "Online assessment, video interview helps students beat Covid" and "Freshers welcomed at induction programme of United College" are based on press releases by the institution. The third source titled, "UGI Allahabad president Jagdish Gulati honoured" states that "65 hard working faculty were honoured". So none of the sources add notability to the private educational institution. Vikram Vincent 11:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From looking this over all that exists reference wise is a few press releases and otherwise extremely trivial coverage. There's nothing that would be up to muster for notability though. So, I'm going with delete for now. Unless someone can find WP:THREE good independent, in-depth references since I couldn't find any. If so, I'm more then happy to change my "vote" to keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Persuaded by Vikram Vincent's analysis. FOARP (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2021 (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 10:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daksh

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

Promotional page for College fest. No significant coverage in media. Mostly original research. Lack third party citations defcon5 (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obviously a promotional article. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and written for promotional purpose. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As far as our knowledge goes, the fact of the events have been stated in a manner that doesn't exaggerate the impact of the event, but explains the events as happened. In doing so, a neutral dry tone has been used in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia. Also, references from notable websites are also included. Sivakrrish 17:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this page was created once before, DAKSH (tech fest), in virtually the same form, and was speedily deleted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 10 April 2021 (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S. J. Berchmans

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

Advertisement, has no coverage in independent sources so fails WP:GNG. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. No independent, reliable, secondary sources within the article or found online. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- I know nothing of the subject but composing and (apparently) publishing 400 songs in 40 volumes (?albums) strikes me as potentially notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tried to verify the information on the 400 songs but could not find any source for this. Source [5] is not a valid source as far as I can tell. --Microhierax (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2021 (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 Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Delhi Sikh Gurudwaraa Committee Election Results

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

Can't see how this is a notable election. Number 5 7 13:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References have been added to prove notability.SangrurUser (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I am Confused. I think this is some sort of convocation to elect the religious leaders of the Sikhs, but it's unclear. In fact, it is so unclear and cluttered with lists that it might be a case of WP:TNT. Please fix this mess. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee. The election itself is not notable though the body holding the election is and some of the winners may be individually notable. Mccapra (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Mccapra -- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} 10:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect An extremely detailed page for an election for a specific cause with only 450,000 eligible voters (pretty low by Indian standards). The specific issue is not notable for a stand alone page, though it gets domain specific media coverage. Roller26 (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Bhamra

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

Contested PROD : Fails NACTOR as one of the roles was uncredited and the other one was not significant. Cabayi (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping article's contributors: 103.88.132.102, -noah-, MB, Wikiminds34, AngryHarpy, & WelcometoJamshedpur

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as written, without prejudice to restoring to draft if, at some future point, more substantial coverage arises. BD2412 T 01:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant/lead roles played as an actor and no substantial coverage of the current work. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (soft) per WP:TOOSOON: this is an actress at the beginning of her career. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bada Business

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

The organization doesn’t satisfy WP:NCORP as they do no have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A WP:BEFORE search hits in sponsored posts such as this overtly promotional piece and other unreliable sources. Their sole claim to notability is beating a previous record ”for the biggest online lesson” held by a different organization, which is trivial and negligible at best. This article is definitely a subtle WP:ADMASQ. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom _signed,Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 05:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Souces and news fails GNG and NCORP. Sliekid (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more reliable sources as you have mentioned and removed any text that may violate Wikipedia policy. I hope it has now satisfied all Wikipedia norms. Still there is any things which can be improved, please suggest. Editorpreeti (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current news Souces fails in meeting GNG and NCORP. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are few and unreliable. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 09:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom, sources examined don't meet WP:NCORP. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP. Spudlace (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Draftifying. You can find the article at Draft:Khetsingh Khangar. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khetsingh Khangar

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and has no sources. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I've Done.)} 16:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I've Done.)} 16:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no sources how can anyone prove this is not a hoax?John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Hindi Wikipedia article shown that the King is real ruler not a WP:HOAX. I agree that the article needs a rewrite, but I've found enough sourcing to believe this King is strong notable see Thousands of people gathered at the procession to celebrate the birth anniversary of Maharaja Khet Singh Khangar in Banda, [5], [6], [7]. VocalIndia (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Khangar (community). It's a local folk tradition and the original article should be expanded, and corrected, before the creation of a new page, especially one this poor. DrKay (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... agree! This article needs attentions from someone who has full knowledge on Gujarat history. VocalIndia (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Did a WP:Before and lot of images and videos from youtube regarding the subject showed up along with some sources (mostly unreliable). This could be developed into a better article by someone who actually have an idea about Gujarat history. Chances are there for the availability of both online and offline sources in the local language or Hindi. And the sources provided by VocalIndia indicates that the subject was one of a historical figure. So deleting it without giving an option to remodify would be unfair. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify pointing the author to guidelines as to how to write a WP article (for example omitting ! marks). The article makes a lot of extravagant claims, which makes me think there is a Hindutva bias in the article. If kept it needs to be heavily tagged for Verification and proper sourcing. Some of the text appears to be in untranslated Hindi, which will not do. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have cleaned and added some sources for information to the article. Its still a work in progress but it can be improved. I think there is sufficient evidence that he meets WP:GNG and and deserves to be kept. VocalIndia (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- VocalIndia, I appreciate your great effort! But I think this must be presently moved into draftspace so that you or other interested users can work on this article by taking enough time. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki You're also an Indian editor, I see you are one of the best edtors from India, why not make the article better? VocalIndia (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VocalIndia, you mentioned that its still a work in progress. Right? Thats the reason why we have an option to move such articles into draftspace. It is hard to find sources about the subject in this case. It might be available in other local languages. So an expert editor who is interested in this field is needed here. Thats why I said to draftify this article. And by the way, thankyou for your appreciation:) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Current version is enough for Wikipedia's article standard ! VocalIndia (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has been drastically rewritten since its nomination and first relisting. It should be given another look for further consideration. @Johnpacklambert, DrKay, and Peterkingiron: ping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Draftify as requested. I'm not convinced by the available sources and my BEFORE didn't help. But the subject seems notable per how I see few Google search results. Perhaps someone with an interest in Gujarat history can help. Gazal world, Ideas? ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 23:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify As per suggested by all above and let it vet through AFC. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: agree with others. Maybe someone can translate the Hindi article into English. defcon5 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the King of a state, he is notable enough to have his own article. Current version is look notable to me. 185.205.142.76 (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2021 (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. Hog Farm _Talk 16:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. Prabhakaran

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

I analysed the complete sources and found that, all of them are talking about his company rather than this person. Some of them dont even mention him. On doing a WP:Before, I only got this [8] as the one giving any least coverage. Here also the main topic is his company. Thus the sources provided are just a REFBOMBING and the subject have no significant coverage at all and fails GNG. There is also a possibility that this article was created for promotional purpose if we are looking at the style of writing. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 15:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the tag says, this article reads like an advertisement and does not demonstrate notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Team KART

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

Currently the page acts as a promotional frontpage. The article appears to be an original research. It lacks inline citations. References have not been improved since 2014. defcon5 (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just an article written for promotional purpose with no significance. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found in Gnews or normal Google, thing about go-karts, nothing about these folks. Oaktree b (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Significantly trim and redirect to Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur 03:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability and much of the content is unsourced. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dethan Punalur

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

lack of reliable references which are independent of the subject. WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG GermanKity (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I did a WP:Before in Malayalam and found that this source [9] from Mathrbhumi is giving significant coverage to the subject. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above reasoning by Kichu. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has won a lot of awards for photography in South India. An established, high quality photographer. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N. A. Naseer

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

lack of independently reliable references. no indication of notability. fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One of the reputed photographers from Kerala, who popularised wildlife photography in the state. Notability can be established with these [10][] [11] [12][13]. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above reasoning by Kichu. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article needs work, the subject passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG based on multiple reliable secondary sources, such as a review on his upcoming photography book at [[14]]. Roulisegee (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trace VFX

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

Fails WP:NCORP. KH-1 (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMerit

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

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. Advertisement. scope_creep^Talk 22:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, while taking a first look, there are some reliable sources can be seen like The New York Times, Financial Times and Wall Street Journal but none of them talks indepth about this company. Just mentions hence fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. Grailcombs (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the company has had significant global coverage in outlets viewed as highly reliable including the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, AP, the Hindu and Forbes.It has a major social mission, pulling poor people, primarily women in India out of poverty by working within the world of AI. It is a notable company covered by recognized reliable Wikipedia sources.Miaminsurance (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with assessment of Miaminsurance. New York Times, the Wall Street Journal are major publications. Also having financial backers such as Pierre Omidyar and Michael Dell, should be worth some notability points. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 19:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with assessment of Miaminsurance and Expertwikiguy. Even if the mentions are not yet in depth, the publications that covered the entity are top-tier. In addition to having the notable financial backers that Expertwikiguy mentioned, they were able to raise significant funding in 2020, despite global economic issues. Their social mission is laudable as well, and combined with AI technology, makes for a notable endeavor. IrishChick2012 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: IrishChick2012 is a blocked UPE sockmaster, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IrishChick2012. --Blablubbs|talk 08:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a startup, with all-paid advertising. Lets examine the references:

New York times: Based in India, iMerit labels data for many of the biggest names in the technology and automobile industries. It declined to name these clients publicly, citing confidentiality agreements. But it recently revealed that its more than 2,000 workers in nine offices around the world are contributing to an online data-labeling service from Amazon called SageMaker Ground Truth. Previously, it listed Microsoft as a client. That is a paragraph inside and article. It is mention and fails WP:SIRS
Forbes 2012, former HP executive Radha Basu opened a center in Metiabruz to train young women in data analysis, cloud support and other digital services. Since then, her Palo Alto, Calif.-based social enterprise firm, iMerit, has hired more than 250 women in Metiabruz, who serve clients including Microsoft , eBay and Catholic Relief Services. They make up to 10 times what their families once earned. “They’re able to have some choice and independence but stay within the community, which means they’re developing it from within,” says Basu, who founded iMerit in 2012. That is mention as well as well and fais WP:ORIND vis-a-vis WP:SIRS
The Hindu IMerit to create jobs]. Its a press-release. Its fails WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH
Wall street Journal [15] iMerit (Asia) iMerit hires and trains economically challenged people so they can provide data services to customers around the world. Their team of trained, in-house data experts enriches and annotates the data that powers algorithms in machines learning, computer vision and other data-driven applications. To date, iMerit has provided data services to over 100 global enterprises. One paragraph listing as profile, as listing. That fails WP:SIRS. It is not-indepth, not independent. 1 of 17.
AP News And for 25-year-old Shamima Khatoon, her job annotating cars, lane markers and traffic lights at an all-female outpost of data-labeling company iMerit in Metiabruz, India, represents the only chance she has to work outside the home in her conservative Muslim community. A tiny paragraph. Fails WPCORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. Clearly non-independent either. AP News is the top journalistic outfit, anywere in the west, according to jounalists who look at these things. But poor reference.

The last reference is the Wall Street Journal and you must assume it is good, per Wikipedia consensus. However, going on through the these sources which are poor and past experience finding out that WSJ puts takes in a huge number of paid advertisements. Last, why is article even on Wikipedia. It is a clear brochure with no-redeeming features. It does say that they are all women, it is a sweat-shop company, so they have paid somebody to write on an article on here. There are millions of these companies. These companys have been known about in the web gaming world for more than 20 years, at least since about 2007-2010 for mainstream IT. I remeber my mate talking about them in 1999, whe big MMORPG, APB which failed, was being started to get built. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 17:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will abstain from voting here but the page is live because I am the one who approved it through AfC using the same standard as always ("more than likely to pass AfD discussion"). I can honestly say that I HATE approving articles such as these as I know it is likely only submitted to AfC because of someone wanting to promote the business. However, being that it met notability imho, I added the advert tag to the top because of the tone of the article. Other than that, I cannot believe we can dismiss the NYT article. They do publish advertisements but they are labeled as such. They felt the company notable enough to send a reporter to the location and do an in-depth article. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on keep arguments and AFC approver CNMall41's comments above, this company meets WP:GNG, specifically having an in-depth coverage in NYT and mention in WSJ are significant and I do not agree with the nominator that these kinds of publications can be bought. It's just absurd to say that! Just because an startup gets good coverage, you cant accuse them of having paid PR, unless you can prove it.Webmaster862 (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The more stringent WP:NCORP has not been addressed thoroughly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - bad-faith undisclosed paid-for spam, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpareSeiko. MER-C 12:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it is notable, which it is not clear that it is, independent editors will create it later. We shouldn't reward bad-faith UPE practice (socking, and possibly extortionism as well, I read). Also note that one of the keep !voters, IrishChick2012's comment, is their first edit in three years, and the first of only two edits they've made recently, the other one being to a similar AFD. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I nominated this a few weeks back but pulled the nomination after realizing the references weren't as bad as I thought. Having read that this was a byproduct of WP:UPE I say burn it down and let someone write it from scratch from a neutral point of view. nearlyevil 665 20:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It clearly fails WP:ORG, and is an advert by a now-blocked UPE. Java Hurricane 04:41, 15 April 2021 (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 Ankhiyon Ke Jharokhon Se#Soundtrack. There is consensus that the subject is not notable. The suggested redirect is a viable alternative to deletion as the target is a soundtrack listing the song. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ankhiyon Ke Jharokhon Se (Song)

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

Not going to A7 this because it was in a movie, possible hoax because this is listed as a Justin Bieber single, and the cover art is just an actress's face, either way, fails NSONG. Noah ^💬 18:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 18:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 18:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTINHERITED. I can't find any source outside of a discussion of the film that this song was notable. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ankhiyon Ke Jharokhon Se#Soundtrack: Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 8 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kurukkoli Moideen

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

A politician who is only a candidate in the upcoming Kerala election. Basically fails NPOL as the subject has been never elected into any legislative bodies in the past. There is also no significant coverage. Hence fails GNG also. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. The subject is not notable according to GNG. Iflaq ^(talk) 17:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not won, and this article does not suggest that he would pass any other notability criterion independently of having to pass NPOL. No prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is clear he has been elected to a lot of local service organisations and sanghas in Kerala. However, he has not been elected to any state or national body, so fails WP:NPOL --Whiteguru (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates for office who have not been elected are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete He is Indian politician of Indian Union Muslim League

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/iuml-releases-list-of-candidates/article34053385.ece

He currently Editor-in-Chief 'Swathanthra Karshakan' Magazine https://find.uoc.ac.in/Record/ch.6734He currently serves as president of Swathanthra Karshaka Sangham Kerala State He is the selected UDF candidate to contest for the Member of Legislative Assembly seat from Tirur constituency

https://thehinduimages.com/details-page.php?id=144433764&highlights=SWATHANTHRA%2520KARSHAKA%2520SANGHAM

Don't delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3917:607D:0:0:0:1 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a candidate to contest an MLA seat is not a reason why a person gets a Wikipedia article — politicians get articles on here when they win election to, and thereby actually hold, a notable political office, not just because they ran as a candidate. Being a magazine editor is not a reason why a person gets a Wikipedia article — magazine editors get articles when they've been the subject of critical analysis about the significance of their work as magazine editors, not just because you show a photograph of them doing their job. And new comments in AFD discussions go at the bottom of the page, not the top. Bearcat (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Najeeb Kanthapuram

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

A politician who fails NPOL as he has been never elected into any legislative bodies. Also does not have any sigcov thus failing GNG also Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not won, and this article does not suggest that he would pass any other notability criterion independently of having to pass NPOL. No prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and does not have enough coverage outside of his campaign to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2021 (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 Best of Luck Nikki. Consensus was that the article fails WP:V and WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murtuza Kutianawala

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

Unsourced Biography of Living Person and the subject does not pass WP:GNG. Iflaq ^(talk) 12:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iflaq ^(talk) 12:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - restore redirect to Best of Luck Nikki, which is the only semi-significant role by this actor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is a biogrpahy of a living person with no sources, we need to remove it with all possible haste.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - restore redirect to Best of Luck Nikki as per above. Citterz (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaghosham

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

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: On doing WP:Before in both Malayalam and English, I found nothing. May be its due to the age of this film. Sources may exist somewhere else in any format. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing to support an article on WP. Kolma8 (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Mango

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

no indication of notability. lack of reliable references. fails WP:GNG Lastin4 (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lastin4 (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lastin4 (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lastin4 (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the nominator as a spam sockpuppet. However, I am leaving this nomination open for it to be assessed on its merits. MER-C 15:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches find some announcement coverage in 2009 ([16], [17]), which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. My searches, including Indian media specific, are not finding substantial coverage of either "Nuclear Mango" or "Split Image Pictures". The company website now redirects to a hairdresser, so it is unlikely that anything further will emerge in future. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahatma Hansraj Modern School

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

No notability , no notable alumni and no sources provided. Princepratap1234 (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are zero references out there about the school and the article has been heavily edited by SPA accounts in a promotional tone. So, deleting the article seems like the only sane thing to do. Unless someone can come up with WP:THREE in-depth, independent references. I'd be more then happy to change my vote to keep if anyone can. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable school. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete d Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Bilal (model)

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

Bio of a fashion model who rcvd no SIGCOV in rs and fails GNG. The creator is likely to have a COI. Nitish shetty (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nitish shetty (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the author has just recreated this in the mainspace after GPL93 draftified it to Draft:Bilal Muhammed; I think the draft should be deleted if the page is and the creator warned that repeated recreation will lead to a block. — Bilorv (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per WP:A7 & WP:G11. The last reference doesn't even mention the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 31 March 2021 (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. Sandstein 07:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Rama Varma High School

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

~~A non notable schools. Fails GNG YogeshWarah^Talk 10:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 10:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 10:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 10:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 10:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 10:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Lacks citations, and needs a good amount of work, but it seems like a rather notable school. Largest in the area, with several notable alumni. Hell, it's got a museum too. But the lack of citations is what makes this a weak keep. AdoTang (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – notability seems fairly clear to me. The autobiographical book My Mother Called Me Unni: A Doctor's Tale of Migration discusses it in some detail, though it is through the filter of personal experience and anecdote (Google Books link, see pp. 20-30 and to some extent pp.119-120). Since the school has changed names a couple of times, and even the present name has some variations (some of them listed in the article), searching for sources is not straightforward, but based on the searches I have carried out I'd say it is very likely that there are sources. (Note that the nominator is a sockpuppet of a blocked user, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man. The article could still be deleted if the school is found not to be notable, but it was not a good-faith nomination.) --bonadea contributions talk 14:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

bonadea, on what basis you confirmed that I'm I am a sock of user: Phoenix Man. It's still not confirmed. They are just enquiring about it. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source that is in-depth is based on personal experience. Which doesn't cut it for the standards of notability. Even if it wasn't though, there would have to be "multiple" in-depth, independent sources. So, one on it's own doesn't cut it. There isn't anything from what I could find that does either. So, I'm not seeing what makes this keepable. Also, how exactly is the nominator a sockpuppet? As far as I can tell they are still very much active, there's zero about them potentially being a sockpuppet on their talk page, and I haven't found a report about it either. Someone should report them if they are a sock or not throw out unsubstantiated accusations. Not that it matters to the AfD anyway though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, this user is a confirmed sock. You may also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wahhid. The other SPI mentioned here also confirmes it and is waiting for administrator action. This user also has history of nominating lot of articles about schools for AFD. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmorwiki: I'm aware that's the accusation since you've said they are in other places. The problem is that in the meantime they are still contributing and haven't been blocked. While it looks like the other accounts that they are supposedly connected to seems to have been. So, either they aren't really a sock, they aren't going to be blocked even though they are one, or it just hasn't been resolved yet. Whatever the case, from the investigation discussion it seems not as cut as dry as your making out to be and the investigation is on going. I don't believe Wikipedia (or AfDs) should grind to a holt just because someone is being accused of something. Especially in cases where it's not clear that they actually did it or are going to get blocked. That and the linked discussion is especially convoluted. Even the admins trying to resolve the whole thing has said as much. Which really doesn't help. Given all that, I rather procced as normal until there's clear evidence and a solid outcome to determine that we shouldn't. BTW, there's also nothing inherently wrong with nominating a bunch of schools articles for deletion. You've nominated more then a few yourself. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, I have no issues with this user nominating schools for AFD. In fact, I had voted as Delete in most of the AFD's this user opened up because most of them failed GNG. What I tried to convey was, Bonadea was completely right. Thats all. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is one of the oldest schools in the state. See this source from Hindu published in 2003. [18]. One HUNDRED and fifty-seven years old. That's the age of Sree Rama Varma High School, (S. R. V. School), bang in the heart of Kochi has a great story to unfold.; this is the opening sentence and I am unable to read the full article as subscription is required. This school has an historical significance and printed sources published during its 150th anniversary might be available in Malayalam newspapers. But its hard to find. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed with Kashmorwiki, a lot of junk exist on Wikipedia. It is certainty in good condition and may be improved.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call an article where if the un-sourced material gets deleted all that's left is the notable alumni one that's in "good condition." Let alone improvable. Otherwise, some someone should provide sources outside of the notable alumni section to improve it with. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, just for your information, the nom has been finally blocked as a sock. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for letting me know. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - historically significant; I agree with the arguments of the keep voters in this case. Also, the AfD was started by a confirmed block-evading sockpuppet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: is there a policy or guideline somewhere about how to handle AfDs that were started by confirmed socks? I can understand striking out their comments, but I can't find anything in the policies that says AfDs created by socks can't go through with the process if there has already been substantive discussion by legitimate users when it's confirmed that they are a sockpuppet. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: There's just WP:CSK#4, which does not apply if other editors have made substantive comments. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As long as people aren't swayed too much by Phoenix Man's comments then I guess I'm okay for the discussion to stand. I just feel it's hard for a discussion started by a vandalism-only sock to not have a strong influence from that sock. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 13 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soura Nath

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}}.

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

19 year old photographer, does not meet GNG. The blurb "His works got recognized by several national and International organizations", is sourced to 35awards and Viewbug and while perhaps true in the strictly technical sense, said recognition is insignificant. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails GNG and written for promotional purpose.13:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Did I say it right? I meant what everyone else said. AdoTang (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked socks. Mz7 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep Did some changes of links and add more words to improve the biography section. Has won a lot of recognitions and appreciation for photography and got features in national and international magazines.Creativework27 (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above reasoning by Creativework27. I found related references to keep this article.Advance14 (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC) — Advance14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 19:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He looks like a notable photographer. The sources already in the article are sufficient to demonstrate the notability of the subject.Georgeart01 (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)— Georgeart01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 19:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, there is not a single reliable secondary independent source in the article. Most of the sources are profiles in social media / photography databases that were most probably written by Nath himself. Another source (WePhoto Portrait Ebook vol.8) has Nath as an author. Searching doesn't bring up much more on this young photographer.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 19:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:CREATIVE, wikipedia is not here for the promotion of someones work, may also be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bogus sourcing; likely a promotional autobiography. If a checkuser happens to be passing through, the Keep votes are obvious candidates for CU.--- Possibly (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject of this article does not meet notability requirements for WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. I agree that there are some fishy-looking !iVote-keeps above. Netherzone (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet GNG or CREATIVE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Devoke water 08:02, 14 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Potdar

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

lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Advertisement. Fails WP:GNG GermanKity (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. I have also visited all the continents and taken photographs, but that's not enough for an article, or even worth mentioning in an article. Athel cb (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst the Smart Photography references might initially suggest some notability/expertise, they do not deal with him in any detail, and the magazine is not deemed notable enough for a WP article. The other references do not appear to confer notability. Eldumpo (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2021 (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 20:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. D. Parashar

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

No indication of notability. Lack of reliable references with significant coverage. fails WP:GNG GermanKity (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Athel cb (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable individual. Unable to verify the claim about the National Photography Award. ~~Also, WP:COPYVIO [19]~~. -KH-1 (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as either a painter nor as a photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunjoy Monga

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

lack of reliable references that is independent of the subject. fails GNG. WP:SIGCOV GermanKity (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Athel cb (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2021 (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 to delete. All the !votes were to keep, though most were just barely persuaded on this. BD2412 T 04:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Peerzada

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

Apart from Ref 6, BBC, which is a podcast i don't see any other WP:RS for SIGCOV. Plus the article was created by the subject himself as per Talk Page. If NAWARD is considered he has won an award, but as per NAWARD it's a failed proposal, So putting it up here at AfD. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 20:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 20:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The weakest of week keep. First of all, this person works for BBC[20]. So I think the BBC reference cannot be considered as an independent source here. He can be considered notable if we are considering WP:ANYBIO as the subject is a winner of notable award in journalism. But there is no significant coverage as of now. If someone can come up with WP:THREE, I will change my vote. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is an interview with him, which does discuss the awards he's won, though I've been told interviews do not establish notability, which has always seemed odd since why would someone want to talk to someone they didn't think was notable to discuss their thoughts, work, etc. Here is coverage of him getting one of the awards. Primary source for the award, though that doesn't work on notability. This source discusses him getting the award as well, but I have doubts about the reliability, but this seems a bit more reliable. This covers the Red Ink award, and is more coverage. It's hard to find more coverage since searches for his name bring up news stories he's worked on, but I think he's over the bar with the awards and the coverage of the awards. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ScottishFinnishRadish, Shouldn't we change the WP:NAWARD then? It states that it's a failed proposal. If NAWARD is considered then most of the article's meet wikipedia's policies because most of the article's establish the notability just because of the award. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 21:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jammumylove I'm working off GNG. Coverage of different events in multiple independent reliable sources. Those events just happen to be getting awards, but secondary sources saw fit to cover it in depth, therefore it's notable by our standards. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammumylove, I had told you in several discussions that you dont need to consider NAWARD. We have something called ANYBIO. As per the one criteria in ANYBIO People are likely to be notable if he/she has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Please make sure you remeber this, next time while you nominate an article for AFD and please dont come up with the argument that NAWARD is a failed proposal in inappropriate places. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki, I Don't think an award makes you notable, And even if it does the correct policy to address the award would obviously be WP:NAWARD and not WP:ANYBIO. And if WP:NAWARD states that it's a failed proposal how would the same policy written in ANYBIO work? Set up an RfC if you have issues with me nominating article's for deletion on the basis of awards. Also how is AfD an inappropriate place? This is a deletion ' Discussion '. Hope you understand the meaning of word ' discussion ' . Also kindly stop replying to queries if i'm addressing them to someone else. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 05:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammumylove, if you think winning a reputed award does not make anyone notable, go to the talk page of WP:ANYBIO, propose the changes you would like make and reach consensus. Until then, you have to follow the guidelines regarding our notability. And I have never said that I have any issues with you nominating articles for deletion. I noticed that you always come with the argument NAWARD. So I politely requested you to stop it. But you are taking this as personal. This is a discussion and not your talk page. So I have the right to reply to anyone. So please try to be little bit more civil. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Kashmorwiki, And i noticed you always come up with WP:ANYBIO. Please eloborate the point of Policy WP:NAWARD if it is totally useless as per you. It shouldn't exist right? This is not a PA, might be rude because you keep on repeating the same thing everytime. I'd ask you to put up an RfC for the same because as per my knowledge of policies i would definitely follow WP:NAWARD for anything related to awards, and not ANYBIO. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 06:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jammumylove, I think you have no idea about a failed proposal. The proposed NAWARD has no consensus as of now. So there is no point of you coming up with that. Your argument that winning a notable award does not makes anyone notable is totally ridiculous. See this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. C. Bhargava. This article was kept only because he won a significant national award. And I was the person who rescued it by coming up with this WP:ANYBIO. I still dont get what you are trying to prove here. I am arguing with an accepted proposal which you claim to have no significance. My vote here was weak keep. Because I think this award he won is not that much significant when compared to others. Also there is not that much sigcov. Somebody please help this user regardjng our notbility guidelines. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Barely passes WP:ANYBIO as for the winner of a notable award in journalism. I can see a few sources too like Kashmir Life, Radio Times and a few more which I think to pass him for WP:GNG too. Grailcombs (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepIt is famous to stay.--MadD ^(talk) 11:01, 8 April 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meerut Institute of Engineering and Technology

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

A page that relies on only primary sources. Fails NSCHOOLS as there are no RS available with a BEFORE Vikram Vincent 14:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence it meets GNG, no independent sources. Eldumpo (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources. Fails GNG. Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 14:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Kumar Garg Engineering College

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

No WP:RS with a WP:BEFORE. Some paid advertisement, primary sources etc. Does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS. Creator is a WP:SPA. Vikram Vincent 14:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-03 ITS Engineering College ✗ delete

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete Hey V, hate to slightly differ here. I do agree that this doesn't has enough coverage to qualify for WP:ORG. But two things I noticed that might make us wonder if it is a good/major school. Two students of this institute have topped and it was also designated as a research center. In an India Today printed volume [21], it is being referred as a 'prestigious' college and the best in UPTU. Also found an academic book by an Alumnus [22]. I am sure more exists. My sense is that it is a good institute and relevant from a research point of view. I still agree it doesn't have enough coverage for WP:ORG. Let me know what you think. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Nomadicghumakkad wouldn't that be a point for future notability of the person rather than the institution since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED? I would say that WP:ORGDEPTH is needed for an article on the institution to stand. WP:NSCHOOLS and WP:GNG are the guiding principles here :-) VV 04:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomadicghumakkad I had another look at the India Today article. Only a research centre is being set up. This does not imply that high quality research is an output. For that we would need strong data from a google scholar search with a high H-index. There is no data to show that the award is notable in itself and it was once in 2007-08. The wordings in the article which is highlighted makes it look promotional rather than satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. VV 06:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, WP:CORPSPAM, fails WP:NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's borderline, but Google does not turn up non-trivial mentions in reliable, independent sources. I think this subject could easily become notable in the future, but the article should be recreated then, not be allowed to exist now in anticipation of future notability. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unable to identify relevant reliable sources. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2021 (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 Kanjikode. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity School, Kanjikode

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. No Reliable Sources found with a WP:BEFORE. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any in-depth coverage of this school. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Kanjikode, where it is mentioned. Deletion would be suitable, otherwise. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, if only per WP:CHEAP. This school seems to lack even the usual routine coverage; it fails the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to target already identified. Since it's mentioned there and clearly isn't notable enough on it's own for a separate article. Plus, as the last "voter" says, redirects are cheap and it might be a viable search term. So there's really no reason to not redirect it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Younus College of Engineering & Technology

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

No independent reliable sources are there giving enough significant coverage to the subject to establish notability. Clearly fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lets see, an article about a private school that is referenced only to primary sources and I can't find anything in a WP:BEFORE except for a few trivial name drops in school directories. So this seems like a clear delete to me. Unless someone can provide WP:THREE in-depth, independent sources that would help it pass the notability standards for organizations. If anyone can then I'd be more then happy to change my vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage is just the usual bare-minimum coverage. Adamant1 is correct here as is Kichu. WP:NORG failed as the organisation is not discussed in depth enough. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 7 April 2021 (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, without dissent. No prejudice against restoration to draft if sources can be found. BD2412 T 03:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M.N.U.Jayaraj Nadar Higher Secondary School

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

No independent Reliable Sources found to support WP: GNG. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both references in the article are primary and the only ones that I could find besides those were just brief, trivial, name drops in articles about other stuff. So, IMO this article should be deleted. Unless someone can find WP:THREE better sources then what's in the article already or the ones I mentioned so this can clearly pass WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator was blocked or banned at the time of making the nomination, and no other substantive comments about the article were made, so this falls under WP:CSK#4. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angels Arc Senior Secondary School, Kayamkulam

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

~~Non-notable school, nothing notable found with a WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)~~WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - nominator is a sockpuppet, now blocked indefinitely. This AfD was created in violation of the master's block and therefore the article should be kept on procedural grounds. If a good faith editor wants to nominate this for deletion, then they should be able to do so but I'd rather Phoenix Man didn't get his way here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:28, 12 April 2021 (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 Narayana Guru. However, better redirection targets seem to exist. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Narayana Central School

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

~~Non-notable college, only has a primary source. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking this over it's not a "college" as in a institution of higher learning. Plus, I don't think it's public either (not that it matters that much). So, it's not automatically notable and therefore WP:NORG applies. Sourcing wise, the article has zero references and doing a BEFORE only yields a few trivial name drops. In other words, from what I can (or more like can't) find there is nothing about this that passes either WP:NORG. Let alone WP:GNG. If anyone can come up with WP:THREE in-depth, independent sources I'd be happy to change my vote to keep though. Since it's possible (although extremely doubtful) that I just missed them. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate/Contest for speedy deletion The institution fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. It is not a notable institution. Besides, this article doesn't have reliable sources, to be honest, it has zero references. Without sources, it can't be verified. That's why this article should be contested for speedy deletion . A.A Prinon 09:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A7 states that educational institutions can't be speedy deleted for lack of notability. The only way a school could be deleted is through WP:G3, if it is a blatant hoax or WP:G11, if the entire article is pure spam with no decent content. I don't think any of the G3 or G11 criteria apply here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That should really be changed now that the whole "schools are inherently notable" thing isn't one anymore. If nothing else it could cut back on the amount of clearly unnecessary, time wasting AfDs for schools that have been going on lately. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Narayana Guru. It's not inherently notable, and the sources are weak and shallow. A student might be using this search term, so a redirect is cheap and easy. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It would fail my standards for high schools. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - another AfD started by the same block-evading sock Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since other editors have suggested delete/redirect, this isn't a case of WP:CSK#4. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and Bearian. Further reading in a parallel discussion (diff). I express principled opposition to procedural action here. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Carmel Convent Anglo-Indian Girls High School

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

Fails WP:ORG. No reliable sources apart from directory links found. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A respectable, substantial and historic school covered in a variety of sources including The Way We Were: Anglo-Indian Chronicles and 1600-1947, Anglo-Indian Legacy. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, Do you have any reliable source to prove the notability? I've already done WP:Before before nominating the article. YogeshWarah^Talk 12:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yogeshwarah, This is no particular criticism of you, because this is something I see with many deletion nominations, but I wish people would do more that put the title in quotes and perform a Google web search before claiming to have performed WP:BEFORE. For example the first search I did on seeing this title was this, recognizing that there would be too many hits for "Mount Carmel" and that it has probably given its name to many convents. I then used my favourite encyclopedia to determine that "Quilon" is an alternative name for Kollam and that Tangasseri is a part of that city. Now, that's not enough for me to say that I have looked hard enough for sources to nominate an article for deletion, but it's a start. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails WP:ORG , no WP:RS at all CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified by Andrew D in this discussion that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject is covered by multiple reliable sources, as Andrew has pointed out. I have added some of those to the article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Plenty of sources, not great but acceptable. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2021 (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 to delete. Opinions are in equipoise (though the "procedural keep" vote is given no weight as to the merits of the article); there is no consensus, and no reason to expect that another relisting would yield such a result. BD2412 T 03:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Aloysius Higher Secondary School

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

~~Fails WP:NSCHOOL. No Reliable Sources found with a WP:BEFORE. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a search brought up only primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on traditional measures, this would fail. However, according to User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_High_Schools_at_WP:AfD my longstanding standards, this is a notable school due to its age (over 100 years), size (4,000 students), and notable alumni. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - bad faith nomination; created by a sock in evasion of their block Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since another editor has suggested delete, this isn't a case of WP:CSK#4. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bold claims like "one of the oldest" need to be well sourced. This article is just not well sourced. Wikipedia has perpetrated too many hoaxes with such poor sourcing, such as the false claim about who invented hand sanitizer. We need to hold articles that make such claims to strong notability standards so we stop perpetuating hoaxes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note I added some sources, while I wouldn't assert that these are sufficient for a WP:NSCHOOL pass, I think it likely that such sources exist.----Pontificalibus 15:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the additional sources added to the article so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SMV High School, Thiruvananthapuram

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

~~Fails WP:NSCHOOL. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First off, the Hindu article is both a reliable source and indicative of significant coverage. Secondly, the school is about 175 years old, pre-dating the 1857 reorganization of British Raj, making it one of the oldest schools in India. It easily passes my standards for schools. Finally, even a brief review of book sources shows it in government reports going back 60 years and is even mentioned in a reputable tour guide! Bearian (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per the findings by Bearian and this source[23] from the Hindu. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bebopjohnson (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - nomination was by a sock in evasion of a block, bad faith nomination Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete assuming that Spiderone's "keep" !vote is solely procedural. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marthoma Senior Secondary School, Kozhencherry

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

~~A WP:BEFORE search in both English and Malayalam reveals nothing besides trivial and routine coverage. Fails WP:GNG. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP and my own standards for schools. It appears to be very run of the mill, as opposed to some others nominated recently. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - I have no comment on the notability of this school but I believe that this should be closed as it was created by a vandalism-only sock in evasion of a block Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since Bearian has also suggested deletion, this isn't a case of WP:CSK#4. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a sock nominates an article, I decide (mostly) on the merits; it's still not even close to notable. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The school is extremely run of the mill, there isn't any references about it in the article, and it looks nothing else is out there to help it pass WP:NORG. So there's zero reason not to delete this. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2021 (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 nominator was evading a block at the time of nomination (but another editor added a substantive comment so this is not WP:CSK#4). In the end, no editors in good standing have advanced an argument for deletion. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Believers Church Residential School, Thiruvalla

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

~~Non-notable CBSE school. No sources to establish notability; fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The school is one of the top schools in Kerala as per the ranking by careers360.com. It is ranked as 20th best school under the category Top National Day-Cum-Boarding Schools in Kerala 2021 with AAA+ ranking.^[1] The School magazine "Blaze" was awarded the second best school magazine in Kerala in the All Kerala School Magazine competition 2015 conducted by The Confederation of Kerala Sahodaya.^[2] It was also listed as the Most Beautiful School in India by The Education Tree, India’s Biggest Youth Community.^[3] Various films were also filmed there including June, one of the highest grossing Malayalam film in the year 2019. Considering all this information, Believers Church Residential School, Thiruvalla shouldn't be deleted. TobinKoshy^Talk 06:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Tobin Koshy : Can't consider this Instagram post, career 360 and school's website as reliable sources. YogeshWarah^Talk 07:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Top Schools in Kerala 2021". careers360.com. Retrieved 29 March 2021.
^ "Second Best School Magazine in Kerala 2015". bcrschool.org. Retrieved 29 March 2021.
^ "Most Beautiful Schools in India". The Education Tree. Retrieved 29 March 2021.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - nomination was created by a sock in evasion of a block Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 12 April 2021 (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. BD2412 T 21:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sivagiri Vidyaniketan

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

~~Non-notable school, nothing notable found in WP:RELIABILITY and Fails WP:GNG. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aluva#Schools and other educational institutions: The subject fails WP:NSCHOOL. Only considering the less strict WP:GNG here.
Sources in the article definitely do not meet WP:GNG. Searching with "Sivagiri Vidyaniketan" -wikipedia does not yield wp:reliable sources that are wp:independent with wp:significant coverage. Using the native name from Google Maps, querying with "ശിവഗിരി വിദ്യനികെതന് സീനിയർ സെക്കൻഡറി സ്കൂൾ" -wikipedia returns one result that only provides basic information for a school. So the subject fails WP:GNG.
Suggest redirection per WP:ATD-R. The list at the redirect target does not seem to have notability requirements for inclusion so a redirect is possible. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:GNG, WP:NCORP and my standards for schools. First off, it's so poorly written as to be difficult for the ordinary reader to understand it. Secondly, there's a lack of coverage as an organization or generically. I don't see anything that would allow it to meet my standards for high schools. For example, it appears that it only recently was a primary school, and in the past few years graduated a "batch" of students. I evaluate schools on a case-by-case basis, and this one is not worthy of inclusion here. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - nominated by a vandalism-only sock in evasion of their block, therefore this AfD is an act of vandalism Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly in agreement with Bearian (mainly: doesn't meet GNG, not NCORP). Spiderone's procedural argument is completely invalid. It doesn't matter who the nominator is, the discussion has taken it's course and the reality of the matter is pretty apparent. An AfD is a discussion. A substantive discussion can't ever be vandalism. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2021 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balaji Institute of Telecom and Management Pune

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

Page created by a SPA or COI editor. Was speedy deleted in the past but recreated. Cleaned up the page to remove advertising cruft. Fails WP:NSCHOOLS as WP:RS are missing. Used to be based on press releases, paid adverts and primary sources. Vikram Vincent 12:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 12:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see any notability of the topic, especially without any relevant sources. Might even qualify for a WP:SPEEDY (again). --Microhierax (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG.Can't find sources Sonofstar (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mentioned in passing here and a few passing mentions in Gbooks but nothing to establish a passing of WP:NORG. Time to get rid of these glorified adverts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That is based on a press release related to admissions. Not a RS. VV 14:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't even notice the note at the bottom. In that case, there's practically zero about this institution. Delete Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Sandhu

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

Fails GNG and NACTOR. Nothing in her acting history suggests that she has had multiple significant roles in notable series. The two TV shows that bluelink don't even mention her. I see hits on Google News for people named Aman Sandhu, but they don't appear to be her. Article appears to have been created by a PR team as the creator was blocked for sockpuppetry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per WP:NACTOR. Riteboke (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruva College of Management

AfDs for this article:

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

The page relies on a primary source with lots of press releases, paid advertisement. No solid RS with a BEFORE. Fails WP:NSCHOOLS. Arguments in the previous AFD fail to address the lack of WP:GNG. Post clean-up, the article fails to match WP:HEY. Vikram Vincent 10:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC) *Comment The creator is reintroducing advertising content post-clean up, disregarding the templates that have been added to the page, and the call for discussions on the talk page Vikram Vincent 12:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 10:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 10:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 10:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom : No evidence of notability. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 11:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Not enough sources to pass GNG. Pilean (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2021 (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 Prem Bhatia (Delhi cricketer). If anything reliably sourced is worth merging, that is available from the history. As for the title of the target article, that can be discussed and decided on its talk page. Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Bhatia (Gujarat cricketer)

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

~~Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant about them. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Prem Bhatia (Delhi cricketer) CricketArchive are suggested these two players are the same person, with his Gujarat appearance coming a couple of years after his Delhi appearances. With no DoB on the article of Cricinfo it makes me believe they are the same person. He made over 56 FC appearances for Delhi and Gujurat though so shouldn't be deleted. Could be moved to Prem Bhatia (cricketer) as well if merged.
Merge with Delhi cricketer and then retitle. CricketArchive says they're the same person and it can be trusted. Johnlp (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do we have any evidence he's the same player as the Delhi cricketer? This page is sourced to Cricket Archive. There's really two correct results here: either these are the same player or they're not. In both cases, this article should be deleted (as even WP:V is in question much less GNG). If they are, the information should be merged, though there's so little of it to merge that it can easily be done manually, and the Delhi cricketer should be renamed to Prem Bhatia since there's no need to disambiguate anymore. SportingFlyer T·C 12:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The CricketArchive link here links to an error page. Searching for Prem Bhatia on CricketArchive only brings up one player who played for both Delhi and Gujarat. Cricinfo lists two separate cricketers, but with no details (DoB/DoD/birth place) for the Gujarat cricketer. I would trust CricketArchive over Cricinfo due to its links with the ACS. Really only the information that he played for Gujarat needs to be added to the Delhi cricketer profile. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'd support the merge and delete then, since after the merge this won't be a valid redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 14:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It must have been at the time that the two were not considered the same person. It was Lugnuts who moved the article (in good faith), I'm assuming on the assumption that CA listed them separately. Since I compiled the player-by-player lists a few years previous to that I am almost certain I wouldn't have intentionally made that mistake myself. Bobo . 12:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that's where the CricketArchive error link on the page comes from, and quite possibly why there's still two links on Cricinfo. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect support as nom to Prem Bhatia (Delhi cricketer) and rename the target article to just Prem Bhatia because main page is currently a dab. I think this scorecard confirms that both are same people. Störm (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Almost certain they're the same person. I would email CI, but it's been about 4 years since they've actioned any of my emails. StickyWicket (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to merge because there's no valid source. The perils of basing biographies on a single page of stats.----Pontificalibus 14:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have merged the details from Prem Bhatia (Gujarat cricketer) into Prem Bhatia (Delhi cricketer) and added to it. Obviously will need retitling to Prem Bhatia as there are no other Prem Bhatia's on Wikipedia (there is a deceased journalist with the name, but he doesn't have a page on English Wikipedia). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Prem Bhatia (Gujarat cricketer) with Prem Bhatia (Delhi cricketer) which seems to have been done. Alright, move the Prem Bhatia (Delhi cricketer) to base title at Prem Bhatia. And Redirect (With possibilities) the Prem Bhatia (Gujarat cricketer) to base title. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:40, 5 April 2021 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Bhanushali

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

Per WP:GNG, subject is clearly not notable enough to deserve any space on Wikipedia. Eatcha 09:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's hard to address this article in its present state. An IP editor vandalized the page, replacing real job titles with the phrase non-notable marketing executive. The edits are kind of complicated (the vandalism is mixed in with a PROD nom and some actual improvements...). If someone skilled with reverting could undo them, it might make the article easier to evaluate. BenKuykendall (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Spot on BenKuykendall, I have found the clean version and reverted to that. Relisting to allow further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person is just doing job at T-Series music label. No independent media coverage exits. Okpty (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some sources are youtube and Wikipedia, others are not reliable. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2021 (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parimelazhagan Thangaraj

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

Per WP:GNG, subject is clearly not notable enough to deserve any space on Wikipedia. And too many primary sources used + facebook is not reliable. -- Eatcha 09:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 09:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it seems as there is almost 2000 mentioning of him on Google scholar search. Any thought from your WP:BEFORE? Kolma8 (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per the Wikipedia requirements, the information from JSTOR, newspapers, and books were added. The contents are re-edited and modified. The information are linked with external websites. Subject is deserve space on Wikipedia, because he is a well known Professor who contributed so many research articles and books to the research communities. Indian Scientists (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is WP:TOOSOON, he does not pass WP:NPROF#1 (yet). In a high citation field, 2000 citations is not a lot. It is not clear how "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." -- his two most cited works concern extraction methods of metabolits on certain plants, how does performing an acetone extraction on a plant and measuring several properties of it amount to a major "significant impact"? I think the "Research projects and Patents" section says it all. The only argument I can muster is that we have kept similarly weak cases recently. --hroest 16:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So, this was a really tough citation metrics project: most of the Indian coauthors (and the subject himself) are indexed under multiple identities on Scopus, including inverted name order (e.g. "Parimelazhagan Thangaraj" also appears under "Thangaraj Parimelazhagan"), and Scopus has an even worse time with his Brazilian coauthors (who have names like "Eloísa Portugal Barros Silva Soares de Souza, where "Eloísa" + any combination of the last four names can show up as a separate entry), so I've been going through and manually merging these people and recalculating h-indices. After doing this for his first 40 coauthors (with ≥5 pubs), Dr. Thangaraj/Parimelazhagan is looking around average (and well above the median) for his field, but I still have another 70 people to address so this will likely change. All this is just to say that his GS citations may be similarly affected. On the other hand, he (and his coauthors) publish a lot in what may be WP:FRINGE journals, which shouldn't count towards notability, so this will probably be a very messy AfD overall. JoelleJay (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. the publications in WP:FRINGE journals make me even more confident that this is not a very notable person. Most cited paper is in Journal of King Saud University-Science, 2014. --hroest 02:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can't discriminate the journals based on high impact factors. Many of the highly impacted journals having the Article Processing Charges can sometimes not be afforded by authors from developing and low-income countries. Interestingly, many funding agencies don't support APC. Some times the APC exceeds the annual income of a researcher (e.g. Nature communications; €4,530 = 387649.29 Indian Rupees!!! + Taxes), so it is tough to get published in those journals.

I think T Parimelazhagan deserves space on Wikipedia because he contributes to establishing applied research in Tamil Nadu by educating local Tamil people. Some news about him in news channels are here;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3XIEXMSwRc&list=LL&index=33; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDS69CVw2j0&list=LL&index=7&t=14s. He also established an IPR cell in the University. Read more at:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/70940234.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst Indian Scientists (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Scientists thanks for your perspective, however the argument was not about high/low impact factor but whether this researcher is above-average in his field and on top of that I made a comment about WP:FRINGE. You can publish in low impact factor journals but if your research is important, it will generally get cited a lot and this will show up in your citation metrics. Also, many high quality journals have mechanism to reduce APC for lower income countries or waive them as in the example of Nature Communications. Furthermore, while it is helpful to know that he contributed to education of Tamil people, however the question here based on WP:NPROF#1 is whether "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." This is not about whether he "deserves" to be on Wikipedia, but rather whether he is notable enough to pass either WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. --hroest 14:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have a duty to our readers to consider how highly regarded and impactful the place someone publishes is. Passing notability guidelines for academics is not just publishing a certain amount. This guy does not pass the actual inclusion criteria at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how membership and awards from provincial organizations merits passing the prof test. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T. Geenakumari

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not satisfy WP:GNG or the more specific WP:NPOL. ~~No RS with a~~ As part of WP:BEFORE, I have looked at the sources presented in the previous AFD and they do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV. The book written by the subject has no substantial English reviews to verify whether they can be classified as an author. If someone wants to improve the article per WP:HEY I'll withdraw my nomination. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I propose that the article be moved to draft space so that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red can incubate it. Vikram Vincent 17:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Addressing some of the points made in the previous AFD:

1. Yes, she represented the two women who entered the Sabrimala temple but that in itself does not make a lawyer notable. However, it might be a case of BLP1E for the woman entering the temple though that would be a digression for this subject.

2. The positions in SFI are not inherently notable in themself even if it were in Kerala. SFI has units in all States and there are women office-bearers in each of those units.

3. The role of an activist is not brought out clearly through SIGCOV either in part or taking all the sources together.

4. Subject is a local politician without SIGCOV and hence fails WP:POLOUTCOMES.

5. Book by subject hasn't received substantial reviews nor any notable literary award.

By all these criteria, the subject fails notability. Vikram Vincent 08:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant accomplishments, achievements, or media attention. Just looks like a short resume which states basic facts. Yinglong999 (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the first AfD of this article just closed by @Sandstein: as KEEP 20 days ago (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T._Geenakumari). We don't need to keep beating a horse until it dead. Respect time of other contributors. Kolma8 (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Kolma8 The close of the last AFD was 11:31, 7 March 2020. A whole year has passed with no improvement. Vikram Vincent 16:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - ok then... 20 days + 1 year. I thought I was just partaking in this AfD. I guess it was something similar. Thanks for clarifying. Kolma8 (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Draftify per Vikram Vincent, Beccaynr (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC) per WP:BASIC, WP:NEXIST, and WP:HEY - as this article expands, it appears there are clusters of coverage about various aspects of her work, and not always available in online English-language sources. For example, there appear to be more sources available about her SFI activism, because she became prominent and featured in newspapers in 1994. There also is some coverage of her work with the Kerala State Women's Development Corporation, and more substantial coverage of her work as a lawyer, including her practice focus on family law (where she has been quoted as an expert by independent and reliable sources), and her involvement in part of the Sabarimala temple cases, which picked up coverage over time. In addition, she recently was noted as involved in a high-profile case as a prosecutor. Beccaynr (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. In reviewing the sources presented both in the article and in the first AFD, there is only one source with significant coverage of T. Geenakumari, the article by Biju, K G in Malaysian. All of the other references are merely trivial mentions of the subject. For example, the Singh, Kriti (2013). Separated and Divorced Women in India:Economic Rights and Entitlements. Sage Publications. merely mentions Geenakumari in passing within a footnote. The recent additions of Beccaynr are not any better, with only passing mentions of Geenakumaru or routine coverage of court cases without anything other than a name drop of Geenakumari. We need something more substantial that is about her directly and not just mentioning her in passing. With all due respect to the keep voters, could you please list the sources here which display significant coverage, because I am just not seeing anything other than this one source.4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This does not appear to be a footnote, nor a passing or trivial mention, but instead quotes her as an attorney with a practice that includes a focus on family law, for her expertise:

Singh, Kriti (2013). Separated and Divorced Women in India:Economic Rights and Entitlements. Sage Publications.

Advocate Geena Kumari, a family lawyer from Kerala discussed4 how women in Kerala suffered domestic violence and dowry-related harassment. She said that a lot of deserted women in Kerala do not want to actually say that they are single and wear the mangalsutra and put sindhur (jewellery and red vermilion on the forehead worn by married woman) so that they are socially accepted. She said that the courts were not accessible to everyone because family courts were only located in district headquarters and low income women could not spend the money to reach them or hire a lawyer. She said that the procedure also took a long time and that was why people normally went to the court as a last resort. She pointed out that to get maintenance women had to prove not only the income of the husband but also that they were living separately for some valid reason. She said that the courts are gender biased and women are frequently told to reconcile and live with their husbands. She said that the maintenance that is awarded is often not even 5 per cent of their spouses’ income, particularly in cases where the male spouse has a high income. She also commented on how difficult it was to execute maintenance orders. According to her, in Kerala the dowry system was pervasive and people gave huge amounts and even property as dowry.

Similarly, she is quoted for her expert opinion as an attorney here:

T'puram is Kerala's divorce capital too, News18, 2012

[...] “Majority of the cases sprout from the problems of adjustment between partners. There is an increasing trend in the marriages from 2002 for divorce,” says T Geena Kumari, a counsel who specialises in family cases. She points to ‘adjustment problems’, with single children and the couples’ parental interference for the increase in number of cases. [...] “The rate of dowry is high in the southern districts. There are instances where the husband asks for more dowry after the birth of a girl. There are many cases of the husband and his family demanding more dowry after the marriage of the wife’s sister by comparing the amount,” says Geena. [...] The relationship between husband and wife also gets strained owing to the modern modes of social networking. “Most of the relationships between married men and women start off as mere friendship. But they end up in extra-marital relationships, if they are suffering from a bad marriage. Mobile phones and Internet chatting form a smooth medium for the marriages to rock as they offer more chances to meet and share their feelings than before,” says Geena. The 099 list some more factors for the increasing number of divorce cases.[...]

And here:

Alimony to women is not a welfare scheme but a right: Activists, The Indian Express, 2010

The stigma associated with single women, the paltry amount in alimony, expenses incurred during trials, "class and gender bias" among lawyers are some of the problems that were raised during the course of the seminar.

"Let's take the case of Kerala which has the highest women literacy rate, but even this state is not spared of violence, crime and discrimination against women," said Geena Kumari, a lawyer practising in the Kerala High Court.

Women often feel that they are doubly harassed, first by their husband and marital families and then by the police and lawyers they approach for help, she said.

"Women most often are unaware that they are entitled to maintenance, have no idea how much their husbands earn, or even where they work, and are unable to provide their income proof in order to ask for maintenance," Kumari said.

"These are the least of their problems. In addition, they have to carry the stigma of being a single woman, go through the cumbersome judicial process, try to meet the expenses for each hearing and the end of all this make-do with the meagre alimony they get which can be as low as Rs 500 per month," she said.

Beccaynr (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opps. I confused my sources, I meant the footnote on page 32 of the Poverty, Women and Capability study as the footnote example. Thank you Beccaynr for catching my error. That said, expert opinion quotes like these are not considered substantial coverage at AFD. The kinds of sources we are looking for at AFD are ones in which Geenakumari is the main subject being discussed, not her opinion as a lawyer which is about something other than her. Can you provide evidence where Geenakumari is the main subject of the article or study? Perhaps something about her work as a lawyer in general, or positioning her work as exceptional within her field? Please remember, that routine coverage of an individual court cases or expert opinions in a publications are not evidence of notability. Otherwise we would have tens of thousands of articles on average lawyers doing routine interviews.4meter4 (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cheers, and it looks like we agree that the Biju, K G article in Malayalam is significant and in-depth, and I also think it supports WP:BASIC notability that is sufficient for the article (due to the content, commentary, and documentation that other news sources exist), in light of the additional sources since then that help show Geenakumari did not otherwise remain low-profile, so this is not WP:BLP1E. For example, in the article, the Google Translate version of the lede is:

മെക്‌സിക്കന്‍ അപാരതയുടെ കാലത്ത് 'മുന്‍ എസ്എഫ്‌ഐക്കാരി ഗീനാ കുമാരി'യ്ക്കു പറയാനുള്ളത്, K G Biju, Narada News, 2017

November 25, 1994. The day when Koothuparamba went down in history as a river of blood. As a warning of the impending police terror, there was a picture on the front page of the Malayalam newspapers that morning. A picture of a girl with her head cut off and bleeding during police brutality. Her name is T. Geenakumari. At that time he was the State Joint Secretary of SFI. Geena may be the first woman comrade to call on Kerala through a front page newsreel that such blood-soaked struggle is not unique to male comrades. Today she is a lawyer. Additional Govt. Pleader and Public Prosecutor. Lawyer defending murder and rape cases. [...]

And there is more in that article, including about her incarceration for twelve days, although it is not clear if there is additional news coverage about that, or other aspects of her work as a student activist, but given her prominence in 1994, it seems possible. The article also appears to position her as exceptional as a lawyer, in what appears to be an exploration of the tension between her women's rights activism and her criminal defense work. I also disagree that it is routine coverage or a routine interview when she is quoted as an expert about her experience as an attorney; it appears to be secondary source opinion about her by the publication due to their consideration of her as an expert, and therefore contributes to her notability per WP:BASIC. Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr, the general consensus of WP:BASIC or WP:GNG in AFD discussions on wikipedia is the "rule of 3" (ie multiple sources) that are substantial. Basically, we are looking for three sources which show significant coverage over time. The Malaysian article is more in-depth and its more personal, and it positions T. Geenakumari and her work at the center so it is significant. That's just one source towards BASIC, but does not establish BASIC on its own, because at least two other sources of that caliber are needed to meet BASIC. The interview quotes do not count towards BASIC, because professionals like doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. get routinely interviewed in the media in the course of their jobs. They may be expert enough to be quoted in an article, but that doesn't make them necessarily notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. (ie not all doctors, lawyers, etc quoted in the press as an expert opinion are exceptional doctors, lawyers, etc. who deserve an encyclopedia entry) WP:NOTNEWS is pretty clear on this. Likewise, being quoted in a few academic journals isn't likely to count towards notability either. When we look at quotes in research, as seen in Wikipedia:Notability (academics), we usually look for individuals widely cited in research in a particular field, which in this case would be at a minimum dozens of journal articles, and not just one or two. I hope this helps you understand what we are looking for at AFD. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That source has images from what appear to be two newspapers from 1994 that feature her. And per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability [...], and I am suggesting that her notability appears to have been established based on coverage of her activism in 1994, including due to the 2017 coverage and commentary, and that the additional sources show that after this WP:NOTTEMPORARY notability, in the event that it appears WP:BLP1E, she has not otherwise been low-profile, having given interviews as an expert, and participating in the Economic Research Foundation, Economic Rights and Entitlements of Separated and Divorced Women, Report of Regional Seminar Proceedings (2008–2009) (New Delhi: ERF, 2010), 219, engaging in civic leadership documented by multiple news sources, and serving as a lawyer or advocate in high-profile cases. Also, per WP:CIVIL, I would appreciate it if we could focus on the article and the relevant policies and guidelines, thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr, I have not been uncivil. I have been courteous through this entire conversation. Please calm down. Unfortunately, I don't think we can count this article as more than one source because there is no publication information for those articles to cite and that assertion is speculative. Participating in the Economic Research Foundation, Economic Rights and Entitlements of Separated and Divorced Women, Report of Regional Seminar Proceedings (2008–2009) (New Delhi: ERF, 2010), and being a civic leader is also not inherently notable. Participating as a lawyer in cases covered in the news does not make a lawyer notable. Those are all wonderful professional achievements but wikipedia is not a CV. WP:SIGCOV requires three sources where the subject of the article is the main topic (or at least significantly featured beyond the routine) of the source. The evidence simply does not satisfy that requirement.4meter4 (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 2017 article quoted above states that her picture was "on the front page of the Malayalam newspapers that morning" (November 25, 1994), and includes images of what appear to be at least two of those newspapers, so I do not think it is speculative, given the precise information about the publication and the images, and the front page placement appears to be 'significantly featured beyond the routine.' It appears there are three sources for her initial notability as a student activist (at least two from 1994 and one from 2017), and there are several ways she has additional notability as a lawyer, because the 2017 source also finds her exceptional in the context of her women's rights activism and legal practice, and there are multiple independent and reliable sources that find her noteworthy as an expert, and multiple independent and reliable sources find her noteworthy for her participation in high-profile cases. Beccaynr (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are multiple independent reliable sources, but the coverage is trivial and routine and not significant in all but one of those sources. They only prove her to be a reliable family lawyer, not a significant lawyer in her field (which would require analysis of her career in relation to her peers or within her field). Meer quotes don’t provide a significant claim to notability, nor does listing a host of professional activities that don’t provide the level of context required for notability in an encyclopedia. The Malaysian article does make a good claim to notability. If you are able to actually locate the 1994 article so we can read and evaluate the content, that would help us a long way into proving WP:SIGCOV. Just proving the existence of an article without actually getting to read and evaluate content (no matter where it’s location in the paper) is not enough.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:HEY has not been satisfied even with the current set of improvements. It is just a set of minor comments and minor professional and political positions. Taking all the sources into consideration we do not have WP:SIGCOV This does not clear WP:GNG yet. Vikram Vincent 03:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is important to point out that both Shuchi Anand and Sindhu Joy AFDs were closed as delete though they both had a higher level of sourcing. This bio does not anywhere close. Vikram Vincent 04:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And Vageshwari Deswal closed as keep, without ever having been a notable political figure. Geenakumari has also written legal commentary, and two links are included in the External links section of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: I also went through the previous AFD and found that the subject does not have enough sigcov. Being mentioned in some reliable sources does not make anyone notable. Even if we combine all the sources provided by Beccanyr and others (in previous AFD) to claim sigcov, it is not sufficient for sigcov. I also agree with the point shown by 4meter4 that wikipedia is not a CV.

Draftify: As per Beccanyr's request.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Kashmorwiki I'd request you to change !vote to draftify. Thanks! Vikram Vincent 17:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Done Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: subject of article fails to meet GNG criteria. No SIGCOV is present either. --RaviC (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would support a draftify, as I believe its possible that more significant coverage could be located and assessed (per Beccaynr's identification of that 1994 article) as a possible source. With one excellent reference already in evidence, I'm hopeful that editors may be able to locate, read, and document additional sources that support WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also like to support draftify because I believe that Beccaynr will do their best to rescue this article like they always do. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per User:Beccanyr's request. VocalIndia (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Mutholath

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

Non notable priest. All the references are self published or from associated pages and none exist from independent sources. Probable vanity page with a prominent link on their family website - MUTHOLATH FAMILY: FR. ABRAHAM MUTHOLATH - to this Wikipedia page . Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 04:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non notable priest and no sigcov from independent reliable sources. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very Rev Fr. Abraham Mutholath is a most reputed and Graceful Priest who live today with high reputation. I never seen any Priest is doing such a proactive selfless service to people regardless of religion, cast etc. reservations. He was a Vicar General for St. Thomas Syro Malabar Diocese, Chicago for more than twelve years and currently serving as Forane Priest of Sacred Heart Knanaya Catholic Church, Maywood, Chicago, Illinois, USA. The Priest who devote his life for poor and differently abled children- Very Rev Fr. Abraham Mutholath is a true mentor for all Seminarians and Young Priests. The Scientific development of Social Service Society and women empowerment is known to everyone and Kottayam Social Service Society and it's famous works is received several awards and recognition from several state and federal agencies and that is one of the Mutholath Achan's achievement. He save every penny he received from Priestly Job and religious services and his properties received from his father and donated to Kottayam Diocese and Kottayam Social Service Society. He is the man live his life in a very small room with most fewer amount of living expense. There are many many untold information about this Priest who is a true copy of living Christ Jesus. Very Rev Fr. Abraham Mutholath is true Priest with outmost devotion and pure heart for poor, oppressed and differently abled Children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.66.79.215 (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 103.66.79.215, I agree with your opinion. But this encyclopedia does not work like this. We need sources to verify this. Can you show some relibale sources to prove these statements. If so, I will strike out my vote. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 08:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- He appears to be one rank below bishop, but exercising a ministry on wider basis than merely a local church. Knanaya is a group within the longstanding Christian community of Kerala, India. The eparchy (diocese) of Chicago covers the whole of USA, with 42 parishes. He is also author of several books. I think there is just about enough to keep. If he were merely the minister of one church, I would have my doubts. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Peterkingiron He does not appear to be the head of the eparchy (its Mar Jacob Angadiath with Mar Joy Alappat as the auxiliary bishop). He is not even the head of the few Knanaya Catholic parishes in the largely Syro-Malabar Catholic eparchy per the reference provided in the article - KNANAYA REGION PARISHES AND MISSIONS - which appears to be Msgr. Thomas Mulavanal. He is only one of the priests there. Also the larger problem is the lack of references from independent sources discussing him. Jupitus Smart 16:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very Rev. Fr. Abraham Mutholath’s credibility is unquestionable and his information is recorded properly in www.Kottayamad.org, www.stthomasdiocese.org, www.knanayaregion.us, www.shkcparish.us, www.kcschicago.com and may more. His life is public record with highest reputation. He belongs to Mutholath family and this family have their own website and family tree record with family history book. As a one of the family member, his information is provided in their family webpage and it’s just. Very Rev Fr. Mutholath is given all credible proof within his page to establish who he is. It’s totally unacceptable and injustice to question him without verifying the facts from the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.66.79.56 (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry to see that someone is questioning Very Rev Fr. Abraham and his credibility. This honorable Catholic priest is a living saint with true passion and devotion to Christ Jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.66.79.56 (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly does not meet notability. I think considering how many under sourced articles we have on bishops, we need to revisit our presumption of notability for bishops as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article - I reviewed the article and my observation is that Abraham Mutholath is a notable priest because he is extraordinary in many aspects. Though not now, he was vicar general of a diocese, he has contributed a lot for charitable projects with a vision, even started a foundation to continue his legacy, he authored many books, and made himself a role model for many. Those who have contributed the article have proved their posting with the pictures of the buildings Abraham donated for the disabled and the books he has authored. If the policy of supporting evidence is not enough, let the authors fix them rather than deleting the whole article. I would like to see this article to be kept for the Wikipedia viewers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.236.73.132 (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is notability? It was interesting to read the comments at talk to discuss on deleting this article. I went through a few websites mentioned in the discussion thread to learn about Fr. Abraham. It was an interesting journey. He got few firsts to be identified as notable: the first Vicar General of the St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Diocese of Chicago and the first director of Knanaya Catholic Region. Both of them were appointed positions in catholic church by a Bishop. As a catholic priest and in the catholic community, it is notable. Furthermore, he became instrumental to establish and construct eight churches across the United States and donated few churches in the Diocese of Miao, in India.
He is also a known author. He authored few non-fiction and a fiction book. He wrote a screenplay for a Malayalam movie.
Another significantly admired but not that much popularized area of his contribution is in social service. He established a sustainable re-habilitation and empowering center for physically disabled in the state of Kerala, India. This could be an ideal model for self- supportive rehabilitation. Later, Government of India approved this center as a nodal center to train blind people. Will these credentials fall under the notable criteria of Wikipedia? I do firmly believe he is a notable person, and this page cannot delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.50.82 (talk) 2021-04-01T20:21:43 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning towards delete per policy arguments but could do with more input from established editors citing policy, either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT: I went through the details of this article and did some study on the data given. I am impressed with Abraham Mutholath who is different in many aspects. What attracts me is that he has done great contributions for the welfare of the disabled people.^[1] He held high positions in the church.^[2] He is the leader of Knanayology team. ^[3] He is the president of Knanaya Global Foundation and founder of Fr. Abraham Mutholathu Foundation.^[4] I would like to see this article live in Wikipedia for the information of the public. 50.236.73.130 (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Clergy, and WP:TOOSOON. He is at the level of vicar general, which is roughly equivalent to a monsignor or canon. Those titles or ranks do not automatically give rise to notability. Priests are not automatically notable. I agree with the consensus that we not keep such articles. However, he is young enough where he could still be appointed a bishop or cardinal by the Pope. For the record, arguing over notability after 20 years that Wikipedia has been in existence is not a good faith argument. Also for the record, I am a member of the wider Catholic church, and have created several articles about bishops; I moved the Pope Francis article to its current name immediately after he was elected. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOTABLE: I had started this article almost two years ago (30 July 2019) not because Abraham Mutholath was vicar general but as a person who does a lot of humanitarian activities from his own earnings. He contributed to many fields like screenplay writing, author of several popular books in Malayalam, and introduced self-help groups and community-based rehabilitation programs for the disabled in Kerala state, India. So, I considered him as a notable priest. Now the decision is yours … — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobbijo1 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The conversation has been refactored to make it more readable. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "FR. ABRAHAM MUTHOLATH FOUNDATION". mutholathnagar.com.
^ "Knanaya Region". April 3, 2021 – via Wikipedia.
^ "About Us - Knanayology". June 17, 2020.
^ "FR. ABRAHAM MUTHOLATH FOUNDATION". frabrahamfoundation.org.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As noted by Daniel: Needs more policy-based input from established editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Except some suspicious comments from IP's, all other users were in favour of deleting this article. This made me wonder why this was actually relisted and is taking this much time to get closed. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage. close examination shows that most of the sources given are primary non reliable sources.defcon5 (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely promotional biography about a subject that doesn't meet notability guidelines. It's too detailed with no sufficient sources. Also i have noticed a number of IPs commenting keep... definitely a promo piece. TheChronium (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that notability is not established. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahabir Prasad Asthana

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

Survived PROD based on the encyclopedia source, but I don't see any evidence of notability and am unable to verify the claims to even see if the chair positions add up to notability together. StarM 02:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Would be notable if confirmed as former leader of the Indian National Congress, but I fail to find any English sources. Perhaps someone should double check in Hindi before a decision is made? P.S I will edit out the obvious puffery and non-encyclopedic language. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if I'm reading the second paragraph correctly, he was a committee chair, not a leader for the INC itself. StarM 11:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The committee chair of a commitee for a movement in one province of a country is not a sign of notability, and being a person who works with someone who organized a mass movement of protest is clearly not a sign of notability unless it can be documented you were one of the main organizers of the mass movement, which is not documented here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:19, 11 April 2021 (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 Kannur University. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People Institute of Management Studies, Munnad

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. No RS found with a WP:BEFORE. Relies on primary sources. Is not inherently notable. Vikram Vincent 11:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 11:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 11:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 11:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 11:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously AFD'ed so not eligible for a soft-delete. Further discussion required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kannur University, of which it is a constituent school, and per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2021 (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 consensus that the topic is notable. A theoretical WP:HEY is not a reason to DRAFTIFY (the most common reason to draftify is some form of TOOSOON). If sources are found that establish notability let me know and I would be willing to provide the deleted text for improvement and consideration. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chithra Ramakrishnan

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely non notable musician with no awards or recognition in top media houses, either in India or in the UK. Besides, the pages of her organisation and the World Music Conference were created by the same IPv6 range Nikita Manzi (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete per MayureshK - I was the one who revived her article, a bit after the first deletion and went on to create pages of her org and WMC (to explain the same IPV6 range) :-) Based on the media coverage she appears to be a notable personality - enough for her to be nominated fora national level award and win civic honours - both for her work with dance and making it accessible. And also her work with the World Music festival and the Carnatic choir (apparently the first in the UK) as a secondary criteria for notability. She can't surely be compared with someone with an international repute, obviously. But I don't think that makes her any less notable. I would certainly say that's 2 out of the 3 of WP:ANYBIO. Just my 2p. -MayureshK

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 05:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search only brought up one article from a reliable source that isn't a passing mention. As a musician and dancer she doesn't meet the notability guidelines. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 10:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability given that all of the honours are non governmental honours and not some civilian or national award. Also, hosting a talk show with notable people doesn't make one notable. I feel, it is better to delete the article since it exists, without a single reference from a reliable source, either in India or in the UK since I belong to India and felt necessary to comment. Rohan9082 ^(talk)
Draftify I think having it incubated might help bring it to WP:HEY or better. I'd request others to also support a draftify. Thanks! Vikram Vincent 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Per above Snehashis Chakraborty
Delete because doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Riteboke (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Duggal

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

PROD was removed hence bringing to AFD. Non-notable IPS officer. He is husband of an elected politician but notability can't be inherited. Some other news in this article is about his transfers. He has one award but that doesn't seem very significant either. Failing WP:GNG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create, 2007-02 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a lot of passing mentions in relation to cases, but I could find no SIGCOV of the man himself. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Superintendent of police in India is notable person. There here is one police man for thousand persons and in this manner he is working for millions of people in Haryana State. Police Medal is conferred only for remarkable services rendered for human welfare for masses.Mamtakuhu20 (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mamtakuhu20 : can you guide me which wikipedia guideline say that 'Superintendent of police in India' is a notable person? Working for millions of people is not a notability criteria from what I know. I am not disagreeing that his services have not been remarkable. Just saying that the single medal is not enough to cross notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete distict level heads of police are not default notable. The sourcing does not show notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. While consensus can change, there is a very strong consensus that police and school superintendents are not inherently notable, even if they have extensive coverage due to crimes. Only police chiefs or school supers of world class cities are inherently notable. 20:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R. K. Mittal

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

Doesn't qualify WP:Academic. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In India a Vice-Chancellor is the de facto head of a university, so he meets WP:PROF#C6. ~~Google Scholar also shows a few highly-cited (>100) papers, so there's a weak case for WP:PROF#C1.~~ It would be nice if we could find sources that say something beyond these bare facts, though. – Joe (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I think we shouldn't assume that vice-chancelor is the de-facto head of this university unless we have evidence that this holds true for everyone. About Google Scholar, the profile you have given seems to be a different person that the person in question. The Google scholar profile person belongs to BITS (A highly reputed engineering college in India). While the subject of this page is associated with different universities. May please double check if they are same people. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does. See the article I linked, A "vice-chancellor" (commonly called a "VC") serves as the chief executive of a university in England, Wales, Northern Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Kenya, other Commonwealth countries, and some universities in Hong Kong. That is what Vice-Chancellor means in these university systems. You're right about the Google Scholar profile; struck that part, but it's still a weak keep per WP:PROF#C6 for me. It would be very strange if there wasn't significant coverage about the head of a university. – Joe (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for sharing this. I read and I agree that the article says so. However, this information at Chancellor (education) remains unsourced. But I guess we can leave that and agree on your argument. I have added his profile at university website as a source since current source is sort of a syndicated feed. So does it mean all vice-chancelors of accredited universities would be presumed notable? That would be a lot. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unless Ch. Bansi Lal is considered an important school. Actual GS profile of Dr Mittal. Joe, is this university (founded in 2014) actually considered a major institution, per the language in C6? From what I've seen through a quick search it doesn't appear to be even close. JoelleJay (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC) EDIT: Changed to neutral. JoelleJay (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: I don't think there's a clear consensus on what "major" means in those criteria. Personally I'd say that an accredited, degree-awarding state university is. – Joe (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe:, while that makes some sense, it doesn't really explain why "major" is used in the guideline rather than clearer language (like "state university or major private university"). Does that mean all state/provincial universities in every country are "major"? There are 416 state universities in India, although only 249 of them qualify for UGC funding under Section 12(B) of the UGC Act (whatever that means). There are also 8 Ayurveda universities among them, which I believe would require greater scrutiny of notability considerations per FRINGE. The degree of specialization of the colleges (e.g. Gujarat University of Transplantation Sciences) also does seem quite a bit different from what a "state university" is in North America. I'd be curious to see the discussion that led to the wording in C6. JoelleJay (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd have go digging pretty deep in the archives to find that! But I suspect part of the answer is that higher education systems vary so widely from country to country, so it's hard to find specific wording that fits everywhere (the current guideline is already quite US-centric). – Joe (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Joe Roe's thinking. On top of that I've found a fair amount of mentions of him while searching. Keep in mind I'm not saying these provide notability, but if I can dig these up it leads me to believe that if I read Hindi I could find enough to show notability. This combined with Joe's explanation is why I'm at where I'm at. [24][25][26][27] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2021 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School of Management Sciences, Varanasi

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

No RS found with a BEFORE. Zero notability(NSCHOOLS) Vikram Vincent 04:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. We have always kept these by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor is talking about some nonexistent consensus. Several AFDs where they have !voted keep have been deleted. Unless they come up with proof to support their "consensus" their vote needs to be ignored. Vikram Vincent 10:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should have no articles sourced only to the subject's webpage. This should be so basic a principal we should be able to place a proposed deletion notice on them when they are in such a condition, and the proposed deletion should be unremovable unless a new source is added.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claims in the article, the meet WP:GNG, no references on the article that meet it, and I could not find any when I searched. Jeepday (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found a few mentions in Google books, but no quotes nor anything else that I would consider significant coverage. I note for the record that vocational and business schools are not automatically notable, and we have never been a directory of such schools. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2021 (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 12:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Ramswaroop Memorial College of Engineering and Management, Lucknow

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

Zero RS with BEFORE. Does not satisfy NSCHOOLS. Vikram Vincent 04:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. We have always kept these by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor is talking about some nonexistent consensus. Several AFDs where they have !voted keep have been deleted. Unless they come up with proof to support their "consensus" their vote needs to be ignored. Vikram Vincent 10:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a flagrant violation of verifiability principals. We need secondary sources, not just an organization's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There are definitely secondary sources. Apparently the place was turned into a temporary jail for Covid-19 quarantine? [28] [29] Also a student died getting hit by a car which sparked protests. [30] A team of engineering students there won a contest! [31] I am sure if I could access (or read) Indian sources I would have no trouble finding sourcing for this college. On an unrelated note, I discovered while looking for sources that engineering colleges in India offer classes on Shit Flow Diagrams which I'm going to immediately start looking into for notability, because that seems like a great first article to write. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL about the 'shit flow diagrams'. So a lot of schools and colleges were converted into isolation facilities as migrants were travelling across the country on foot during the lockdown. Those unfortunate events do not make the educational institution notable. Vikram Vincent 18:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UEI Global

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

Zero refs available. Does not satisfy NSCHOOLS. Article was already deleted once by CSD. Vikram Vincent 04:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AdoTang (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this but not really anything that truly establishes notability through WP:NORG, which is what is required here Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 15 April 2021 (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 11:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vivekananda College of Technology and Management

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

No refs with a before. Zero notability(NSCHOOL) Vikram Vincent 04:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. We have always kept these by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor is talking about some nonexistent consensus. Several AFDs where they have !voted keep have been deleted. Unless they come up with proof to support their "consensus" their vote needs to be ignored. Vikram Vincent 10:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe it's a reference to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which says "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online." › Mortee _talk 22:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mortee All these institutions are only affiliated to a university and do not award degrees themself. Also, as per WP:NSCHOOLS, "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." These are for-profit and hence are not exempt from satisfying W:ORG or WP:GNG. VV 03:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's as may be. I haven't tried to assess this myself, so I haven't !voted. I was just pointing out what there is some actual text behind what Necrothesp was saying. I looked it up because they've been an admin for 15 years so I was surprised to see someone saying their !vote had to be ignored as invoking a "nonexistent consensus". I thought I'd share the link in case it was useful to other participants. › Mortee _talk 04:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Mortee Consensus can change per {{outcomes}}. If you were to look at the delete stats, you will see that the consensus has moved to deleting non-notable private tertiary educational institutions which do not have RS. I think following the existing guidelines is a better approach and then changing the guidelines when necessary. VV 04:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wait, that means "I agree with the listed reason", right? I hope it does, because I've used this on, like, seven AfDs so far. AdoTang (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Vikram (honorable mention to his/their enormous experience in AFDs of educational institutions). Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2021 (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) 12:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Venkateshwara Institute of Technology

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

Too many issues by the templates already on the page. No RS with a BEFORE. Does not satisfy NSCHOOLS Vikram Vincent 04:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussi on has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. We have always kept these by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor is talking about some nonexistent consensus. Several AFDs where they have !voted keep have been deleted. Unless they come up with proof to support their "consensus" their vote needs to be ignored. Vikram Vincent 10:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is unnecessarily personal. In fact, it has been long standing precedent to keep tertiary institutions. Consensus can change, and the consensus has been swinging in this particular regard lately, but this comment indicates an unfamiliarity with history here. Important factors can be, is it for-profit, who accredits it, and how long has it been in operation, does it have a substantial physical campus? Does it constribute to the body of published research? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, 78.26! Necrothesp and I have been sparring on multiple AFDs of a similar nature. Till date most of the nominated pages have been deleted. Yes, there was a consensus to keep tertiary educational institutions that did not have WP:RS to satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS but {{outcomes}} clearly states that consensus can change. Rather, if you have a look at these AFD stats one can gather that the consensus is changing to ensure that article of such nature strictly follow NSCHOOLS. VV 15:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES#2, Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online. The point I have raised on multiple occasions is that these are only institutions affiliated to a university and are not degree-awarding in themself. In fact, there is a concept of "private deemed university" which would satisfy #2. Thus, the argument to delete. VV 15:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nice copy-paste throwdown you two keep doing. AdoTang (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to satisfy WP:NSCHOOL which says "For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." Chirota (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find multiple reliable sources addressing the organisation directly and in depth, therefore the organisation fails WP:NORG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another one with no vipers nearby, no protests over cars hitting pedestrians, no shit flow diagrams, no internment of migrants during a pandemic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2021 (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. Consensus is to keep. Since the movie has released and gotten reviews, the draftifying reasons aren't relevant anymore. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ei Ami Renu

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

~~A non notable film, Fails WP:NFILM. Citterz (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)~~ Struck the nomination rationale as the nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article should stay on the article space. The article had much news coverage. And @Citterz:, i think you should read all those news source what I have provided. Android you should search on Google, there in google you will get much more coverage about the film. Anyway the film passes WP:NFILM so the article should stay on the article space. TryingToDo (talk)
Draftify: the film has not been released...so WP:NFILM would be considered. But per WP:NFF: 'films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.' I say kick it into the draft space and once released in 2 weeks consider to publish it again. Kolma8 (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 22:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the film has been released on 9 April and has reviews such as here. A quick search is not finding a lot more so it's a weak keep at this stage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has already released with notable coverage in WP:RS and passes WP:NFILM. Also, added this film review from Anandabazar Patrika. Run n Fly (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2021 (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) Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thalolam (film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE . Kolma8 (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since this is an old movie, its hard to find sources. So WP:NFO need to be considered here. I had found source from Indian express,[32] which proves the movie had theatrical release hence passing the special inclusionary criterias of WP:NFO, in which one criteria is that The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. In this case, the important role is M. J. Radhakrishnan, the cinematographer. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kashmorwiki: - Hey, Kashmorwiki/Kichu, if that would be "the important role" for M.J. Radhakrishnan it would be at least listed on his selected filmography, right? But it does not. Can you please reference something to prove that this film in fact played an important role in his career? Kolma8 (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the argument that sources must exist for an old film isn't a convincing argument to keep an article. Sources must be cited regardless of the film's age. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has been an argument repeatedly from this contributor lamentably. Kolma8 (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per explaination by Kichu. As this is an old movie, its hard to find sources but there are definitely reliable sources to make it pass WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide those "reliable sources" you mentioned? Kolma8 (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it being old is smaller problem than it being from one specific state in another country that speaks its own language. A state award was given to an actor for his role in the film[33], so I'm sure there is some coverage somewhere in local papers from back then, are we able to find them is another question. I will try and find more coverage but unable to find any online with standard searches. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on above. Forgot about this and I never got around to my foreign language deep search. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kolma8, this source from Indian Express [34] says actor Murali, one of the veteran actors in Malayalam cinema won the Kerala state award for his performance in this film. Hence my previous argument ''The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career becomes relevant here. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 19:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Its hard to find reviews of the film, may be Kichu's arguments hold here. Chirota (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may be so, that is why we are having this discussion. I still don't see any mentioning of this movie in Murali's high achievements. So, it is a stretch to say itr is one of his most important roles. This needs to be supported by something, not just assumed. Kolma8 (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that a movie in which the actor got a state award is not a major part of his career? I dont know what logic you are applying here. There is no need of special statements to prove this thing as it is clear from the fact that he had won a state award for the movie itself. The subject has acted in more than 200 movies or more if Im right and had won 7 state awards. That is just 3.5 percent of movies he was involved in and this movie comes under this 3.5 percent. So how can you say this is just an assumption. And for what reason are we giving awards for an actor? Its for their best acting performance right? With a commonsense, anyone can easily assume that this movie is a major part of their career. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems a notable Indian film. Riteboke (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A third relist to give extra chances for finding sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFO #3 (The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking). Based on the fact that Murali received Kerala State Film Award for Best Actor for the film. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Ab207's comment. Imfarhad7 (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Indian journalists. While by a pure nose count this might appear a "no consensus", the "keep" arguments do not refute the argument that there is not enough source material available to sustain an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burhaan Kinu

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

The sources are primary and of his own website, the other sources mentioned aren't articles on him rather then article's which have his pictures. He works for Hindustan Times. but it doesn't demonstrate notability. Also there are sources like gettyimages where anyone could upload pictures to. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 19:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards holder. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 06:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily passes WP:ANYBIO as he is the winner of Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s Comment, as above stated by two editors that this article should be kept just because he has won an notable award. This doesn’t justify or demonstrate his notability. Because WP:NAWARD is a failed proposal. Apart from this award this journalist has no other source to demonstrate his notability, it’s clearly evident from The sources and references on this page. And if this article is kept because of the Award, then the WP:NAWARD page should be updated because it’s misleading. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 13:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to nom: Dear nom Jammumylove, I am not saying about WP:NAWARD. I am saying about WP:ANYBIO. Please interpret things properly.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not enough to have this BLP on WP. Kolma8 (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This old article may have COI concerns and needs heavy cleanup. But the subject seems notable while passing WP:GNG. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 11:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if more !votes address whether the subject meets WP:BASIC and/or WP:GNG instead, perhaps through searching for sources. Skimming over the sources in the article, the deletion rationale does not seem baseless.

Per WP:NBIO#Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria, if the subject meets WP: ANYBIO or other additional criteria but fails WP:BASIC or other guidelines to establish notability (such as WP:GNG), it might be more appropriate to merge instead.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Shows notability within local news outlet and some even outer aspects. Not reasonable for quick deletion. Future guides. --203.87.133.197 (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of Indian journalists. There is no doubt that his work has been acknowledged in journalism, but unfortunately listed sources only shows Image courtesy: Burhaan Kinu at Hindustan Times. I found only one source [35] that talks about the subject independently, but since it is a BLP article, it should be supported by multiple independent RS. Therefore, it be redirect it to Indian journalist list. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: agree with TheBirdsShedTears that it should be redirected to the List of Indian journalists as the subject lacks secondary coverage defcon5 (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2021 (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. Once the socks are discarded, there is a consensus to delete. I did consider draftification but given the previous history of sockpuppetry and persistent recreation of the article after AfD deletions, I have decided not to do this. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prashanth Nair (IAS)

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

The subject is only getting some incidental coverage for a programme he initiated. Does not have enougj significant coverage from the sources. Fails GNG. Its better we merge it with Operation Sulaimani Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Google Search, Google News , News, Google books, Result, Prasanth Nair Is Taking His Debut Film to cannes, Collector Bro' Prasanth Nair's short film to get world premiere at Cannes festival, Times of India, please see Who (film). ProudMallu (📨│📝) 11:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Strike vote by confirmed sock. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not helpful here to present search-links. If you want to argue that this article should be kept, it's up to you separate the WP:GNG-wheat from the chaff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to others: The user ProudMallu, who created this article is under suspicion for violating our guidelines. There is already a case against this user at SPI regarding personal attacks like this [36] and using multiple accounts. ProudMallu is also suspected for sockpuppetry. See this [37]. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Routine update: ProudMallu has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable based on the position they hold, and specific independent reliable sources containing in-depth coverage of the subject have not been identified. BD2412 T 19:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the article needs a major revision to incorporate sources that include significant coverage, because per WP:NPOL, Nair appears to be a 'major local political figure who has received significant press coverage,' e.g. Kozhikode IAS officer does it again: Now offers biriyani to clean water body (Indian Express, 2016, "An IAS officer in Kerala, who has often been in the news for his ingenious campaigns to improve public amenities and increase youth engagement, is back with a new formula."), Kozhikode collector promises to give people biryani if they help clean a city pond (Scroll.in, 2016 "IAS officer Prashanth Nair, who was behind the initiative, is known for his out-of-the-box campaigns to improve the state of his constituency."), Kozhikode’s ‘Collector Bro’ Prasanth Nair appointed private secretary to Tourism Minister KJ Alphons (Scroll.in, 2017, "Nair earned public acclaim when he started several initiatives in Kozhikode during his term as the collector, The Indian Express reported. He earned the moniker of “Collector Bro”, and even ran his own Facebook page, which has nearly 2.5 lakh likes."), How an IAS officer in Kerala used Facebook to help flood victims (The Print, 2018, "First, as the district collector of Kozhikode, IAS officer Prasanth Nair won the hearts of his home state, earning the moniker ‘Collector Bro’ for his citizen-friendly and participative approach in governance. Now, a few years later, at a time when Kerala is battling the worst natural calamity it has faced in living memory, Nair has inspired a volunteers’ movement to help the hundreds of thousands in need."), ‘Collector Bro’ Prasanth Nair Is Taking His Debut Film to Cannes (The Quint, 2018, "Considered as one of the most social media savvy IAS officers, Nair commands a large social media following on his official Facebook page due to his work in Kozhikode, as well."), Prasanth Nair's Masterstroke That Arrested Hunger In A Wayanad Tea Estate (Outlook India, 2020). Beccaynr (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR discussion --Beccaynr (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment It appears that this AfD may have been created in bad faith. See this statement at ANI where editor Kashmorwiki/Kichu, who nominated this AfD writes:

"Inorder to make sure Im right, I set something like a honeytrap by opening these two deletion discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divya S. Iyer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prashanth Nair (IAS)"

Appparently this article was nominated for AfD as part of some broader plot to "trap" the article's creator based on the belief that they were a sockpuppet. I would strongly recommend that this AfD needs tk be closed with prejudice as it was not nominated in good faith. I suppose that a Speedy Keep would not be possible since there was a Delete vote, unfortunately. Kashmorwiki/Kichu may wish to refrain from nominating any more AfDs for a long time, as this is incredibly inappropriate. Hyperion35 (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reviewed the pending ANI and the concluded SPI, and particularly in light of Kichu's history as an editor and participation in this discussion, I feel that these AfDs are brought in good faith due to genuine concerns about whether the articles meet Wikipedia guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperion35, setting the honey trap was only the other side of the coin. When this same user came to with this same draftz previously, I declined it. So this is not only honeytrap. This article deserves AFD nomination. So are you saying that this is a well written article. The creator of this article has been warned twice for paid editing. We need to consider all that factors. So this is not at all bad faith. I have no intention of making this project disruptive. My edit history itself will prove that. And 80 percent of my opinions in AFD's were in favour of my comments. And you can see that most of the articles I nominated has been deleted (75 percent) . [38]). Finally my doubt has been confirmed. 7 accounts has been blocked for sockpuppetry including the creator of this article itself. [39]. So if I havent set this honeytrap which you said I did in bad faith, I would not have been able to provide evidence. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki, I had a public policy professor, back in college, who would respond to any policy proposal that referenced an irrelevant point by asking "and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?", to emphasize that we had not properly addressed some salient issue. My point is that reading through your response, I am finding myself asking the same question. Whether another editor was or was not using sockpuppets, whether 75% or 0% of your AfD noms are deleted, whether this AfD helped you catch a sockpuppet, all of this is irrelevant, what does it have to do with the price of tea in China? Or more specifically, what does it have to do with this AfD? Please see Point for guidance about why we should not engage in disruptive editing to prove a point, which you appear to admit in the final line of your comment, where you claim that nominating this AfD was the only way to catch a suspected sockpuppet.

As for this specific AfD, I have not decided to vote either way. I have no strong feelings for or against. As a career civil servant myself, I question whether the job is likely to result in notability. On the other hand, I am not familiar with the Indian civil service system, which may be sufficiently different from the American system that my experience is not directly relevant. I was leaning towards voting Delete, since this subject lacks one key component that made a similar subject appear notable, but now I do not feel comfortable voting, and I do not feel that I can do so in good faith, if this AfD was proposed for the very reasons that you claim. Please strongly consider retracting both AfDs and renominating, as a show of good faith. If you do so, I might consider voting Delete on this article, but as I said, I cannot do so in good conscience on this AfD, as I feel it has been tainted by an improper purpose. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To clarify my comment above with regard to the WP:POINT guideline, and specifically the section WP:NOTPOINTy, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". I do not believe there is any basis to conclude that these AfDs were only brought to illustrate a point, or that there is no basis upon which to have a thorough discussion about how to interpret the notability guidelines. And I do think that an editor's history is one factor to consider in making this determination, but not the only one; but I do believe that Kichu's disclosure of the background issue here and their history generally provides additional support for an assumption of good faith with the AfDs, even though they were otherwise trying to protect Wikipedia. Beccaynr (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion35, I think your concern is that me saying that this is a honeytrap. But I already told you, I already had plan of nominating this article because the exact copy of this aricle was declined at AFC. I regret I should not have said the word honeytrap, because some users like you is misinterpreting it. My basic motive here is to delete this article rather than trapping the sock. Please try to accept that. You are still saying my whole motive behind this AFD was to prove my point. But thats not correct and is just your assumption. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Kashmorwiki: Please perform a better WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion. Kolma8 (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Kolma8: I dont know how did you came to the conclusion that I havent done proper WP:Before. By the waylet me ask you somethings. Did you know the exact copy of this draft was declined at AFC ? Did you know that I was the person who adviced the creator of this article to find more sources that give sigcov? Did you know I done a WP:Before in both English and Malayalam to find any sources so that I can accept it in AFC? Did you know the creator and his socks abused me just because I declined thier drafts and asked about using multiple accounts? So my advice is to you is that before accussing anyone blindly, try to understand the exact things happened here and dont take anything personally. What I said is that lot of sources exist here, but none of them give enough sigcov to the subject. Plenty of source does not alone make anyone notable. Thats my point. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kashmorwiki, don't take it personally it will cause nothing but stress. On my books @Beccaynr: did a great example of WP:BEFORE to support a keep vote. You might disagree that the sources provided is enough to support GNG, but that is a different issue. Cheers, Kolma8 (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I did not accuse you of anything; I politely asked you of something... In return you should do the same, my friend. Your tone is rather aggressive or maybe I am just reading in it too much. When you start three questions in a row with "Did you know..." and then add "So my advice to you is..." that does not read as a nice answer. So stay calm and stress free. Thank you. Kolma8 (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kolma8, you just said to me please perform a WP:Before. It is indirectly an accusation that I havent done a proper WP:Before. Let me say you one thing. This is a discussion and it is not only me, who have the oponion to delete. Some other users have also the same opinion as mine. You can disagree or agree with anyone. I dont have any issue with that. But you dont have the right to simply say that other users havent done this or that. Yes, Beccanyr found some sources. In my opinion these are not sufficient to passing GNG and I already said that. Does that mean I havent done WP:Before? Thats why I said you to do not say the things that you dont have an idra about. By the way, I havent done anything aggressive here. I dont know if asking some questions to prove my part is any part of aggression. Also advising another users is not a bad thing in my opinion. It is indeed required for our development in any fields. Anyway if you feel that I got aggressive with you, I take this opportunity to apologize you. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kashmorwiki: Good deal, my friend! Stay well, respect the fellow wikifolks and apostrophes, and remember that irony is the hygiene of the mind. Kolma8 (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like Kashmorwiki said this is an exact copy of the draft which was declined at AFC. Kolma8 expressed a concern regarding whether the nominator had done a proper WP:Before. I think Kashmorwiki had done it properly because I also did a WP:Before and was not able to find any sources giving subject the in-depth coverage. Having recieved some trivial coverage and mentioning in some reliable sources does not make any one pass WP:GNG. For that, we need sigcov and in this case, it does not have. Poppified ^talk 17:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional sources that focus on Nair and include in-depth coverage include: 'Collector bro' Prasanth moved out of Kannanthanam's office (OnManorama, 2018), Serving the people makes Prashanth Nair a local hero (Times Kuwait, 2018), 'Collector bro' Prashant Nair hospitalised, diagnosed with sudden hearing loss (NewsMinute, 2018), Superman 'collector bro' of Indian state Kerala (Gulf News, 2016), Kerala govt in a spot as fight between Kozhikode collector, Congress MP escalates (FirstPost, 2016). Beccaynr (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it has been deliberately created with a minor misspelling to bypass previous AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prasanth Nair (2nd nomination). It fails to satisfy GEN. He has served at various posts, but none of them are notable. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and the sources set forth above show WP:SUSTAINED coverage over time in multiple independent sources that transcend any one political position he has held, and include his personal biographical information, his film, and his notable social media presence. Beccaynr (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a dearth of independent, persistent coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:BASIC, and no indication that the subject reaches WP:ANYBIO. ——Serial 18:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be relevant to note that the article for Divya S. Iyer, a former Sub-Collector who moved into another political role (but not a national one like Nair) and had a film role (but did not make a film as Nair did), was recently kept. Some of Iyer's national news coverage focused on her high-profile marriage, while Nair has sustained national news coverage over time as the 'Collector Bro' and his use of his social media platform for public service, regardless of his political position. Both articles need revisions to incorporate additional sources, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Beccaynr (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have created a source assessment table below for news sources from 2015 through 2018 that appear to support WP:BASIC and WP:GNG notability due to the significant and in-depth coverage, and also appear to show "significant press coverage" for WP:NPOL notability:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
2015 Kozhikode collector goes all social, gets more than a few likes for his work, The Indian Express	The article focuses on Nair, and includes commentary, such as "Prashanth Nair is not your regular kind of district collector," and "In a rapidly changing India where smartphones and Internet users multiply by the day, Prashant represents a new breed of administrators who wants to capitalise on the situation to reach out to more people." as well as reporting, such as "He commands more than one lakh followers on Facebook, addresses each of his young male audience as ‘bro’ and leads innovative crowd-funded campaigns through social media," and third-party commentary: "Dr Suresh Kumar, founder of Institute of Palliative Medicine and who works with Prashanth on several initiatives, finds him dedicated and open to suggestions. “The thing is no one is forcing him to initiate some of these programmes, but he is taking out time to contribute to a good social commitment,” he said."	✔ Yes
2016, Kozhikode IAS officer does it again: Now offers biriyani to clean water body, The Indian Express	The article focuses on Nair, and includes commentary, such as the subhead, "Prashanth Nair has an almost cult following in Kozhikode in Kerala" and the description that he "has often been in the news for his ingenious campaigns to improve public amenities and increase youth engagement," and some background career information, such as, "Before being posted as the district collector last year, Prashanth was secretary to the state Home Minister," and "The IAS officer also takes special interest in organising cultural programmes and has written-directed a short film for the state government."	✔ Yes
2016, Superman 'collector bro' of Indian state Kerala Gulf News	The article focuses on Nair, and begins with the commentary "The last time Keralites idolised a district collector was when Malayalam superstar Mammootty set the silver screen on fire as a feisty IAS officer in his 1995 blockbuster ‘The King.’ But now the object of that collective adulation is a real life Collector who is making the on-screen hero pale in comparison in both popularity and mass appeal," and describes him as "no less a cult figure, not just in his administrative province but across the south Indian state." The article reports on his Facebook page, his appearance, and states he is "redefining transparency in government administration by using social media as the main medium of communication." The article also provides biographical information about his education and early career before politics.	✔ Yes
2016, Kerala govt in a spot as fight between Kozhikode collector, Congress MP escalates, First Post	value not understood WP:GNG states, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and this article includes commentary: "the collector is a darling of common man, especially the new generation. The new generation demonstrates their support to Prashanth, whom they call ‘collector bro’, mainly through social media. With over 2.5 lakh followers in Facebook alone, Prashanth is perhaps one of the most popular district collectors in the social media across the country today," and reporting: "The collector has been using the social media not merely to take the administration to people but also to draw ideas from them and ignite collective action for the betterment of all sections of people, especially the marginalized sections." It also notes that his Compassionate Kozhikode project "caught international attention. While the last ITB-Berlin has chosen it as one of the 50 inspirational projects from around the world, Digital Empowerment Foundation and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation has selected it for the social media for empowerment (SM4E) award," and includes biographical information: "Prashanth said that his main source of inspiration was his mother, who is a doctor by profession. She taught me not to fear anybody when you do the right things. “I believe I am on the right path,” he added."	? Unknown
2017 Kozhikode’s ‘Collector Bro’ Prasanth Nair appointed private secretary to Tourism Minister KJ Alphons Scroll.in	The article focuses on Nair, and provides background on his career as he changes political positions from Kozhikode collector to the Kerala higher education department to the private secretary to Minister of State for Tourism, and also discusses some of his projects, including Operation Sulaimani, and "his own Facebook page, which has nearly 2.5 lakh likes."	✔ Yes
2018, Serving the people makes Prashanth Nair a local hero TimesKuwait	The article focuses on Nair, and includes commentary, such as the title and the lede that says he "has achieved somewhat of an iconic status among residents of the district with his form of participatory and transparent governance." It also reports on some of his projects and comments, "Crowd-funded campaigns like these are giving him an almost cult-like following in the district. Prashant has brought with him a lot of energy and drive that the young generation are easily identifying with."	✔ Yes
2018, How an IAS officer in Kerala used Facebook to help flood victims, The Print	value not understood The article begins with a focus on Nair, and includes background information on his career development: "First, as the district collector of Kozhikode, IAS officer Prasanth Nair won the hearts of his home state, earning the moniker ‘Collector Bro’ for his citizen-friendly and participative approach in governance. Now, a few years later, at a time when Kerala is battling the worst natural calamity it has faced in living memory, Nair has inspired a volunteers’ movement to help the hundreds of thousands in need. Nair, now deputy secretary in the union ministry of new and renewable energy, wrote a Facebook post on 16 August, imploring the participation of volunteers in rescue and relief operations."	? Unknown
2018, 'Collector bro' Prasanth moved out of Kannanthanam's office , OnManorama	The article focuses on Nair, and includes background information on his career, and commentary, such as "He was perhaps the first collector in the country to have used social media to reach out to people with telling effect."	✔ Yes
2018, ‘Collector Bro’ Prasanth Nair Is Taking His Debut Film to Cannes, The Quint	The article focuses on Nair, and provides background about his career, his social media, his inspiration for the film, i.e. "Nair, who earned his moniker Collector Bro due to his community-driven umbrella initiative called 'Compassionate Kozhikode', only chanced upon filmmaking because he wasn’t very “happy with the promo for the initiative” given by ad agencies. With some prodding by his friends and colleagues, he decided to make the promo himself" and his film-making process. This article also points to other news coverage about the film that is available, per WP:NEXIST.	✔ Yes
2018, 'Collector bro' Prashant Nair hospitalised, diagnosed with sudden hearing loss, The News Minute	This article is focused on Nair, includes background about his career and information about his social media, and biographical information.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Beccaynr (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The table data presented by Beccaynr is compelling show that not only WP:BASIC is satisfied but also WP:GNG. Vikram Vincent 18:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Supporting Beccaynr. Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 07:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC) — Sharath Abhivadyah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Beccaynr (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to others: This user is a suspected sock of ProudMallu. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and let is vet through the AfC. Riteboke (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2021 (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. After substantial improvements to the artice just before the last relist, the consensus has changed to the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pt. Sundarlal Sharma

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

Nothing to suggest notability; the two sources cited barely provide passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG, and by some margin. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not substantial enough to demonstrate Sharma was a notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, while I'm not offering this as a WP:RS, this blog post indicates that there is more to this person than this Wiki stub. Perhaps someone that is familiar with the history of Chhattisgarh could comment. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No claim of notability. Riteboke (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this looks good enough to me. I will expand the article now.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a third time given the recent efforts at improvement to see if that establishes notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now, whoever reads Hindi, there is a book about this guy.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a very notable figure in Chhatistisgarhi history. Aside from the information already included, here is a link to an academic source for his role in the Kandel Nahar Satygraha [40] and a link showing India printing a stamp in his honor 50 years after his death. [41]

I would normally let the links speak for themselves, but the process by which this article got to AFD is, quite frankly, abusive. An Indian editor creates a stub article on a prominent regional figure, giving two sources in support. Six hours later it has an incorrect BLP tag and gets nominated for deletion. Aside from ignoring the clear advice given at Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, the nominator overlooked criterion #1 at WP:ANYBIO, which explains that people with significant honors, such as having a university named for you decades after your death, are likely to be notable.

Although the editing process has improved the article, the fact that two of the first three comments are basically drive-by deletion support leaves me concerned that articles that actually pass the 100 year test [42] do not last for 400 minutes before going to AFD. I hope Wikipedia never reaches the point where editors believe such deletionism is good for the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:660e:ede0:e827:9d4b:3e61:4271 (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:HEY, and passes:

WP:ANYBIO #1, “The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor,” – the Pandit Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University is named after him.
WP:ANYBIO #2, “The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.” – his involvement in the Indian independence movement and the Kadel Nahar Satyaghara.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The person in question seems notable. But yes the article needs significant work.defcon5 (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2021 (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. Ignoring the personal attacks and aspersions of editors' motivations, I note that several sources were uncovered that were not refuted by those !voting "delete". Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qazi Shibli

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

Trivial mention in Time, apart from that no other wp:rs, all sources mostly from kashmiri news agencies which are highly manipulated by these journalists. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 07:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Time never is a trivial mention, and it is not right for you to assume that Kashmir journalists are being manipulated whom I think you should apologize to. As you say on your user page, you edit with a Pro-India sentiment for articles related to Kashmir.--Lohen11 (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lohen11, The TIME source has no byline, And isn't a significant coverage of him. Kindly share how does this meet WP:GNG. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 11:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shibli was ranked fifth on Time's list (not a local little newspaper) of "10 most urgent threats to press freedom." You want to make the article disappear to deny a reality of this state.--Lohen11 (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 07:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability requires "multiple" examples of "significant" coverage. A single mention in a listcruft article with no real byline that is clearly a piece of propaganda against American geopolitical enemies doesn't count as significant. Every other source is just reporting on him being jailed or being released. That isn't enough to make him inherently notable as it isn't significant coverage. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has a bias regarding articles related to Kashmir as stated on their user page. Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 09:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seemplez, Ive mentioned that i might sometimes ' ' ' edit ' ' ' with a pro indian sentiment, that clearly doesn't mean that i put up these article for deletion because of it. There are 100's and 1000's of other article's out there related to kashmir, if i was biased to kashmiri article's i'd have posted all of them for deletion.I Check thoroughly the article's before putting them up for AfD, If i was biased i could've PRODded or CSD'd them. I am trying to clean up the wikiproject:jammu and kashmir, and clearly i've nominated multiple article's earlier which were unfit for mainspace and hence deleted. Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 10:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammumylove, this is neither a personal attack nor an assumption of faith. You have disclosed a bias on your user page and I have transcluded it here. Also your point that you don't have a bias because you didn't put every Kashmir related article up for deletion isn't really a point. You have disclosed a bias in editing. Why wouldn't your bias extend to AfD? Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been nominating a lot of Kashmir related articles/articles about Kashmiris today. Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 11:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seemplez, As mentioned i'm trying to clean up the unfit article's. There are plenty of them that don't fit the encyclopaedia 's standard and must be removed or corrected. What's wrong in there? I've done the same earlier as well not just today, check my AfD history. Why are you making it like a PA? -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 11:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seemplez, My Bias wouldn't extend to AfD because i properly write why it just be deleted. i don't give out biased opinions, i state the WP policies. and i am a human as well i make mistakes sometimes while nominating but i immediately rectify them and withdraw my nom. This article clearly has no Significant Coverage and hence i've nom it for AfD. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 11:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jammumylove, I do not wish to continue this. Happy editing. Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 12:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By Nominator: By Manipulation of these article's i meant that the source are from local jammu kashmir based media agencies and these journalists can easily get themselves posted on there. There are no proper significant WP:RS. Also this article looks more of an WP:BLP1E i-e Significant for the Arrest of Qazi Shibli. And it can be redirected to it just like Arrest of Kamran Yusuf if not deleted. Also the only WP:RS Time Has no byline. Thanks. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 10:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Despite having some concerns regarding this subject's notability, I strongly recommend not to have any assumptions like Kashmir journalists are being manipulated. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki either read things properly or kindly don’t misinterpret. I’ve clearly written that these kashmiri media houses can be easily manipulated by these journalists. Not what you’re saying.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 13:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammumylove,I havent misinterprated what you said. all sources mostly from kashmiri news agencies which are highly manipulated by these journalists ; this is your comment. You havent said they can be manipulated. You just said they are being manipulated. So its clear who is actually trying to misinterpret the statements. Do you have any evidence to prove your assumption? If dont,please dont make such type of comments in AFD's. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki, you’ve written that Kashmir journalists are being manipulated and I’ve written all sources mostly from kashmiri news agencies which are highly manipulated by these journalists the difference can be spotted b/w these two by anyone who can read English which I doubt you can’t. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 16:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammumylove, whether it is mostly or leastly or whatever it may be,I just wanted to say that you made up such type of baseless argument in an AFD. And in this encyclopedia, you dont have the right to say that they are manipulated unless you provide reliable sources or any other means as proof. Finally, such type of arguments should not be used in AFD discussions and this encylopedia is not a place to show your Pro india sentiments against its policies. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki, There’s no way that could prove the internal things with these kashmiri media agencies but being from jammu and kashmir i know how easily jammu and kashmir based media agencies are manipulated. And moreover i never tried to push this as the reason for the AfD, My reason is simple, this article doesn’t have WP:RS and if it has kindly show, or maybe research and add them to this article I’d be happy to withdraw the nom. But until then it’s clearly evident that this article is eligible for AfD, and yes my pro Indian sentiments have nothing to do with this, i never said that kashmiri articles should be deleted for no reason. I have withdrawn many AfD related to kashmir just because they later were improved to be fit on pedia but this one isn’t at this version.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 19:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammumylove, As of now, I have no objection with your nomination of this article for AFD. What I said is that you should not add your own findings anywhere in this encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:No original research. This is applicable to everywhere in wikipedia. Your activity here has real consequences, because Wikipedia is in the real world. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable person to have a BLP in WP.Kolma8 (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Particularly significant is a peer reviewed journal article which focuses on Shibli in more detail: Bilal Ahmad Pandow (September 2020). ""The idea is to kill journalism": Kashmiri journalists on what it's like working under lockdown, an internet blackout and a new draconian media law". Index On Censorship. 49 (3): 17-19. The Time article is also significant and there are other sources which I will list here. See Christian Science Monitor, Mint (newspaper), and "India: Abuses Persist in Jammu and Kashmir". Asia News Monitor. August 5, 2020.. All put together and this meets GNG. Appologies for no urls for some of the sources, but I accessed them through my university library and they are not available for free online. 4meter4 (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 4meter4, Hi, CS Monitor and Mint is again a trivial mention, it doesn't discuss shibli significantly. Moreover they discuss more about his arrest rather then him. Check out Arrest of Kamran Yusuf, If shibli gets a stand-alone article then most of the arrest related article's deserve it as well. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 14:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As stated earlier, the most significant sources are the peer reviewed journal article and the feature in Time. Neither of those are trivial mentions (no matter how much you insist otherwise), and support WP:SIGCOV. The fact that international press in multiple continents is interested enough in this journalist to mention him in context to world events in addition to these two significant sources is enough to satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion. Lastly, you seem to have a WP:POV agenda here which may be impacting your editorial judgment.4meter4 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, I Don't have a WP:POV agenda here, i am speaking on facts only. WP:SIGCOV states that Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail I don't see any of the WP:RS covering this subject in detail. They do cover his arrest in detail and i've suggested that as well. This might certainly seem as WP:POV but you can check my AfD history,Being the nom it's my responsibility to discuss and I always reply to all the comments made to discuss things in detail. And moreover my POV won't be considered, because the closing admin's would obviously be more experienced than me to decide whether my comments made make sense or not. Also as far as Time Is considered, Macktheknifeau has already stated that above Notability requires "multiple" examples of "significant" coverage. A single mention in a listcruft article with no real byline that is clearly a piece of propaganda against American geopolitical enemies doesn't count as significant. Closing this discussion now. Peace. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that assessment and I disagree with the characterization. The Time article is clearly divided into 10 sections with headings profiling 10 individuals. One of those headings, and it’s succeeding section is devoted to Qazi Shibli. That’s not a trivial mention, but a featured profile. The fact that the magazine chose to simply biline the entire article with TIME Staff is not surprising or unusual in this kind of article, but it doesn’t change the fact that the article would have gone through TIME’s well respected fact checking and editorial review process, and therefore doesn’t diminish the quality or verifiability or significance of the work as a piece of evidence.4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:As per the latest findings by 4meter4. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete the article, i am a notable and famous journalist from jammu and kashmir and founder of the kashmiriyat which is the most famous media agency in kashmir, people use wikipedia to read and know about me. Do not delete this. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4050:2D8D:3916:6159:30D1:6F74:9CBA (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, why are we even using the news-site he's associated for an article on him. -- Eatcha 05:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs multiple independent sources giving significant coverage- he has one and several local ones he may be connected to. Perhaps a WP:TOOSOON, but not currently notable. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer. The offline peer reviewed journal article I cited above is a significant source. The deletion votes have not accounted for the offline reference when weighing WP:SIGCOV. That and the the Time story in addition to the global press coverage is enough to meet the multiple sources requirement of GNG in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Content is irrelevant for determining notability at AfD; limited evidence of BEFORE process. Extensive, multiyear, indepth coverage available,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] discussed by Amnesty International^[9] and in the 2020 Freedom House annual review.^[10] UCS, easily meets the GNG.

References

^ "Kashmir: Missing Journalist Sums Up Total Breakdown Of Democracy". HuffPost. 18 September 2019.
^ Malik, Irfan Amin (6 May 2020). "Why Are Kashmiri Prisoners Happy About Coronavirus Pandemic?". TheQuint.
^ "India: Police detain Kashmiriyat editor Qazi Shibli / IFJ". International Federation of Journalists. 3 August 2020.
^ "Indian Journalists Union Demands Scribe Qazi Shibli Be Released From Custody". The Wire. 3 August 2020.
^ "South Kashmir-based editor, journalist, Qazi Shibli, again detained by Indian police: IIOJK". Associated Press Of Pakistan. 1 August 2020.
^ "Jammu and Kashmir police launch investigations into 3 journalists". Committee to Protect Journalists. 22 February 2021.
^ "Plan for Cyber Volunteers to Police India's Internet Draws Criticism | Voice of America - English". www.voanews.com. 25 February 2021.
^ Pandow, Bilal Ahmad (1 September 2020). ""The idea is to kill journalism": Kashmiri journalists on what it's like working under lockdown, an internet blackout and a new draconian media law". Index on Censorship. 49 (3): 17–19. doi:10.1177/0306422020958271.
^ "JAMMU AND KASHMIR AFTER ONE YEAR OF ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370" (PDF). Indians For Amnesty International Trust. 2020.
^ Freedom in the World 2020: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 1372. ISBN 978-1-5381-5181-5.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Goldsztajn, limited evidence of BEFORE? how? I've already commented above that the subject Shibli does have SIGCOV but for just one event i-e his arrest which would be a BLP1E. Moreover i've suggest it to be changed as Arrest of Qazi Shibli, Just Like Arrest of Kamran Yusuf. Even the source's you've shared have covered his Arrest. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 17:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AfD nomination only deals with the content, it does not address the issue of notability, hence "limited evidence of BEFORE". If you wish to have a discussion about renaming the article, AfD is not the place. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn, AfD arises only when there’s the issue with the Notability. What else venue do you think the notability should be discussed at, if not AfD? As per my knowledge, we raise articles at AfD when they have notability issues and aren’t fir per standard of an encyclopaedia. If i am wrong do correct me.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 01:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammumylove: To be precise: *your* entire nominating text was purely about the present contents of the article, which is irrelevant for the purposes of AfD. This is why I stated that there was limited evidence of WP:BEFORE...If I wasn't AGF, I probably would have said, "no evidence." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Times article cannot be considered trivial. There is significant coverage available on the subject though the article does require more details.defcon5 (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a notable journalist and has enough reliable news links references. User talk:Jammumylove Created account few weeks back and looks like purposely nominating profiles for nomination.

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. There's little discussion, and given the apparent potential for confusion, any new nomination should make sure that we don't confuse this person with the subject of the last AfD (if they are indeed different people). Sandstein 07:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kumud Das

AfDs for this article:

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

This journalist was found in 2013 to be non-notable, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumud Das. The information in this article is from or prior to 2013, and so already considered by the prior AFD. Naïve Google search finds LinkedIn and Facebook and shows that he writes for the Economic Times. It appears that not much has changed in eight years. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The person Kumud Das [43] mentioned in your AFD remark is a different person. Kumud Das is not only a journalist but also a noted writer in Assamese language. To avoid confusion, here is a video of Kumud Das while hosting his popular TV show - [44] Nalbarian (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wp:GNG -- Eatcha 05:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eatcha, could you please elaborate? He is a author of several books and a leading TV journalist of a major TV channel in Assam (Check the article and references). I think namesake (people having identical monikers in a nation of 1.3 billion) is the only problem with him. Nalbarian (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meri Awaaz Suno

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable unreleased film that has already been created and deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meri Awaaz Suno.

This is an unreleased film, and the language in the film notability guidelines on films that are in production is poorly written, but films fall into three classes as to state of production:

1. Films that have been produced, for which notability is based on reviews, reception, etc.
2. Films that are in production, which are normally not notable unless production satisfies general notability. This part of the guideline is often contentious.
3. Films that have not begun production, coverage of which would be crystal ball gazing.

This appears to fall into the second class, but there is nothing in the article about production except a statement that it has started, which is not much.

Naïve Google search mostly is about Meri Aawaz Suno. If Meri Awaaz Suno were notable, hatnotes would be needed. But it isn't notable. It is just an incomplete film with a deleted article.

This article was nominated for deletion once, and was soft-deleted, and was promptly reposted by the same author, and was deleted as G4. I initially tagged it for another G4, but have reverted that, and will nominate it again. These reposts are tendentious. Recommend Extended-Confirmed protection so that, when the film is released, a reviewer can accept a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was soft delete. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2021-02 ✗ soft delete

Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create, 2021-03 ✗ G4, 2021-03 ✗ deleted, 2021-03 ✗ deleted, 2021-02 ✗ deleted, 2021-02 move to → Draft:Meri Awaaz Suno

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: there's plausible value to the existing content if the film garners attention on its release. Delete as second choice. If it's deleted, ECP would be a good measure, but the repeated creator should be engaged in discussion so they know what problems they are causing and how to approach things in a better way. — Bilorv (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Bilorv, except leaning delete first choice, draftify second. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons. Riteboke (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newgen Software

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP. Most of the coverage here doesn't seem independent. On search, only stocks related coverage is coming out. Had a lot of sources that were their own company pages and have removed them already. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note : This has been nominated in past and has been kept basis that sources exist. I failed to find them really. If they do exist, please add them in the article rather than stating here so that no other editor in future feels like putting this on nomination yet another time. Thanks! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't soft delete due to prior AfD's so relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, most are bog standard PR or articles based entirely on announcements. Having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more discussion, in light of prior AfDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Okay, one more relist for the road.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources per nom. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Subject lacks significant independent coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Sanketio31 (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as what above commenters said... does not meet WP:GNG. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP Devoke water 08:01, 13 April 2021 (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. Failed to establish that WP:ORG is met by the sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky commando films

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

No third-party reliable sources to indicate notability; references are all the same recycled press releases. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The news articles mentioned in this page are independent sources of information and are not press releases Jiasally (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone glancing at the reference section can see that is clearly not the case. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not enough to pass GNG, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH imo. Kolma8 (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep produced 7 big budget movies, passes GNG. Tictictoc (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may want to take a closer look at those 7 "big budget" movies. None of those are anywhere near a big-budget movie; they're either shorts, web series, or music videos. The last one in the list (which I've removed) was dated as "2022" and didn't seem to exist, as the links are either broken or go to different articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The production company is a notable company has produced many web series, films and short movies music Albms. It has enough citations on trusted reliable, independent resources such as: passes WP:NCORP

[45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]

Powerfultample (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The page recycles sources repeatedly and makes films that don't have Wikipedia articles. —ÐW^(T·C) 20:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The production company is a notable company has produced . It has enough citations on trusted reliable, independent resources such as: Nabutiger123 (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC) — Nabutiger123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment "Such as" what? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Those news articles are engaged in this , they have big all the articles and are independent, these articles can be trusted . — Ppp00007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Another SPA with an argument that doesn't make any sense. Before you go creating further throwaway accounts, bear in mind I've opened a sockpuppet investigation. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the vocal single edit accounts, there does not seem to be any reason to keep this. My search did not find anything. There is are no other language articles, given that they produce in languages other then English, it would seem self evident that don't meet Hindi notability. Jeepday (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NCOMP/GNG. I did my own BEFORE and the company has next to zero visibility. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:55, 5 April 2021 (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) 12:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

College of Science & Engineering, Jhansi

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

Written like an ad. Refs have paid ads. No RS available. Not inherently notable. Creator is a SPA. Vikram Vincent 15:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I think we are up to like 8 or 9 of these being deleted and like 1 (or 0) being kept despite your claim that consensus is to keep them. At some point for the sake of accuracy Etc. Etc. you should strike your keep vote comments about it out. Since they are clearly wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Private institutions don't have any inherent notability. The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 14:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get that from. We have never treated private colleges any differently from public ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Peer WP:NORG, along with similar AfDs that resulted in the articles being deleted, an article about a private college has to pass the notability guidelines the same way any other organization does. By having enough adequate sources to make it notable. This college doesn't have the required sourcing for it to be notable though. So, there's no guideline based reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 06:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found even less than I usually do on these kinds of colleges. No link back to shit flow diagrams, wasn't used to lock up migrants during the pandemic and no one was hit by a car in front of it leading to protests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing even close to the depth of coverage required to pass WP:NORG, therefore, there is simply no alternative but to delete Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 14 April 2021 (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) 12:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir C. V. Raman Institute of Technology and Sciences

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

No RS with a BEFORE. Not to be confused with a similar named research institute. No inherent notability. Advertisement. Vikram Vincent 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin: The keep !votes have not provided any RS or policy to support their assertion. VV 17:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can tell all the sources in the article are either primary or otherwise connected to the organization in a way that would make them non-usable for notability. There's was nothing in a BEFORE that isn't extremely trivial or would pass WP:NORG either. So, I'm going with delete. Unless someone can come up with three good sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a private institution hence there is no inherent notability. The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 13:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get that from. We have never treated private colleges any differently from public ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the other AfD where you responded the same exact way WP:NORG pretty clearly says "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." --Adamant1 (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 06:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited private institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- MRRaja001 ^(talk) 13:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 14:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MRRaja001 It would be good to read up WP:NSCHOOL. If you can identify WP:THREE sources that support notability I'll withdraw the AFD nomination. Best! Vikram Vincent 14:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Private educational institute with no claim of notability. Riteboke (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - weak presumptions of notability are simply not enough. WP:NORG is extremely clear about what is required and this does not meet any aspect of it. We need sourcing that establishes notability not just bare-minimum database coverage that merely proves that the institution exists. I'll admit that I'm not from India so I wouldn't necessarily have access to all of the necessary sources but there is no significant coverage in any of the searches that I did attempt and I'm not convinced that we ought to assume that such coverage exists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 14 April 2021 (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Art Alive Art Gallery

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

Notability fail. I saw one or two brief sources that discuss the gallery itself. The vast majority of the sources in this refbombed article are about the artists showing there and not the gallery. Notability is not inherited. It might be worth noting that this was created by a now blocked undisclosed paid editor. --- Possibly (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be a major art gallery in India, and has good sourcing. The category 'Contemporary art galleries in India' lists only four (this is one of only two in New Delhi), so Wikipedia is not overrun with pages about India art galleries, which implies that this one is an important venue for national and Asian artists. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: whether or not we have article on something is not an indicator of notability. The sourcing here is about the artists and not about the gallery, by and large.--- Possibly (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Right now it's borderline WP:TNT. The formatting is a nightmare, the page is filled with trivia, and the sourcing is focused on the artists, rather than the exhibiter. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worth looking at notability criteria for subjects related to contemporary arts here [60]. Notability of a contemporary art institution is met if the following standards are being followed (1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale (2) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. The artists hosted at the gallery are both national and international artists including Raghu Rai & Maite Delteil.

There are also sources talking about the gallery itself. [61] The Culture Trip lists it as one of the Delhi’s best 10 Contemporary Art Galleries. So does Luxeva [62]. I think it is natural for the media to write more about the activities of an art gallery rather than the gallery itself since the identity of the gallery is nothing but the reflection of the artists it would curate.

Some other sources that may help [63], [64], , [65], [66] Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I consider the references above essential PR. There is no indication that this gallery has shown any significant number of notable artists or held notable exhibitions DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many notable artists hosted such as Sakti Burman Maite Delteil Venkat Shyam Paresh Maity Raghu Rai The Singh Twins Thota Vaikuntam, Anjolie Ela Menon, Jatin Das (painter) etc Behind the moors (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a result of a paid for PR campaign, having hosted notable artists does not lend itself without adequate coverage. TAXIDICAE💰 19:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Evaluating the sources suggests it's borderline; there's a few sources I would consider solid enough that mention the gallery in more than passing, but I don't think there's significant coverage demonstrated overall. Notable artists don't transfer notability to the gallery. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I do not see a consensus to delete or enough doubt to justify a no consensus close, and WP:DINC, and the article does appear to have enough material sourced to independent sources. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HAL Combat Air Teaming System

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

Marketing term for a group of products that does not yet exist. Perhaps redirecting to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is an option? MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge : Merge with HAL article. -AppuduPappudu (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wait~~ : The topic has been quite nicely covered and I actually can turn it into a good article soon. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, since the group of products and rather a part of system which operates these aircrafts, at least "marketing" issues don't exist here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am comfortable with saying that the existing coverage easily passes WP:GNG. The topic is notable on its own. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per significant coverage as an independent subject at [67][68] and others. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a marketing idea or concept to gain funding could be covered in a few lines in the HAL article until something concrete comes out of the ideas. MilborneOne (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Whether it is a fully developed item or not, the article will have to be created anyway. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis of suggested links would be really useful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Acceptable as per. WP:GNG. More of an under development aircraft system, far from being an advertisement at least. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given Hindustan Aeronautics Limited a government undertaking, and this teaming system seems to have sufficient coverage satisfying WP:SIGCOV and considerable material for an Article. Chirota (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2021 (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 keep is a weak one despite the !vote ratio.

Most keep !votes address the weakness of nominator's rationale, which is a reason for not deleting. Not deleting, however, does not imply keeping since AfD outcomes are not binary (i.e. either keep or delete).

If the above !votes are ignored when accounting for keeping, the keep outcome is only supported by two !votes, in which one is a weak keep while the other is from the creator. The lack of discussion on sources makes the keep outcome weak.

The discussion could have been closed as no consensus instead, but the keeping arguments are just strong enough after two relists. Either way, the article is kept.

Should this article be nominated for deletion again, discussion should focused on sources instead. The nominator should give a convincing rationale and respond if needed (though not to the point of badgering). (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All_the_Fat_Children

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/All the Fat Children

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

The Band Page Lacks WP:Reliability and is non-notable. Pranhita (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands_and_musicians-related deletion discussions. Pranhita (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the creator of the article, I agree with nom. Vikram Vincent 18:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Pranhita of the ten sources in the reference list of the article, which specific sources are unreliable? Please list them here so that we can discuss. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 10:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator has NOT done even a cursory WP:BEFORE. The sources used are The Hindu, Deccan Herald, Deccan Chronicle, Rolling Stone India(reliable for music info), Bangalore Mirror, DNA India and Times of India. While we do follow WP:TOI for political commentary, this is a music band and hence TOI can be used based on the claims being made. The other sources explicitly mentioned are clearly reliable. Even if the claim that there is no WP:SIGCOV in an individual article, though the TOI article does have it, all the WP:RS put together does satisfy the criteria of notability. Vikram Vincent 07:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Of WP:BAND, the page satisfies criteria #1 and #7. Vikram Vincent 07:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The current sourcing is mostly passing mentions, but there is also a pretty long Indian Times article mainly about the band that isn't currently in the article ( https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/the-name-all-the-fat-children-was-our-way-of-fighting-our-body-image-issues/articleshow/60477913.cms), which is just enough to keep it in my opinion. Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government. Do Check WP:TOI Pranhita (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, but this isn't something where their bias would affect the reporting. I'll stick at weak keep since its not very reliable generally, though. Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is some discussion of whether the subject has received significant coverage from reliable sources. Further discussion may help garner a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Speedy Keep I think the page needs to be speedy kept since the nom has not engaged in any discussion on the sources they claim to be unreliable. The WP:TOI claim was clearly misplaced. Of the 15 sources on the page that can be considered WP:RS, 10 are dedicated solely to the band, 1 is the Rolling Stones India page and the remaining 4 share article space with other bands. In sum, WP:SIGCOV is available. Vikram Vincent 07:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still needs indepth source discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RE: Relisting comment "Still needs indepth source discussion". Why? The nom says some of the references are not appropriate, but refuses to say which ones. Jeepday (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes notability Rajuiu (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2021 (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. Despite having ben relisted twice, there is no clear consensus for either "keep" or "delete". Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunder Deep Group of Institutions

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

Not notable and no reliable sources present. Vikram Vincent 13:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I cannot find any data to show it is a degree awarding institution. Vikram Vincent 14:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article and its website certainly say it is! There's a long list of degrees in the article. Why do you think it isn't? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Necrothesp I think you are voting without reading anything written. The article clearly states, It is affiliated to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University and Chaudhary Charan Singh University. I would suggest that you please verify the fact before voting as you are stating a non-existant point as if it were a fact. Vikram Vincent 16:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I can assure you that I am not. By "degree-awarding institution" we mean any college that teaches to degree level, not specifically only those that award their own degrees (this would, for instance, rule out British polytechnics, which did not award their own degrees). This has always been the case. Affiliated colleges still meet the criteria. This status is, of course, particularly common for colleges in India, and many of them have been kept on this basis. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you please link that guidelines which equates "degree-awarding" to "teaching at degree level". In India, we actually have private institutions which *do* award degrees and these are called private deemed universities. This and other AFDs you have been !voting on do not come under that category. Vikram Vincent 16:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        As I have said, this is consensus and has been applied many times. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 19:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be suggesting that consensus is irrelevant! Not sure where you got that one from. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{outcomes}} tag :-) Vikram Vincent 14:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is never irrelevant. It's the whole basis of how we do things on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just glancing over the nominations of this type by Vincentvikram so far, I think we are at two or three closed and all of them have closed as delete. There's been several other nominations of the same type by other users in the past couple of days that have closed as delete also. So, that sounds like a clear consensus that 1. Sourcing matters 2. Your opinion that it doesn't is not the consensus. And that's just in like the last week with the ones I've been paying attention to. I'm sure you will discount those as not being consensus based outcomes though for some reason, just like you have the guidelines and RfC, and continue to dig your heals into the notion that your correct because "experience" and "how things were done 10 years ago" Etc. Etc. In the meantime, the current facts of the matter are clearly against your "experience" and you cut and pasting the same keep message everywhere isn't effective. So why not just skip it and provide a couple of reliable in-depth sources so these articles can be legitimately kept instead? I'm more then willing to change my vote to keep if anyone does. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Vincentvikram is randomly nominating articles without any solid statement. I noticed, he provided almost same reason (Notability and non Reliable Sources) for all articles nominated for deletion. It seems like his edits are not constructive on Wikipedia. DMySon 17:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Article seems to be non-notable without the presence of any reliable source. Pranhita (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Degree awarded institute which is affiliated with a recognized university Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. Here is my argument for similar institutions. DMySon 18:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The wiki link leads to an argument for wp:other stuff exists which is a good reason to delete rather than keep. Vikram Vincent 10:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Private colleges have to be notable like any other private organization. They don't get a special pass when it comes to notability just for being "degree awarding" or whatever. In this case, there is not enough adequate sourcing for the article to be notable enough to warrant keeping it. Period. Otherwise, if someone wants to provide WP:THREE good sources that follow the relevant guidelines I'm happy to change my vote to keep. I couldn't find any myself though and I haven't seen anyone who thinks the article should be kept provide any either. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:19, 28 March 2021 (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) 19:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IEC College of Engineering and Technology

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

Delete:Does not satisfy ~~WP:schooloutcomes or~~ WP:nschool or wp:org. Apart from the primary sources there dont seem to be any other secondary sources to satisfy Notability. Vikram Vincent 13:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article lacks the level of sourcing we need to show that an organization is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution, so most certainly satisfies WP:Schooloutcomes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Non-notable awards where the reference to the awards is a dead link. Vikram Vincent 14:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article and its website certainly say it awards degrees. Are you maintaining it doesn't? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm making two claims: 1. The institute is affiliated to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University and could be merged into that article as a list item, and 2. The 'awards and recognition' section contents cannot be verified(the awards being non-notable too). Also see: The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 13:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be suggesting that consensus is irrelevant! Not sure where you got that one from. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Necrothesp. There is even a tag called {{outcomes}} to express that point. Vikram Vincent 13:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is the whole basis of how we do things on Wikipedia. It is never irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Vincentvikram is randomly nominating articles without any solid statement. I noticed, he provided almost same reason (Notability and non Reliable Sources) for all articles nominated for deletion. It seems like his edits are not constructive on Wikipedia. DMySon 17:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources in the article do not have SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth, BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, more database and directory style listings. The keep vote above does not list any sources to check, and the reasons listed are opinions not supported by guidelines. Fails GNG and ORGCRIT. If anyone can find sources with SIGCOV, post them and I'll be happy to check them and change my !vote if this can be shown to meet guidelines. I oppose a merge because nothing is properly sourced. // Timothy :: talk 08:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source evaluation table:

Source	Evaluation
https://www.iec.edu.in/about-us/board-…	School affliated website, not IS, no SIGCOV
https://www.iec.edu.in/about-us/about…	School affliated website, not IS, no SIGCOV
"List of Affiliated Institutions - Ma…	Directory style listing, no SIGCOV
"AKTU Affiliation Letter Intake 2019-…	A form filled in by the school, not IS, no SIGCOV
"AICTE Corrigendum Report 2019-20" (P…	Government report with statistical information, not IS, no SIGCOV
"Brochure 2018-19" (PDF). Retrieved 1…	School brochure, not IS
"BOLLYWOOD ACTRESSES Reecha Sinha". R…	Not about the subject, does not mention the subject
"AWARDS & RECOGNITION". Retrieved 30…	404 page from school affliated website

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 07:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed deletions

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Redirects for deletion

MFD discussion debates

Other deletion discussions

[1] "Top Schools in Kerala 2021". careers360.com. Retrieved 29 March 2021.

[2] "Second Best School Magazine in Kerala 2015". bcrschool.org. Retrieved 29 March 2021.

[3] "Most Beautiful Schools in India". The Education Tree. Retrieved 29 March 2021.

[4] "FR. ABRAHAM MUTHOLATH FOUNDATION". mutholathnagar.com.

[5] "Knanaya Region". April 3, 2021 – via Wikipedia.

[6] "About Us - Knanayology". June 17, 2020.

[7] "FR. ABRAHAM MUTHOLATH FOUNDATION". frabrahamfoundation.org.

[8] "Kashmir: Missing Journalist Sums Up Total Breakdown Of Democracy". HuffPost. 18 September 2019.

[9] Malik, Irfan Amin (6 May 2020). "Why Are Kashmiri Prisoners Happy About Coronavirus Pandemic?". TheQuint.

[10] "India: Police detain Kashmiriyat editor Qazi Shibli / IFJ". International Federation of Journalists. 3 August 2020.

[11] "Indian Journalists Union Demands Scribe Qazi Shibli Be Released From Custody". The Wire. 3 August 2020.

[12] "South Kashmir-based editor, journalist, Qazi Shibli, again detained by Indian police: IIOJK". Associated Press Of Pakistan. 1 August 2020.

[13] "Jammu and Kashmir police launch investigations into 3 journalists". Committee to Protect Journalists. 22 February 2021.

[14] "Plan for Cyber Volunteers to Police India's Internet Draws Criticism | Voice of America - English". www.voanews.com. 25 February 2021.

[15] Pandow, Bilal Ahmad (1 September 2020). ""The idea is to kill journalism": Kashmiri journalists on what it's like working under lockdown, an internet blackout and a new draconian media law". Index on Censorship. 49 (3): 17–19. doi:10.1177/0306422020958271.

[16] "JAMMU AND KASHMIR AFTER ONE YEAR OF ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370" (PDF). Indians For Amnesty International Trust. 2020.

[17] Freedom in the World 2020: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 1372. ISBN 978-1-5381-5181-5.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]