Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nomadicghumakkad (talk | contribs) at 11:28, 13 April 2022 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koenig Institute.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Purge page cache watch

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. – Joe (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koenig Institute

Koenig Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH miserably. Most of the RS hinges on Edward Snowden coming to India to do something here. That's not in-depth of the subject but of them. Also read the language. Campus is 18,000 sqft. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contested soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Providing few significant sources of substantial coverage which satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH;
A news article discussing a prolonged controversy
1-Edward Snowden sharpened his hacking skills in Delhi
2-What Was Edward Snowden Doing in India?
A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization
3-Hero or Traitor Edward Snowden and the NSA Spying Program Main case study page, Author: Laura Winig, Case Number: 2018.0
Publication Date: April 30, 2014, Faculty Lead: Christopher Robichaud, Harvard Kennedy School, Hosted:University of Central Florida
A documentary film exploring the impact of the corporation's facilities or products,
4-Significantly covered in Al Jazeera video news Al Jazeera report. RPSkokie (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please describe 'how' the given sources meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Simply listing sources and claiming that they meet CORPDEPTH doesn't have a lot of value. Will be helpful if you can specifically highlight which part of the sources meet CORPDEPTH. TOI is not even counted as a full WP:RS so that's out. Foreignpolicy.com source doesn't have in depth discussion or analysis of Koenig institute. Just a bunch of quotes from spokespersons. Please recall that for CORPDEPTH we need independent analysis, discussion and commentary. Al Jazeera is a generic report that they seem to have filed after this case. No traces of independent discussion of Koenig. In your Harvard source, Koening is mentioned only twice. That's passing mention at best, far away from significant coverage, let alone CORPDEPTH. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just noted that the description of example of substantial coverage is broken or missing important parts. Right descriptions are A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger. And similarly, A documentary film exploring environmental impact of the corporation's facilities or products Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It would take a lot of substantial, in depth coverage to make a run-of-a-mill IT training facility notable and this institute doesn't have it. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tek Fog

AfDs for this article:
Tek Fog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are companies that generate television segments and sell them to broadcasters – this is broadcast syndication. This also happens in printed media and across websites. A syndication company may offer the same story in multiple formats, such as a long and short news article, or the same story with an alternate lead, or a video and a written article. Whatever the length or format, they usually contain the same claims and are written or edited by the same person or team. Syndicated news pieces may be independent of the subject matter, but they are not independent of one another. When considering notability or due weight within an article, all of the related articles by the same publishing syndicate, no matter how widely they were sold, are treated as the same single source.WP:SYNDICATED the whole article is cited from multiple sources and all the sources are syndicated from The Wire's investigative journalism article written by Wire's editors Ayushman Kaul and Devesh Kumar. there are no seperate, independent research by any other source on tek fogDdd421 (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that the nom, Ddd421 only joined Wikipedia on 6 April and since then has attempted to purge two articles (both with spurious rationale) about controversies relating to Modi's party (their first attempt being less than 10 minutes after their first edit). AusLondonder (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Suryamal Mishran Shikhar Award

Suryamal Mishran Shikhar Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

The award is notable. It is one of the top awards in Rajasthan literature conferred by Rajasthani Bhasha Sahitya and Sanskriti Akademi which is the official government body for Rajasthani language by state of Rajasthan. Other than Sahitya Akademi awards for Rajasthani which is Union government body, this is the only other government recognized body.
Since its a Rajasthani language award, its hard to find sources in this language other than news articles when it is conferred on someone.
The official website is "सूर्यमल्ल मीसण शिखर पुरस्कार though its not properly maintained. Finally, it would be better to add it as a section to Suryamal Misran article for now, better sources might be avaialble in future. Krayon95 (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - An article should speak for itself and explain why the subject is notable, and this one does not. The read cannot be expected to check all of the references. The article has been reference-bombed, which makes it difficult for a reviewer to check all of the references, but the reviewer should not be expected to check all of the references. (The originator may identify between three and five sources to check, but should also clarify in the article why the award is notable.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I didn't start this article originally but translated it from Hindi Wikipedia. Since then, more than 25 sources have been added also referencing the awards for the recipient list. This award was started in 1985 and has been covered in books and news sources:
  1. Dutt, K. C. (1999). Who's who of Indian Writers: 1999 : In 2 Vol. Vol. 1 A-M. Sahitya Akademi. p. 1168. ISBN 978-81-260-0873-5.
  2. Rājasthāna vārshikī (in Hindi). Pañcagaṅgā Prakāśana. 1988. p. 13.
  3. Aṇuvrata (in Hindi). Bālacandra Jaina. 2006. p. 38.
  4. Hindī sāhityakāra sandarbha kośa (in Hindi). Hindī Sāhitya Niketana. 1997. p. 136. ISBN 978-81-85139-29-6.
  5. Kanhaiyālāla Seṭhiyā By Kanhaiyālāla Seṭhiyā, Rādhādevī Bhāloṭiyā, Kanhaiyālāla Ojhā · 1989
These are standard books and also prove the early coverage of the award since its beginning. Again, the award is notable and is one of the top-one for Rajasthani language given by Rajasthan Governement official body. Krayon95 (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Also the sources are mostly in non english languages, there are enough reliable sources provided on the page, although a few are blogs and a couple of exam preparation books which I removed for being not reliable, the rest look pretty good. Since the award is given by the government, government websites are reliable for this, which is what are provided in it. On a cursory glance hindi sources looks good and reliable for such a topic. Even then if notability issue is raised then it can even be merged with Suryamal Misran. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies, Pune

Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies, Pune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This would be fine in DRAFT space, but creator moved in despite @Hatchens:' decline, so we're here. There is no evidence that this school is notable. Incubate in draft space until such time as notability is established with independent, reliable sources. Star Mississippi 01:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The references come from internationally reputed Indian publications and are properly cited. Suggest Keep Vishal.Negi7 (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC) — Vishal.Negi7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete or Merge - An article should speak for itself and explain why the subject is notable, and this article does not, except as a branch of the university, which has its own article.
    • The originator appears to be trying to game the system by moving the draft into article space after it was rejected, without discussing with the reviewer.
    • The status of other business schools is irrelevant, as other stuff exists, a deprecated argument. (Nominate them for deletion also).

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Institute talks about being India's only higher education business school for defence personnel and their family, which speaks about why its notable (India has one pf the world's largest Defence force in place. Properly cited. Keep. Priyashi1599 (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)— Priyashi1599 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like an even split between deletion, merger and draftifying.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Several Indian central government leaders have given talks at the Institute including the defence minister, Road Transport minister and former Railways minister, seems quite notable . - Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.165.168.36 (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC) — 103.165.168.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KeepThe institute definitely seems notable, though the article needs editing to meet MOS:LEAD guideline. I will be happy to edit if it says.--Trolli Onida (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Pryi1499 and Vishal.Negi7 are sock puppets of Priyashi1599. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    shocked. Utterly shocked! I was waiting for a little more to file an SPI, so thanks for handling. Star Mississippi 22:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources cited by AusLondonder do not, in my opinion, support the claim of significant independent coverage. The first was an interview with an administrator. The second read like a puff piece written entirely from the school's press release. Rockphed (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akela the Alone

Akela the Alone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film which does not meet WP:NFILM requirements. No citations apart from an IMDb link. Could not find any reliable sources of this topic in WP:BEFORE search. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Park Cinemas

Crystal Park Cinemas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although this company has produced a few notable films, it does not appear to have received the significant coverage in independent reliable sources needed to meet WP:NCORP. My WP:BEFORE search in English and Kannada found only single-sentence passing mentions, for instance sources that say "The series will be produced by T R Chandrashekar and Crystal Park Cinemas" and nothing more. None of the available sources qualify as significant coverage, in my view. (NPP action) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In searching I am unable to find better sources than the nominator. Perhaps a case of 'too soon' given that the company began in 2017. Gab4gab (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashima Sharma

Ashima Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches turn up namedrops and trivial quotes of the subject, but no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. M4DU7 (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The "keep" arguments consist only of assertions that a head of a very large police force is automatically notable, but this view has no basis in our notability guidelines. On the contrary, the community has some time ago deprecated WP:SOLDIER, which used to assume the notability of high-ranking military officers, which hold similar positions. The "delete" side's arguments that there are not enough secondary sources to write an article with remains uncontested. Sandstein 12:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Purshottam Lal

Purshottam Lal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A biography of a police officer, who was Director general of police in Punjab. That is the only claim to notability, and I don't think a Director general of police is automatically notable. The sources are overwhelmingly articles and opinions pieces written by him, together with a couple of press releases about his books. The only independent source is this review of one of his books – it is not more than a paragraph, however.

The tone of the article is so promotional that I was tempted to speedy tag it as spam. If the article should be kept after this AfD, it will have to be cut down and thoroughly rewritten. In addition, very little of the biographical information has a source (one wonders where the information in the "Early life and family" section comes from). bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The head of the police in an Indian state with a population of nearly 28 million is clearly significant enough for an article. Poor article, but enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Being a poor article is not a criterion for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not so sure that being the head of police for a state of large population is a lock for a notability pass. For instance, after checking it's category there doesn't to be an article on a single commissioner of the California Highway Patrol. Some of these refs appear to be self-written and others as simple book listings. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been said before, but those who say it completely fail to understand that American policing works completely differently. The California Highway Patrol is merely one police agency among thousands in California. The Punjab Police, however, polices the whole Punjab. The Commissioner of the CHP is not the head of the police in California, but merely the head of one relatively small agency. The DGP of the Punjab is the head of the police in the Punjab. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commenting as nominator: I don't know anything about USAnian police systems but I do know what the DNG is (I linked to the article in the nomination, to make sure that other participants in the discussion could check), and I definitely did not mean to imply that the article was nominated because it's in a poor state. I started by trying to clean the article up, and realised that I could not find anything to indicate notability, unless a Director General of Police in an Indian state is inherently notable. Looking at various SNGs I just couldn't find that – but I'm happy to be proven wrong. I disagree about the current sources meeting GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 09:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article creator and main contributor has been blocked for sockpuppetry. --bonadea contributions talk 09:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we just do not have the level of coverage to justify an article on him. Oddly enough, at least in the US, I am suspecting that city level police chiefs are more likely to be notable (well, as in more are notable, the percentage notable will be less, but that is because there are so many more cities), than state police chiefs. I am sure we could create multiple well sourced articles on the heads of police in New York City, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles and possibly a few other major cities, I think we would be much more hard pressed to create articles on heads of police for New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Michigan or California.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, as I pointed out above, state police forces in America are generally not especially large and the head of the state police is not head of all policing in the state, but only of their own force which only has limited jurisdiction. Most policing is handled by independent city or county police agencies. This is a fundamental difference between policing in the United States and most other countries (which mostly only have a single national force or sometimes only a single force in each state) which seems to confuse many American editors. This gentleman, on the other hand, directly commands all or almost all police in the entire state of Punjab, a force 80,000 strong (nearly twice the size of the NYPD, America's biggest police agency). That's an enormous difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The gentleman is eminently notable on account of his outstanding work in his professsion-37 years of well recognised service in the IPS( Indian Police Service) which is equivalent to the IP of British times. His stint in the premier investigating agency of Govt of India -CBI- is also notable. His work won public acclaim . His notability is also due to his being an eminent writer contributing more than 115 articles in national Newspapers and having written four books launched by two different Governors of Punjab state. Governors of Indian States don't launch books without first verifying of their worthiness. His books were well received and discussed in the media as referenced . A police officer being also an eminent writer is in itself remarkable and notable. His achievements found wide publicity in Indian media. His professional work in police related to a period prior to November 2006 when he retired from the Indian Police Service. That was not the time of widescale use of internet , at least in India. Hence, searching for notability for such a person by references listed on internet would not be correct. The gentleman created a new benchmark of work ethics ,the same having been recognised by award of various medals including President's Police Medal for Distinguished Service.
Note: I am the creator of the article . Hence, I am putting forward my views this way, as I am blocked on regular channel due to some misunderstanding for which I will appeal 2405:204:3018:C64B:98E1:D68D:4249:1924 (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His achievements found wide publicity in Indian media." - would you be able to provide further sources for that? I don't think the current citations in the article qualify as proof of "wide publicity", or really as proof of the achievements at all. The entire Awards/Achievement paragraph has no inline citations. ObsidianPotato (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck the vote since you claim to be the creator whose block is a CU block for sock-puppetry. Please restore only if the block is lifted. Hemantha (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find @Necrothesp's arguments for keeping at the very least noteworthy but I'm struggling to see how to reach sufficient verifiability for this article. Pending further sources - perhaps there is information in Punjabi or some other language that I wouldn't be able to access.
I agree that the article in its current state has severe WP:NPOV and sourcing issues - but as said that isn't particularly relevant to the notability discussion. ObsidianPotato (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a creator of the article, I am answering to concerns of Obsidian Potato, esteemed member of Wikipedia community-
(1) President's Police Medal for Distinguished Service ( known as PPM in short). It was awarded under an order of the President of India on the occasion of Indian Independence Day 1993 (15 August) on the recommendation of Goverment of Punjab and Government of India. The medal as such was, however, presented to the awardee in 1994 , as per practice, in a ceremony  at Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy , Phillaur ( Punjab) in 1994 at the time of Annual Passing Out Parade , by the then Chief Minister Punjab , Beant Singh, as shown correctly in photo. However, in the heading over the photo, 1994 needs to be changed to 1993 which I will do once I get access.
Since, the award relates to 1993 , it may or may not be verifiable online as it was pre-internet era.
Other awards and achievements are also real; photos of two have been posted . In respect of that at SN 9 ( reward for arrest of dangerous Interpol criminal of Canada ), the copy of the letter can be posted but it has the name of the " dangerous criminal" who after arrest was extradited to Canada where after undergoing 20 years' imprisonment, he was out of jail , and hence can pose danger to the life of the subject of the article, if the name is disclosed.
Other medals are also shown worn by the officer in photo, some of which medals were war time medals of 1971 ( Indo-Pak war of 1971) for duties in areas bordering Pakistan. Some are for duties in the period of terrorism in Punjab ( 1981-1996).
Online verification of these may not be possible as these relate to pre-internet era.
(2) Notability - As already mentioned, the subject of the article was in active service of Indian Police Service(IPS) from 1969-2006, much of which relates to pre-internet era. His works in various capacities including district superintendent of police in two important districts and as DIG, CBI( Govt of India) and later as IG Commando of Punjab State ( 1992-1994, an important period of Punjab terrorism phase ) were reported in newspapers quite often but these related to pre-internet era, and hence online availability of these , in the very nature of things, cannot be expected. "India Today" , a well known national fortnightly magzine of India had carried a several-pages story on Punjab Commando Force during 1992-1994 when the subject was its head as Inspector General of Police , he being the first IG Commando having raised 5 batallions of the force which fought terrorism very successfully . Naturally, online link to the Article in "India Today" would not be available.  Moreover, newspapers in post-internet era have made the online papers a paid service and hence online links to even such news would not be accessible ( without payment). Links obtained by payment would be openable by subscriber only.  This is the limitation in this case. However, reference at SN 5 has his name at number 4 listing some of his achievements (not all).
The subject of the article is a well known figure , now more than 75  years, and after having put in a very notable service in police career for 37 years , has  now turned a writer where he has shown remarkable talent. References are already mentioned.
The notability of the subject ,seen in totality and in correct perspective , is not in doubt. 47.31.96.226 (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a detailed answer. I understand that internet sources might not exist, or might be difficult to find. However, foreign-language sources, subscription-locked sources, as well as paper sources including books and newspapers, are also acceptable (as long as they are published, verifiable and properly quoted).
I recommend you re-read WP:V, WP:RS, and look at derivative policy articles/essays for further advice (e.g. WP:NOTTRUTH). You can also use tools like the Wayback Machine to access internet sites that aren't available anymore. Unfortunately, as per the verifiability policy, this article needs citations, not assertions. ObsidianPotato (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IPsock post struck. @ObsidianPotato: please don't ask questions of blocked users in deletion discussions, as they are not allowed to make any edits to Wikipedia except to request that their block be lifted, which they must do on the talk page of their account, User talk:Sneha-SIPL. --bonadea contributions talk 20:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea thank you, I was not aware of that. I was working under the assumption that edits by blocked users should only be autodeleted/reverted if they are unjustified, misleading, and/or damaging Wikipedia. ObsidianPotato (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with what Necrothesp said. The article is a bit of a mess as it stands, but that's a question of content, not of notability. Atchom (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's 10+ kb discussion but not a single WP:SIRS source has been identified. The only WP:RS links in the article are to Tribune; all of which are subject's own columns and are completely useless for this WP:BLP page. The only reliable book review, again Tribune, specifically says it's a "Tribune Short" and devotes a single paragraph. Hence WP:NAUTHOR is also not an avenue. I've tried a Punjabi search which hasn't given anything. If there aren't any sources, it's impossible to write an article. Hemantha (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

S. Bethannan

S. Bethannan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

I responded earlier, but could not see that now.
  1. There is a open air auditorium named after Mr. S.Bethannan, next to the historic landmark - Thanjavur Big temple Refer - https://maps.mapmyindia.com/place-bethannan+open+air+auditorium-balaganapathy+nagar-thanjavur-tamil+nadu-613009-87T325@zdata=MTAuNzgzNjUzKzc5LjEzMTcxNisxNys4N1QzMjUrKw==ed
  2. Currently not all Tamilnadu Government websites carry the list of past municipal chairmans, hence could not refer any government websites.@
Cmanimaran (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lusku Samad

Lusku Samad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

i can find exactly 0 sources to back up the supposed claim (which i'm not even sure what it is.) CUPIDICAE💕 03:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

he is one of great writer and linguist of bhumij language. Kingsman3 (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsman3: What is needed are multiple reliable sources that support this. They don't need to be in English and they don't need to be online. Usually for writers around 3 mainstream reviews of at least two different works has been considered the minimum. Alternatively inclusion in a national biographical dictionary or even a specialist topic dictionary; or evidence of receipt of a reasonably major literary award or multiple shortlist placings. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete the current article is short and without any reliable sources and does not pass GNG. A search online did not turn up any further sources. --hroest 17:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sshakshi Chovan

Sshakshi Chovan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress who fails to meet the requirements of WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Nothing significant found in WP:BEFORE, no verifiable film credits, and the cited sources are self-published sources which do not contribute to notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Satguru Mata Sudiksha

Satguru Mata Sudiksha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source.
The article has more than the minimum threshold in both English and Indian sources and so should be retained.
There are many leaders of religious movements but those leaders do not necessarily have references in mainstream media and so would not be eligible for an entry into Wikipedia. ES (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Keep. The nomination doesn't seem to advance any reason for deletion except that OP doesn't think this person deserves an article. But the SIGCOV is here and so are the sources. Atchom (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 12:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

X=Prem

X=Prem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-PROD'ed. WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:NFF for a future film lacking a notable production. A draft at Draft:X=Prem exists. If merged into the draft, I'd suggest a history merge — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Sharma

AfDs for this article:
Akshay Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not seeing enough for WP:NACTOR here. I found one passing mention of Sharma here but nothing more in my searches so WP:GNG doesn't look to be met either. The main claim to notability seems to be his association with the film Checkovid but this search comes up with next to nothing. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve1984stallone (talk • contribs) 18:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC) More references have been added to the article apart from the IMdB ones in order to avoid deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve1984stallone (talk • contribs) 18:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nainaa

Nainaa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significant coverage to passes WP:GNG. And thus the film does not passes WP:NFILM. DMySon (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This was already draftified under the title "Nainaa (film)" on 1 April as "not ready yet for mainspace yet, unencyclopedic and no adherence to MoS". That article still exists as Draft:Nainaa (film) and this article being considered here is a dramatically cut-down version of the draft, so there is no point in draftifying it again or trying to merge them.--Gronk Oz (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No independent reliable sources to meet NFILM / GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dhusor Borno

Dhusor Borno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: I'm not advocating deletion, I would be fine with draft space incubation, but the creator is not willing to wait for a neutral, independent review so we have no choice but AfD. While it's not clear whether it meets NFILM at the moment, I believe there's a chance sourcing could be found, but it is not suitable to remain in mainspace currently. Star Mississippi 20:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can this article be approved under WikiProject India, WikiProject Tripura, WikiProject Film, rating it as C-Class on the project's quality scale respectively.@Star Mississippi Ninjakiller07 (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While projects are free to use their own scale, there is no indication this is a C class article and it has to be kept in order to be rated. Please spend a little more time learning how Wikipedia works and what is needed in an article before worrying about rating Star Mississippi 13:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article does not speak for itself and does not explain why this film is notable. There is nothing in this article that addresses either film notability or general notability.
    • This article was moved to draft space once and moved back to article space by the originator, so it doesn't need to go back into draft space. If sources are found, a new version can be written using the sources.
    • I have not done a copyright check, but it reads like a blurb.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom, The short film not yet passes WP:NFILM. References do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV. DMySon (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet the requirements of NFILM / GNG. No point in draftying a non-notable subject when new sources unlikely to emerge after the AfD -- Ab207 (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sign of notability, and is entirely promotional in style. Nothing there to draftify, really. --bonadea contributions talk 09:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam supported by fake news black-hat SEO spam sites. I have blocked the creator. MER-C 15:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability, and is very promotional. Gabe114 (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Content present is non-notable, fails WP:GNG. TimothyStellar (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify.. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Macherla Niyojakavargam

Macherla Niyojakavargam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This film fails the WP:NFF qualification that it needs since it is a future film. SP013 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2022 (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) 02:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Munira Kudrati

Munira Kudrati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR as well as WP:SIGCOV. ManaliJain (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhuvan Bam

AfDs for this article:
Bhuvan Bam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

End-to-end WP:PROMO, Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. WP:UPE and WP:SPA suspected

1. The reliable source articles are written by public not a official press staff. 2. This article content is mostly a promotional and looks like paid written. 3. He is one of the thousands Youtuber in India. Some coverage in the entertainment news portals as he was a grumpy. Religiousmyth (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Soft Systems Inc

Federal Soft Systems Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:ADMASQ promo blurb on a non-notable company. Sourcing consists of press release regurgitations and other routine business reporting. No point in draftifying, as WP:BEFORE search only finds more of the same, plus the usual social media and company directories. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY / WP:ORGCRIT -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assi Nabbe Poorey Sau

AfDs for this article:
Assi Nabbe Poorey Sau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased film since 2013 which lacks significant coverage on production to meet WP:NFF. No GNG-worthy sources found in WP:BEFORE. Ab207 (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. This Keep closure does not disallow future AFD proposals with more solid deletion rationale. Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Delhi Chief Minister's house

Attack on Delhi Chief Minister's house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:UNDUE WP:BREAKING WP:DELAY WP:RECENCY WP:10YEARTEST Kejarwal was attacked in the past too why not no pages for [previous attacks https://www.dailyo.in/humour/arvind-kejriwal-slapped-kejriwal-slapped-aam-aadmi-party-politics-elections-arvind-kejriwal-funny/story/1/30561.html] Ddd421 (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC) — Ddd421 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Speedy keep: no valid rationale for deletion provided. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment there are no pages for previous attacks. So this page too not warrant a space in wikipedia. Ddd421 (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ddd421: you may want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS – it says, basically, that every article should be considered standalone in discussions like these. If you think pages don't exist that should exist, write them! If they meet guidelines for inclusion. But the lack of one article isn't a reason to delete another. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors. Writing about breaking news may be recentism, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:DELAY Ddd421 (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Will someone ten years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here? WP:10YEARTEST Ddd421 (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: I created the article. WP:SKCRIT applies as above. Article passes WP:NEVENT as it was a major political and crime incident. Venkat TL (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentWP:BREAKING Ddd421 (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentWP:DELAY Ddd421 (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:CENSOR. Venkat TL (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Will someone ten years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here? WP:10YEARTEST Ddd421 (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment kejariwal was attacked/slapped regularly in the past. add all other past event and remane the page to attacks on arvind kejariwal then is page may pass WP:RECENCY WP:10YEARTEST Ddd421 (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have expressed your opinion. I suggest you let others express theirs. You have already made 20+ edits on this AfD page. you will be blocked from here, if you do not stop WP:BADGERING Venkat TL (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, thanks Ddd421 (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:UNDUE is not a valid reasoning for AFD. The article is written in neutral tone, the article is well sourced from multiple sources, the event is notable. SunDawntalk 08:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commentthe reason is the absence of pages for previous attacks on kejariwal thats why this page shall not be on wiki Ddd421 (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vineeth Vasudevan

Vineeth Vasudevan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP: TOOSOON Has only one notable film as an actor. Also lacking sufficient coverage. Onmyway22 talk 18:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash Kaushik

Avinash Kaushik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karanvir Singh

Karanvir Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. The article relies exclusively on self-published or press release sources. M4DU7 (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: do not think this meets notability criteria Tow (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non notable person failing WP:N. Likely promotional page created by a single purpose editor. Jupitus Smart 04:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why the article is deleted? There are proper citations and true facts recorded for the person. Enterpreneur wiki (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen bhatt

Shaheen bhatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is not enough to be the daughter of a renown director or actress to establish notability. The topic does not passes WP:NACTOR, also fails WP:NAUTHOR. References do not show enough notability to justify WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. https://www.koimoi.com/bollywood-news/ive-never-been-unhappier-alia-bhatts-sister-shaheen-bhatt-announces-paperback-of-her-book/
  2. https://vidhyathakkar.com/book-review-of-ive-never-been-unhappier-by-shaheen-bhatt/
Weak as one is by a blogger, but the blogger appears to be credible in her role as a book reviewer, but it's not exactly grade A for reliable sources. CT55555 (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • First source is not a review, just announcement. No indication that the second author is a subject-matter expert to consider it under WP:SPS -- Ab207 (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several references have been added since this deletion discussion was initiated. There's also the option to draftify instead of deleting. Where are we headed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I reviewed all the sources mentioned above or in the current version of the article, and it really comes across as trying to make a meal out of condiments. I would categorize the sources as follows:
Wading through all that, I see two pieces that are written with any amount of care: this Hindu article about the book release (though keep in mind that such coverage, at least partly, is a result of the subject's very famous sister and father being present), and this short interview/profile. However I don't think these are detailed or independent enough to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR.
Given that Bhatt's book was published in 2019, which was the impetus for most of the above coverage, I don't think working on the article for a few more weeks will help us locate better sources or develop it further. So Draftification would not help at the moment. Lastly, I believe that the current attempt to blow up thin media coverage into an encyclopedic biographies has resulted in some misrepresentations and undue amplifications that raise BLP-concerns. Examples:
  • This short and trivial "news" item is now immortalized in an encyclpedic entry as "Her father Mahesh Bhatt caused commotion with his language and tone during the launch due to which her sister Alia had to pacify him."
  • Compare the wikipedia article text, "While her father wasnt around much, she did find him to be under the infuence of raging alcoholism." with what the source (ie, Shaheen Bhatt) says, ""My father stopped drinking just days after I was born."
The current article also contains a lot of redundant, repetitious, and undue content but all that is worth dealing with only if the article were to be retained. Abecedare (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I-shakti

I-shakti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable table salt brand. After cleaning up the article, there's no viable content left. References are hard to come by; one about the fumbling of the brand (not this specific product), but not enough to establish notability. Mikeblas (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, a non notable product. It is a publicity stunt to promote company's products. Jeni Wolf (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Rathod

Rohan Rathod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL. Municipal councillors are not automatically notable. No major public post held. Lack of other achievements so fails WP:ANYBIO Venkat TL (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 13:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Kharoud

Dev Kharoud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG. And, also lack WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Article is inadequately sourced, but the subject is notable for his unique style of acting which is well covered in the press. Also most of the films he has acted in gets quite the coverage. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. While there are COI issues, the consensus here is sourcing exists to build an article.SPI closed cautioning too close a read into the creator's possible sockpuppet status, so that is not factored in. Attention from uninvolved editors to incorporate these sources would be helpful in terms of creating a bettter article. Star Mississippi 00:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjish He Sahi

Ranjish He Sahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PROMO. Possible WP:UPE/WP:COI. Created in support of an ongoing AfD of the director's page. - Hatchens (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens, what kind of WP:PROMO? If subject is notable and i created the article then what’s is WP:PROMO in this? Please If a person has created something by working hard, then do not destroy it. I created all articles with my own wish. I do not take anything from anyone. If my subject is not notable the you can nominate to afd but please don’t do this without any reason. - IndaneLove (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An article should speak for itself, and this article does not explain why the web series is notable. It lacks Reception information or any other mention of what third parties have said.
  • Keep the article may not be complete but it is referenced to six full reviews including reliable sources such as The Hindu, New Indian Express and Rolling Stone. Therefore a reception section could easily be written so this a clear pass of WP:GNG in my view, however if sockpuppetry is confirmed in the ongoing case then the article will be G5 deleted. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this does seem to, as noted, have plenty of reliable sources. matt91486 (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is well sourced, the article needs work, not deletion. CT55555 (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. and I'm going to SALT the title so it cannot be immediately moved back. Mahesh is probably notable, but the article is not suitable for mainspace as a BLP. IndaneLove, you're treading on thin ice even with a clear-ish SPI. PLease let someone uninvolved work on a neutral article. Star Mississippi 13:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kruti Mahesh (choreographer)

Kruti Mahesh (choreographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Initially, the page was moved into the draft by Praxidicae and the creator was advised to submit the draft at AfC. Despite being advised, the page was again moved back to the main namespace by bypassing AfC on the basis of poor interpretation of WP:RS/WP:RSP. Most of the citations (which are claimed to be reliable by the creator) are the interviews/first account quotes given by the subject to the portals. For more details, kindly check 1, 2, 3. The interviews can be used to source a statement of that fact. However, the existence of interviews should not generally be taken as the crux of an argument that the person has passed WP:GNG. If the person is not the subject of sufficient third-party analysis of their significance, then the existence of one or more interview pieces does not clinch them as notable all by itself.

Besides that, the title of the page has been modified by the addition of "choregrapher" as a suffix to bypass protected/blocked Kruti Mahesh which has been protected and requires extended confirmed access. Also, there is a draft existing under the same name; Draft:Kruti Mahesh. There is no doubt, that this page is end-to-end WP:PROMO, backed up by an editor who has WP:UPE/WP:COI. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens She is a recipient of the National Film Award, Filmfare Award, IIFA Award and Zee Cine Award for the song Ghoomer from the movie Padmaavat. Haven’t you checked these details? - IndaneLove (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Most of the sources used seem to be about her talking about other people, nothing about her directly. Still leaning delete and the prior article was judged to be non-notable for our standards here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b have you checked that she has won national film award and filmfare award?

IndaneLove (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page has already been declined once and salted so as to not be re-created. I don't see why we have to debate it again. This should be a speedy delete. Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Please see the first criteria of WP:ANYBIO. I already explained that she has won National Film Award, Filmfare Award, IIFA Award and Zee Cine Award for the song Ghoomer from the movie Padmaavat. Still you are saying that she is not notable.

IndaneLove (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm unsure how notable those awards are, if others can confirm, I'd be open to revisiting my vote. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b National Film Awards, Filmfare Awards, International Indian Film Academy Awards and Zee Cine Awards Please check all these articles of awards and you would recognise that these awards are notable or not. Fact is that these all awards are notable that’s why have articles on Wikipedia.

IndaneLove (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: There is an on-going Sock Puppertry investigation on IndaneLove. You can follow it, by clicking here. - Hatchens (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so it's even less notable now. Thank you for the info. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b So you mean if Hatchens thinks that i am Sock Puppert of any other’s account then this choreographer became less notable? Sorry to say, but it doesn’t make any sense. and I don’t have any previous account so this allegation is baseless. Talking about this choreographer I explained that she has won notable awards. So please check all details. i am talking about this article so if any investigation is on going so it doesn’t mean this choreographer is less notable or non notable. National Film Award, Filmfare awards and IIFA awards are India’s most notable awards. Google would help you if you have any doubts.

IndaneLove (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets lower the respectability and trust-worthiness of the article. I've already voted and will not take your comments into consideration while the investigation is on-going. 15:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
@Oaktree b But how can you ignore the fact that she is notable choreographer? and i am not worrying about this investigation because i am not a sock puppet of any account. But I feel very bad that you are ignoring the facts and still voting for delete because of investigation is on-going.

IndaneLove (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this has already been discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ @Oaktree b, @ User:Timtrent Please pay attention to the sources mentioned by Beccaynr. IndaneLove (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pinging me everytime you post, I've made my decision as above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not badger me on my talk page. You had pinged me previously. I have said what I am going to say. The more you badger the less inclined I am to do anything you request 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Draftify, based on the WP:PROMO content of the article, including significant reliance on primary sources and WP:TOI, and the possibility that sources identified in this discussion may help produce a more neutral article with content that supports WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to admin
Please Relist this discussion for more comments from other users. Oaktree b and Timtrent voted for delete just because a SPI case was open against me but the case is closed now. Maybe other users will check the all details about this choreographer (her notable awards and reliable news sources) and a correct result will come out.
IndaneLove (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IndaneLove Please cease your badgering. Any admin who chooses to close this discussion is perfectly capable of looking at the opinions expressed and making their own decision based upon them. If any editor disagrees with that decision WP:DRV is available to them.
Additionally please do not misinterpret my words in my opinion expressed above. It is tendentious at best and does you no favours. Again, the closing admin is perfectly capable of reading, understanding and sorting consensus out. Note, though, that the more you badger and hector the more convinced I am of UPE and WP:ADMASQ, simply because of the behaviour you are exhibiting.
Relisting may or may not be appropriate. An uninvolved editor will judge that on their own and on the merits of the discussion so far. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. not doing another relist for no input. No objection to a re-nom when you think input might be forthcoming. Star Mississippi 02:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Detective Boomrah

Detective Boomrah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. Lack WP:NFSOURCES, WP:NFOE. Possible WP:COI/WP:UPE. The creator IndaneLove is also involved in creating a page for the director of this film/web series which itself lack notability. This is a well-cordinated effort. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchens It’s a fictional character not a film.

IndaneLove (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: @ Hatchens - "Sudhanshu has directed a web series titled Detective Boomrah wherein he also played the titular role" - So, we don't have a wikipedia page for the film/webseries... but we have the page for the fictional character? Kindly explain! -Hatchens (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ Hatchens, as i checked on google and found that detective boomrah (web series) is based on a fictional character of Sudhanshu rai named Detective Boomrah. and found reliable coverage about this character so i created this article and i also thought about creating article on the web series and i am collecting details about the web series from the google. IndaneLove (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the article is about a fictional character. It is not about a film.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shashie Verma

AfDs for this article:
Shashie Verma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR, Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Most of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE and WP:ADMASQ. - Hatchens (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, roles listed in subject's filmography all seem to be minor after IMDb review. Tow (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tow Imdb isn’t a reliable source to check his work. He acted as Khanna in the movie Bala.[22] he played as CISF Inspector in the film Bunty Aur Babli 2[23] and as Police man in Flesh.[24] also he played a noted character Mr. Gupta in Chalo Koi Baat Nahi.[25]]. “Shashie Verma, who was seen playing pivotal roles in Shorgul, Bala and Panchayat, will be seen essaying the role of a cop in Swara Bhasker-starrer web series Flesh” mentioned in Tribune India.[26] He passes WP:NACTOR. When you are voting for an afd, you should check everything thoroughly.

IndaneLove (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per your links, he played the role of 'Hair Transplant Doctor' in Bala. I reviewed the other movies & shows as well. I reviewed your sources. I don't see how any of these are significant roles. The roles were not even notable enough to have been listed on the Bunty Aur Babli 2 & Chalo Koi Baat Nahi Wikipedia pages it seems. Tow (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tow How can you judge that if he has played a hair transplant doctor then it’s a minor character. Maybe he has appeared in full movie. As Tribune India claimed that he played pivotal roles in Shorgul, Bala and Panchayat. Also check this source for Shorgul he played as Shiva.[27] IndaneLove (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is minor because he isn't even listed once in the synopsis. Tow (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it’s according to you but not as per sources.

IndaneLove (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No evidence of playing significant roles to meet NACTOR. Need film reviews, independent articles, awards etc to determine the significance, not just an editor's own perception -- Ab207 (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. consensus is the sourcing isn't sufficient to meet the level required Star Mississippi 13:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Carmel School Hazaribagh

AfDs for this article:
Mount Carmel School Hazaribagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since the previous deletion discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: School established in 1949. Has coverage in reliable media. Was recently in national media too for incidents of minority persecution [28]. Also famous for its legacy colonial building see Venkat TL (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naskar, Hem Borker. "Rediscovering Jharkhand's legacy of colonial buildings". Frontline.
  • "Hazaribagh: ABVP threatens two Christian schools, forces one to close". The Indian Express. 22 April 2015. Retrieved 4 April 2022.
  • The article about the ABVP attack barely mentions the school, since it wasn't one of the two being attacked. The Frontline article also has a bare mention of the school :"the Police Training College, formerly the Roman Catholic Mount Carmel School whose chapel still houses the remains of the Catholic church built in 1865 for the British troops in the cantonment;". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 The evidence in the national english media proves that more coverage exists in local media. See these for example
    Venkat, the first article is another trivial mention of the school, while the second seems to be about a school in Delhi. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    MPGuy2824, sorry I failed to see Delhi. The former link covering the school performance is a good indication that this is a notable school in the region. Venkat TL (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and the argument above. Shashank5988 (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazrat Ishaan (title) (2nd nomination)

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. Redirection is up to editors. Sandstein 21:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwath Sundarasen

AfDs for this article:
Ashwath Sundarasen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NENTERTAINER. While he had a main role on The Tribe (1999 TV series) I don't think that role by itself provides enough notability. A WP:BEFORE search did not bring up anything else significant enough to show he passes WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Suonii180 (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing to improve notability found - everything I found goes back to his Tribe role. NealeWellington (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Tribe (1999 TV series). WP:NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (emphasis added), and Sundarasen does not meet that standard since, as the article notes, he was a "one-time" actor noted only for his appearance in The Tribe. He does not appear to meet WP:BASIC/the GNG either: my search for coverage found a few passing mentions but nothing more. In cases where an actor is known only for a role in a single program, a redirect to that program's article is often the optimal outcome: it's cheap, and it serves as a useful alternative to deletion, preserving the history and ensuring that readers reach content that is at least somewhat relevant. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goldmines Telefilms

AfDs for this article:
Goldmines Telefilms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been created yet again despite still not meeting WP:GNG. Seems to be a COI. ––FormalDude talk 10:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Companies, and India. ––FormalDude talk 10:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as the creator, I acknowledge this isn't the best article. However, I think the sourcing and content is more developed and different enough from previous versions that it meets GNG (see previous discussion on talk page from the PROD). After Pushpa, significant attention has been drawn to Goldmines for there to be enough articles focusing on the company from reliable sources (albeit mostly involving interviews). As for COI, well, I really doubt an article made as the result of COI would have any mention of corruption accusations against the subject. MSG17 (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Old version of article not avaliable in current page history, so archived link: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/VFwZ7
The article has changed, for the better. The article has been cleaned up, and it looks like good reliable sources have been added (like ones from the Economic Times and New York State Bar Association). Rlink2 (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company, so the applicable guideline is WP:NCORP, which specifically says that These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.
From the refs in this version - Scroll (31 Jan 2022), Firstpost (8 Feb 2022), IE (8 Feb 2022) are long interviews of the chairman, Manish Shah. They mention very little about the company. The next 3 refs are on corruption investigation at Sony, where again, Manish Shah is discussed briefly and the company is only mentioned as part of his employment status. Of the rest, Indiantelevision.com (whose about page says - Apart from conceiving and executing promotional campaigns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online, it also offers similar services offline making clear its reliability) is the parent of TellyChakkar, which even WP:ICTFSOURCES holds unreliable. Journalismguide seems to be nothing more than a blog. Refs 10-12 by Filmfare, BH and IE about Shehzada/Aryan cover some gossip-like issue and are significantly made up of quotes. IE does not even mention the company's name.
Given how majority (9/12) of references are from late-Jan, early Feb 2022 when their movie was released, I cannot see the coverage as being independent or not marketing-driven. Hemantha (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at the current version of the article and going into the sources. I think that, while they are interviews, they do go rather in-depth on the company's model and success. Admittedly I couldn't find the best sourcing for some things, and yes there is a lot of mentions rather than major coverage, but I'll look at other sources and see what other people have to say. MSG17 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are Primary sources which cannot be used to substantiate notability but also fail the WP:ORGIND section of NCORP as not providing "Independent Content". HighKing++ 16:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, strong indication of WP:COI/WP:UPI. References to till date not yet meeting WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Hemantha above, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company as per NCORP guidelines. HighKing++ 16:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete GNG does not apply here! This is a company so NCORP applies and Hemantha has shown it doesn’t pass its standards. SK2242 (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NCORP117.242.214.54 (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify.. Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roy (2021 film)

Roy (2021 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unreleased film whose production lacks significant and independent coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:NFF. May be draftified until released. Ab207 (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Lacks coverage in independent published sources. Fails both the aforementioned policies by the nominator and WP:CRYSTAL.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Indian Idol. Black Kite (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pawandeep Rajan

AfDs for this article:
Pawandeep Rajan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject doesn't meet GNG. Most of the coverage is in unreliable sources and subjective guideline WP:NSINGER isn't met likewise. Though, per WP:REALITYBIO, redirecting this to the article on series is permitted but I'd feel deletion as the better option provided the promotional tone of this article. It had already been redirected (per AfD) in September. The AfD action was undone by Inkbotttt and the work was later on taken care of by Matu11. I smell of UPE and COI around this page. Comments please! ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources already cited in the article are sufficient for WP:GNG. --Jayron32 12:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jayron32, How do the sources satisfy GNG? ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are multiple sources, they are reliable, and they discuss the subject in sufficient detail. --Jayron32 18:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        There are five sources. Source 1 is from News18 and discusses the subject in some detail but lacks the name of the author, and I won't regard this as a reliable piece. There's nothing significant in Source 2 which routinely says that he has been awarded with some non-notable award. The third source is a significant promo-piece. This one mentions the subject in passing and the last source gives him a passing mention as well. That's to say we have just two sources that discuss him in "some detail" but "their reliability" is ambiguous and these sources do not pass WP:RS and WP:IS in my opinion. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : although news coverage is weak he has won The voice (Indian Version -2015) and Indian Idol (2021) so he meets the WP:MUSICBIO requirements. #9 states "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." Zeddedm (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zeddedm, "what-competition"? real or reality show? The Voice isn't anything significant and I don't feel these things bestow any sort of notability to their subjects. We don't have any policy that says "the winners of the 'reality TV shows' such as the Indian Idol are notable by default". I disagree. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could you not consider that 2 of the biggest Song contest shows in India not to be major awards? and we also do not have policy that says that these shows are not notable. Please note that both have Wiki pages, so it would show some significance. If they had no Wiki pages, you could make the argument that they are unknown awards. I Will stick to my KEEP vote. Let the admins decide based on both sides of the argument.Zeddedm (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Addition we could also make the argument that they meet Criteria #12 of WP:MUSICBIO "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network." as part of those 2 shows. Zeddedm (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Indian Idol: Several sources are just click-bait articles or interviews, which isn't helpful for notability. The COI / UPE concerns around the article creator are definitely affecting my view, but with most of the sources being tied to India Idol 12, so redirect to the India Idol article. Ravensfire (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Natuk Vivekananda Bidyamandir

Natuk Vivekananda Bidyamandir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since the previous deletion discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No significant coverage to be found. Secondary schools are no longer presumed notable, so the previous keep no longer applies. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. Attribution is required, so I have moved the page to Draft:Kshanikam (2022 Malayalam film) and redirected it to Draft:Kshanikam. ✗plicit 12:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kshanikam (2022 Malayalam film)

Kshanikam (2022 Malayalam film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NF, lacking significant coverage by independent sources, all coverage is routine coverage of cast announcements and marketing material, draftification is best as the film may receive coverage after release BOVINEBOY2008 10:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Kshanikam is upcoming malayalam film. and this film announced megastar Mammootty. and this is genuine page. after release this film publishing lots of refernces. kindly please remove this deletion box. Ssvlogs369 (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per nom. WP:TOOSOON for future film which lacks significant coverage to meet NFF. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete since there's already a draft as pointed below. No objections if a merge is carried out but there isn't much content here -- Ab207 (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: There is a working draft on this topic at Draft:Kshanikam that has been rejected from publication stating the same issues I addressed in the AfD. Should the consensus be to draftify, content should be merged there instead of creating a second working draft. BOVINEBOY2008 18:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. An argument has been made that the sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:GNG, but the overall consensus disagrees with that since the coverage is routine news coverage related to elections that Savarkar lost. It is also pointed out that being a family member of someone notable, being an unsuccessful candidate for office, or leading a political movement are insufficient grounds for notability as well. Since the consensus here is well founded in the guidelines, I am closing this discussion accordingly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Himani Savarkar

Himani Savarkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL, Lost elections. Family members of politicians are not notable. Venkat TL (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since it meets WP:GNG. WP:NPOL is for other politicians who may not be independently notable in terms of coverage. I agree with Vanamonde93 below, that Merge would be prolematic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without having examined the coverage in tremendous detail, I'm somewhat opposed to a merge. I believe that if members of a widely studied organization are marginally notable, we're better served by a permastub than a merge; otherwise we risk cluttering the page about the organization with tangentially relevant material. A paragraph of encyclopedic content about Himani Savarkar is likely undue weight at Hindu Mahasabha, but might be worth keeping elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @above, What exactly are you suggesting to merge? I am not seeing anything notable that can merit a standalone section, let alone a stub article. If you look into the family tree of any Hindu Mahasabha election candidates, you will find that almost all of them will be related to someone or the other. Its all in the family, Dynasty politics, as they accuse the others. Venkat TL (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The NDTV and Indian Express sources are decidedly borderline, but they aren't nothing. My point is that if this person's not notable, I think we should delete outright; more than a sentence of coverage at the parent article would be undue in my opinion. And your last sentence is unnecessary, VenkatTL. Not a forum, and all that. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for now. Sourcing is there for WP:GNG in my opinion, but per the arguments and result at Articles for deletion/Athar Aamir Khan, apparently this kind of coverage by Indian media is suspect, not significant and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. I'll may be revisit this once I've made up my mind on whether that result was the consensus ascertained by the quality of the arguments or of users who cared enough to participate. Hemantha (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that some campaign coverage exists is not in and of itself an immediate GNG pass for a non-winning electoral candidate — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so we would have to keep an article about everybody who ever ran in any election and lost if that were how it worked. Rather, to get a non-winning candidate into Wikipedia you need to show that either (a) she already had some other claim of preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her into Wikipedia anyway, or (b) she can credibly claim that her candidacy was somehow of much greater and more enduring significance than the norm for unelected candidates, in some way that would pass the will people still need this article to exist ten years from now test. As written, however, this article isn't really showing either of those things. I'm not an expert in Indian politics by any means, so it's within the realm of possibility that somebody could do a better job of demonstrating that she's notable enough — but as written, this isn't really enough. What might make a difference is writing a lot more about her role with Abhinav Bharat: did she do anything significant or noteworthy in the job to make the article more than just "Himani Savarkar is a person who has a job, so here's an advertorialized puff piece on her prior background"? Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Bearcat. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Really nothing much here. Two lost elections, leadership of a fringe organisatiom, more famous relatives. Nwhyte (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashif Shaikh

Ashif Shaikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References are too weak and the article is too big without proper citations. @@@XyX talk 22:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this AFD discussion as a Soft Delete but later noticed the very low edit count of the two participants. So, I restored the article and am relisting this AFD, in the hope of getting editors with more experience reviewing articles to participate in this discussion and evaluation of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lacking reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. Note that quite a bit of text is uncited. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG lacks indepth references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - plenty of references in news and books; some just passing, others more in depth. Springnuts (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hello User:Springnuts, I am the nominator of this AFD can you provided the reference of the article you said has in depth coverage or you can update the article so that we can see @@@XyX talk 22:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not a third relist, just relisting for Bijoy2020 as their recent relist didn't take effect except for leaving the note above. Consider this the second relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Here’s one from news: [[29]]

But the nomination is odd: no valid reason for deletion is given - though problems with the article are alleged. Did you try to improve/clean up the article? Springnuts (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Springnuts: Per The Logical Indian source you provided I personally think Mr. Ashif Shaikh in that article is completely different one. Correct me if I'm wrong? On Googling I found an Indian actor Aasif Sheikh I personally can't find any proper sources about this person, but you are very old and experienced editor finding to vote this article as Strong Keep I would love to takedown this nomination if you improve this article, I hope it won't take much time as you already have some good indepth references as you said earlier. @@@XyX talk 23:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bijoy2020:It appears you are wrong. Did you read the reference? Line 3: "Mr Ashif Shaikh, founder of the Jan Sahas Organisation". The article, line 1: "founder-director of the community and survivor focused non-profit organisation Jan Sahas". Friendly regards,Springnuts (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well with respect it’s for you to consider alternatives to deletion (such as cleanup or tagging etc) WP:BEFORE nominating. Springnuts (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Springnuts: Not found any valid reason for tagging any tag like cleanup or something; I found less(no) WP:RS or any borderline to consider it for any other tags, I was thinking to tag WP:PROD but later considered to start an AFD. @@@XyX talk 05:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the "Autobiography cleanup" tag - that's a start. I can't give any more time to this, but the closing editor will need to decide whether WP:TNT is justified. In my opinion it is not, but there we go. That's why we have these discussions and seek consensus. All good wishes, Springnuts (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom lacking reliable sources to meet WP:BIO.183.82.108.172 (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources found include: [1]; [2], .. and plenty more; Google "ashif shaikh" "jan sahas" (ie both the terms at the same time) and you get plenty of good results. Springnuts (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.trustconference.com/profile/index2.html?id=644b4b99-babc-42b2-8af0-26d6e83ef684
  2. ^ https://indianexpress.com/profile/columnist/ashif-shaikh/
  • Keep For notability, consider these two [1][2] which discuss him significantly and not just his NGO. An op-ed in Hindu - [3] - also discusses his activities at some length, as does a World Economic Forum post[4]. News search shows that a number of publications like Guardian, Reuters, France 24 and SCMP (apart from Indian papers like IE, Hindu etc) have carried his quotes; thus further supporting the notability argument. Hemantha (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mehra, Preeti (22 June 2015). "Fighting for Dignity". Hindu BusinessLine.
  2. ^ Sharma, Unnati (23 September 2020). "Indian NGO founder who helped migrants in lockdown on Schwab list of social innovators". The Print.
  3. ^ "The rise of collaboratives for social impact". The Hindu.
  4. ^ "How to build long-term resilience in vulnerable communities". World Economic Forum.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis required for late added sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sources indicated by Hemantha are enough to demonstrate GNG being met. The article however needs extensive cleanup and should be tagged as such. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like an advertisement. Lack of indepth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Proposed deletions

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Redirects for deletion

MFD discussion debates

Other deletion discussions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/India&oldid=1082478418"