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 Tictictoc (talk | contribs) at 13:19, 6 January 2023 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiran Uniyal.). 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 06:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Uniyal

Kiran Uniyal (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)

Holders of Guinness World Records are presumably not notable for Wikipedi entries. Tictictoc (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, and India. Tictictoc (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi this page is not about 'Guinness World Records' or 'Guinness World Records Holders' . This is about a Martial Art player who is contributing her values towards her society and women empowerment. She is a very well known personality in her field and country. Kiran is trying to create awareness of the importance of self-defense among women. Don't delete her page she need support also from us to deliver her values. She is doing very great. TheHelix0 (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just having Guinness World Records does not make one notable about given the amount of coverage in sources in the article of her for multiple events, does make her notable. Skynxnex (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree with you, but she is not notable because of her Guinness World Records. She is notable because of her skills. She is a martial art player and also a social worker who is doing very great for women welfare and women empowerment. She is not only recognized but also very famous because of her work and we have to support her work. So don't delete this page and also it's a humble request to remove this deletion tag from this article. I have provided all the possible sources to make things clear and visible to every one. TheHelix0 (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheHelix0 The Article for Deletion notice will stay on Kiran Uniyal until the discussion on this paged is closed by an uninvolved editor--likely an administrator. The result will be based on the discussion here and and Wikipedia policy. It could be keep, delete, redirect, or merge, in most cases.
    Remember that our definition of WP:NOTABILITY is based on what WP:RELIABLESOURCES say about the person so the fact that she is a martial artist and a social worker helping people (which is great!) isn't what makes for a Wikipedia article, only if WP:RS discuss her and those activities. As I mentioned in my keep comment, I think that there is enough sourcing to just meet our standards but if you have any additional reliable sources that go into any more detail, feel free to add them to the article. Skynxnex (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts, Delhi, and Uttarakhand. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . I have Added Few More Refrences Which Shows That This Subject Is Not Notable For His World Records Or Guiness Records Even She has Several Works Also As Activist.@ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manpreet09876 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 8 January 2023 (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 Vijayakanth. Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shanmuga Pandian

Shanmuga Pandian (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)

Only acted in two films, not multiple (three or more). This article was created with the intention that the third film would release. No independent notability. Redirect to Vijayakanth (include snippet about Shanmuga Pandian there). Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabarish. DareshMohan (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2023 (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. I don't readily see how this could be merged to Zee Bangla, but interpret the "merge" !vote as indicating that a stand-alone article is not justified. Randykitty (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ranga Bou

Ranga Bou (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)

Cable TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE entertainment news articles about the upcoming series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2023 (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, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any coverage in RS I recognize, the redirect seems appropriate. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2023 (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 Zee Bangla. History is under the redirect if someone wants to merge. Star Mississippi 17:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waaris (1999 TV series)

Waaris (1999 TV series) (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)

Cable TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2023 (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, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 27 January 2023 (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 02:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chi and Me

Chi and Me (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)

Cable TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:17, 6 January 2023 (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 02:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin (Indian TV series)

Aladdin (Indian TV series) (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)

Cable TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:18, 6 January 2023 (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhisattwor Bodhbuddhi

Bodhisattwor Bodhbuddhi (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)

Cable TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage consists largely of WP:ROUTINE articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page has many reliable sources. Even searching on Google found reliable sources linked to this page.[1] Besides This show came in 41st week in 2022 and was TRP rank 19 BARC Viewership of TRP[2] clearly passes WP:NTV with sufficient WP:GNG. Nilpriyo 8:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can't read Bengali, but ... really? More than one article primarily about this series in The Times of India, one of that country's major national newspapers IIRC? Airing on one of the country's major cable networks, and probably the major one for Bengali-language programming? Easily passes under NTVNATL. Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2023 (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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Manzoor Bhat

Danish Manzoor Bhat (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 does not meet WP:GNG requirements. The references provided are insufficient to support the subject's notability and fall short of WP:SIGCOV. Tictictoc (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. Newsweek isn't a reliable source, so I'd imagine holding a position there doesn't contribute to notable either. We still don't have enough to prove GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. He works for Newsweek, so they are not an independent source. He won the Jaipur Foot USA Global Humanitarian Award, but this is one of many Global Humanitarian Awards that are awarded by various organizations, and this particular award is not well known as this is the first time it has been awarded. BruceThomson (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2023 (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:SK#4. ✗plicit 06:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Khan (social activist)

Nadeem Khan (social activist) (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 was unable to locate the extensive coverage on trustworthy websites. I believe that this is not meeting WP:ANYBIO. Tictictoc (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2023 (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! 17:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naga Bhargavi

Naga Bhargavi (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)

Not seeing sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, page curation tells me this was deleted previously but I can't seem to find any logs or old afd's, so apologies if there is another process we should use.

The sources are all leaning on Youtube so far, and the creator has a declaration on their user page that may be relevant. ASUKITE 18:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find any sources. What's given here is Youtube videos and cast lists. Nothing for GNG. She's still young, likely TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the photo's likely been copied from her instagram feed, uploaded by a red-linked user with no proof they took the photo submitted. Further red flags in AfD, based on my experience here. Tagged the photo as a copyvio. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the picture is not copied from instagram feed and is shared with creator of the article personally upon request Santoshpratheek1 (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well it's been tagged as a copyright violation, I can't handle it further, it will be dealt with there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She is a credible celebrity in telugu film circuit. Its not toosoon per say to include her on wiki as info about her is readily available on google and not just youtube Santoshpratheek1 (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She is a supporting actress and hence the lists are casting lists and I request to consider not deleting the page for i have added more sources for google apart from youtube videos Santoshpratheek1 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more references and sources from google and other articles that were interviews of the same person. Kindly review Santoshpratheek1 (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from Youtube there are also references that are added on the article which are sources from google and other websites. Santoshpratheek1 (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One movie review that doesn't mention her very much helps a little bit, the other article is about the casting couch, both are weak sources. Still not enough to keep the article, the rest of the sources are still youtube and a model profile page. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2023 (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! 05:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Boy (upcoming film)

AfDs for this article:
Bad Boy (upcoming 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)

The film fails all the criteria of notability guidelines for films.

There is no significant coverage of this film in reliable sources so it fails general notability criteria as well.

What was mistaken to be significant coverage in previous AfD, is actually press releases, and some promotional/paid articles. After doing some searching, there are no recent updates, or coverage about the film in reliable sources.

On other note, the creator of this article is blocked for socking, and for UPE. Some of their articles were related to film industry. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2023 (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. This consensus has be muddied by the sock farm which targeted this discussion, but there is a clear delete consensus reached by uninvolved editors and this consensus is in keeping with the consensus reached at similar AfDs over a number of years. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newgen Software Tech

AfDs for this article:
Newgen Software Tech (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 this has lots of sources, it does not appear to have overall context or explanations. Being on the stock market does not inherently make one notable. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are sufficient sources to establish that this company meets WP:NCORP. Also added more information (context and did some explanation) but yes there's more contributions needed on the page. but i might it shouldn't be deleted as it is listed on BSE and NSE (stock market) and having more reliable sources.:Hayraan Aashna (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)  Clerk note: Blocked suspected sock of Darshak.parmar and confirmed sock of Munshi Talab. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Although the company gets a fair amount of coverage, the page creator should give some time to improve it to show why the company is notable. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2023 (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. I don't see that GNG is met but an AFD closure isn't about the closer's opinion but the consensus of the discussion participants and on that, after 3 relistings, I see no consensus here. For those advocating Keep, I suggest you add sources supplying SIGCOV to the article or we will likely see it renominated for a second trip to AFD in the very near future. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aparajita Auddy

Aparajita Auddy (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)

Actor BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in non-routine sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but rescue should be possible Seeing that a majority of the article is unsourced, that info should be scrapped. The rest is only backed up by poor sources (trivial), not by in-depth quality sources. At the very least, the WP:BLP-issues must be solved. The Banner talk
Hello The Banner. Perhaps WP:DRAFTIFY would be useful here? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When there are proper sources for this article, they should be added pretty soon. But when the main authors do not commit to that, I think draftify would only act as de delaying tactic. (i.e. nothing happens --> draft --> nothing happens --> draft restored to article space on request --> AfD --> removal) The Banner talk 22:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: An indirect reference to WP:NEXIST that is often cited as a Hail Mary that sources may exist, somewhere in the universe. The last sentence of WP:NEXIST states, However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. A 2012 article would suggest enough time has passed. In fact, there is a 2020 "needs additional citations for verification" tag.
A major issue, that seems to be overlooked, is that a BLP is more than career content that makes an article a resume or pseudo biography. Sometimes it may be considered silly but a birthday, place of birth, and other "personal" information are usually in a biography.
What we have is a lead with "Aparajita Auddy is an Indian actress who works primarily in Bengali film and television industry" and the article jumps straight to the "Filmography" section. There is so much unsourced content that the given sources doesn't support so the article is either original research or the career lists are sourced through IMDb that is not a reliable source. Wait! what about awards? Best Actress In A Supporting Role should advance notability. However, the source does not mention the subject at all. It is a "Press Release by Filmfare via Brandwire.in" and that company redirects to Mediawire, "Where PR Becomes News". The subject supposedly won "West Bengal Film Journalists' Association" Awards for Best Actress In A Leading Role for Cheeni (Winner). Find a reliable source for either of those awards. Hint: The first one listed has not happened yet. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Titodutta Are you able to search for sources yourself? Google translate can only get you so far. I'm inclined to think she's notable based on the volume of coverage in Bengali and English news media, but I'm struggling to find a single source that has substantive biographical information. I'm currently thinking she just about meets WP:NACTOR; she appears to have been given second or third billing in a few pieces we'd consider notable. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:39, 1 February 2023 (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 14:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mulnivasi

Mulnivasi (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)

Nothing more than failure of WP:NOTDICT and WP:GNG. Capitals00 (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page is more than dictionary as there are political topic also included in it. Dev0745 (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2023 (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 14:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vestige (company)

Vestige (company) (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 company having PR Based news. Lordofhunter (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2023 (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 14:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apna.co

Apna.co (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 company, claiming notablity based on Funding status. Lordofhunter (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2023 (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 Procedural keep. The nomination has been struck-out as the work of a sock, and it does not appear to me that anyone is suggesting deleting the article. The question of whether to redirect it, as well as the other editing disputes that have arisen during this discussion, are not matters to be resolved here; I would urge the involved editors to discuss these on an appropriate talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dah Hanu

Dah Hanu (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 now two different entries on the twin villages of Dah and Hanu in Ladakh, as well as a third article on Aryan Valley, making a total of four articles on these two Ladakhi villages. That renders this article superfluous, hence I propose its deletion. Hassan Janhal (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)(sock strike. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, that's also correct. The main villages, though, seem to be these two. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Dah and Hanu are the two main settlements; the other two are hamlets. In fact, the entire area, currently known as Aryan Valley, was formerly known as the Dah Hanu region.[3][4] Hassan Janhal (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassan Janhal:, Dha village ,Hanu village ,Garkone village and Darchik village are the main four different villages . The Hamlets of each village is mentioned in their individual pages .

THE DHA HANU REFERS TO the village of Dha only and hanu village only. As it is clearly mentioned in the articles. Dha and hanu are in leh district . While Garkon and Darchik village are in Kargil District. Dha hanu( dha and hanu ) were only allowed for tourists visitor . Whil Garkone and Darchik are restricted for tourism.

On the other hand ,Dha Hanu region and Dha hanu district refers to all four village viz, dha,hanu ,garkon and Darchik. Garkon is one of the biggest village in these regions Minaro123 (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Minaro123: I don't get your argument; we are discussing the fact that Dah and Hanu villages already have separate articles, negating the necessity for a Dha Hanu article that also discusses the same two villages. Furthermore, according to you, the terms "Aryan valley" and "Dha Hanu region" refer to the same four villages. Therefore, Aryan valley could be combined with "Dha Hanu" and redirected there, or Dah Hanu could be renamed "Aryan valley," and the newly created article "Aryan valley" could be deleted. Hassan Janhal (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Janhal,

Oppose: Keep Dha hanu twin village was created on 2004 , because at that time ,only dha hanu twin village was opened for tourists , It is 17 year old article . DHA HANU was a popular for Brokpa village of leh district . Even Former Jammu and Kashmir map have named Dha hanu in the map, dha hanu is a well known and branded name . Minaro123 (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yesterday the Aryan valley article used to be an article about a region with well-defined boundaries and a distinct culture.

Ninety minutes after the AfD closed as "keep", the nominator in that AfD began a complete rewrite of Aryan valley, which has resulted in an article about how nefarious the name is and, to this effect, cites an article that the uninvolved editors said was irrelevant. The sections on jurisdictions, culture, and history have been removed. The section on the local museum was also removed and dismissed as "government propaganda". (By the autonomous Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (!)) The sourced section on the Line of Control and the Kargil War, which absolutely have been a factor in this border community, was removed as "clueless drafting".

I reverted the first changes because they were not discussed, only be myself reverted. When I warned Kautilya3 about edit warring, he/she demanded diffs and "proof", and TrangaBellam (talk · contribs) told me that I have no standing because Cinema of Africa is "incompetent". (Perhaps it is. I don't think I have ever looked at or touched that article, and therefore I wouldn't know. At most I may have done a copy edit a couple of years ago. The point is, TB at best is working too fast to be careful.)

Nonetheless. Even I *had* written the thing, the state of Cinema of Africa would most especially be irrelevant. I stopped reverting on Aryan valley, because this is a discretionary sanctions article. I did make several more attempts to discuss on the talk page. The most recent was greeted with the comment that "there is nothing to see here" because the section was already completely rewritten.

A dictionary, which the author had cited three times separately in order to include the relevant quotes, was summarily dismissed as "not reliable sources". Plural. I actually have not examined this source to see if it is self-published, which is a concept I have been introducing to the article author. But TB hasn't examined the article text well enough to notice that the three references were to one source, singular.

None of this smacks of a good faith attempt at collaboration with current. The collaboration amongst these three editors is obvious, although I don't understand it's reason, here they are, the same three editors, trying to merge the article out of existence. Certainly, material that was deleted from the Aryan valley article because it discussed the history of Dah has not been added to the article about Dah, so protestations that we should write articles about the individual villages don't inspire me with faith that the material will reach those articles.

Since yesterday's article about a location has been steam-rollered into an article about a name, it may seem, superficially, a good idea to merge. Especially given the errors of English, which are new.

But an AfD close just yesterday said that the location was independently notable and should have an article. I suggest that the nominating editors write their own article about why they think Jammu and Kashmir should have chosen another name, if they feel that this is so important. But it the name is not the most important attribute of this area, which just yesterday was found to be notable Elinruby (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN (or WP:ANI) is the venue you are aiming at. Ctrl+F "Cinema of Africa" on your u/p. Btw, who are these three editors - me, K3 and ? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I am not on Windows
  2. Possibly you mean my talk page, as I once participated in a Cinema of Africa event. But if you were going to fish in my archives for the participation trophies, I would have thought that you would have read the page and noticed that somebody gave me a barnstar for dealing with *you*. You're hilarious. Look at my *actual* user page.
  • My advice to you: assume less and read more. Elinruby (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean to say that your user-page does not feature a shiny badge about being the Editor of the Week for the week beginning December 1, 2019, which proclaims Cinema of Africa to be among your "Notable Work(s)" alongside Corruption in Brazil and Operation Car Wash?
    That said, if you have issues with my behavior, you shall take me to AN/ANI than bicker at an AFD and throw veiled aspersions about "colloboration" between editors. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As fascinating as it might be to discuss with you why you would choose to mock that, of all the other barnstars on that page, you are embarrassing yourself in a very public venue, and at this point I don't even care. I know what you are: one of the reasons the topic area needs discretionary sanctions. I will proudly display the one for trying to reason with you alongside all the others. Elinruby (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the umpteenth me, please take me to AN/ANI/AE (or wherever you feel like) since you have particularly strong feelings about my conduct. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Yeah, I am talking about EC restrictions. There is a recent precedent in the EE area -- if they can't edit the article they can't participate in the AfD. I am not sure what "subsumed into DS" means. Are you saying that EC restrictions are *not* in effect for IPA? Isn't that the minimum level of DS protection? Actual question, not sarcasm, although it does look to me like the TA needs more protection not less. Elinruby (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EC restrictions were never in effect for ARBIPA except for sometime, for a subset of articles concerning the India-Pakistan conflict. The case in other AC/DS regimes like ARBPIA is different. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I realize they are different, which is why I asked. And, note, did not ask *you*. There are discretionary sanctions in place, and I am trying to clarify them. If in fact there are no EC restrictions on IPA, then my logic above is in error, although the intent of the rule where it exists is to prevent exactly what we have here, sockpoppets abusing AfD. I am not certain what effect this has on the close. I will look into some things, since Vanamonde93 hasn't answered yet Elinruby (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: There are not, and never have been, generic EC restrictions in the ARBIPA area. There were briefly community-authorized EC restrictions for the Indo-Pakistani conflict specifically, but these are no longer in place. There is a generic EC restriction in the ARBPIA area, which is perhaps the source of your confusion. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It quite possibly is, since I thought that was what I was talking about. Did I get the acronym wrong? Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "বাংলা টেলিভিশনে প্রথমবার ' বোধ বুদ্ধি ' নিয়ে আসতে চলেছে নতুন ধারাবাহিক ' বোধিসত্ত্বের বোধ বুদ্ধি '". Bangla Asianet News.
  2. ^ "TRP: রেটিং চার্টে অবস্থা শোচনীয় 'মিঠাই'-র! জয়জয়কার গৌরী, খড়িদের". Aaj Tak বাংলা.
  3. ^ Bray, John (2008). "Corvée transport labour in 19th and early 20th century Ladakh: a study in continuity and change". In Martijn van Beek; Fernanda Pirie (eds.). Modern Ladakh: Anthropological Perspectives on Continuity and Change. BRILL. pp. 43–66. ISBN 978-90-474-4334-6.
  4. ^ p. 46: "A 16 century dispute over King Tsewang Namgyal's authority in the Dha-Hanu region illustrates how the hierarchies could be both extended and contested. The king summoned the people of Hanu, who until then had been closer to the Maqpon (ruler) of Skardu, to assist in the construction of a road".

Keep: Justification : Dha Hanu is only used for the twin villages that is Dha and hanu village of Leh District. Often named as Dha hanu valley . These page was created on 2004 , Until recently the Dha and hanu were only allowed for visitors and other brokpa village such as 'Garkon' and 'Darchik' was restricted due to border area . There are more than thousand website,articles etc. are talking about Dha hanu ,if we search in google .

However The Dha Hanu region or Dha hanu district ,is used for all villages that is Dha,hanu, Garkon and Darchik .

We have similar example of other region of naming too : Kashmir valley is used for only valley of Kashmir . And Kashmir region Is used for four region and valleys that includes Kashmir Valley , Jammu region , Ladakh region and Gilgit Baltistan region.

Conclusion: Since Dha hanu articles itself says it is a twin village that is Dha and hanu . And the Dha hanu valley( Dha and hanu village) that is ok Lhe district has been popular because of being opened for tourists, anthropologiest, rearacher etc . And The dha hanu valley was/is also in the official Map of Jammu and kashmir and Ladakh .

Proposal: We need to add a disambiguaty link in the articles to differentiate between ' Dha hanu valley and Dha hanu Region or District. Minaro123 (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Dha Hanu district? Some other editors here seem to think not.Elinruby (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Minaro123, you can comment all you like but can only cast one "vote". Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dha hanu region or Dha hanu district is a same thing . Dha hanu district is used during British Raj ,while Dha hanu region is used after British Raj for the same region . And Brokyul is a Ladakhi and tibetan name for these same region .Minaro123 (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have been working to help Minaro123 mitigate some legitimately-tagged RS problems in a group of related articles he has authored. This has been hampered by language issues and, more importantly, by POINTy interventions whose fervor I do not fully understand except that they seem to be politically motivated.

This area is only a few kilometers from a military front. Any discretionary sanctions that apply to that conflict should apply here. I would like for Minaro123 to be allowed to work. He is responsive once an issue is explained to him. I will continue to help him as long as he wants me to, although I am tied up today. I urge him to ping me if he has questions.

As to this AfD, It is my understanding that saying "Dah Hanu area" is akin to saying "Silicon Valley". Both are ill-defined areas that include several municipalities yet can be considered as separate entities whose components share certain attributes. I oppose deletion, and suggest draftifying if that's considered necessary, as it looks as though a trip to the drama boards may be necessary once I clarify which one has jurisdiction. Open to any helpful suggestions. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arshiya Das

Arshiya Das (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)

PROD was contested so bringing here. Does not appear to meet WP:NCHESS or WP:GNG. The Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Bal Puraskar does not appear to automatically confer notability Melcous (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 9 January 2023 (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 21:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mon Dite Chai

Mon Dite Chai (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)

Television series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE stories about the announcement of an upcoming series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: When this page was on the draft page, I presented everything correctly and added reliable source and moved this page to the main page. What are you discussing to delete this page again, MrsSnoozyTurtle? And if you check the page carefully, then you will see with your own eyes that the date and stories of the series are announced. User:Nilpriyo (talk) 1:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nomination. And looks like promo. Nilpriyo has also notices for a possible COI relating to Zee Bangla on its talk page. The Banner talk 14:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I tell you The Banner, I am not a member of Zee Bangla. Why is the topic of salary raised here? Is it possible to work on Wikipedia without salary? You are saying here that I am a member of Zee Bangla so to delete the page. He could have done the notice well when he was noticing me. I have created many other pages besides Zee Bangla. As always I have been writing wrong as wrong and right as right. Still doing it today. And I make what I know is right. I work on Wikipedia to share my knowledge, not for pay. I'm not here to punish anyone on Wikipedia. I present what I know best on Wikipedia as an in-depth source on the subject. What do I do on Wikipedia? Who are you to say what not to do? It's completely my personal matter. At least rest assured that I will never misinform Wikipedia. I did not talk about the discussion of this page. When the page was on the draft page, I improved the page and moved it to the main page.If I am not wrong, you want to delete the page politically without revising the page. If you do then I will tell you that Wikipedia does not support deleting pages developed for personal gain. Because it's not right🙂🙂User:Nilpriyo (talk) 1:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Note for the closer: all keep votes up to now are from the same editor. The Banner talk 19:30, 6 January 2023 (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Charitra

Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Charitra (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)

Per Wikipedia:Notability (films), this film does not have significant coverage. A search in English or Telugu (శ్రీ వాసవి కన్యకాపరమేశ్వరి చరిత్ర) online brings up the Goddess of the same name, but nothing of the film such as reviews from critics or anything else. DareshMohan (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Jodhpur#Transportation. Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paota Bus Stand (Jodhpur)

Paota Bus Stand (Jodhpur) (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)

Disputed draftification. Immediate return to mainspace. I am not persuaded that this passes WP:GEOLAND. References are not of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing we can use, it's not a historic bus stop and isn't covered in anything we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannuseemu (talk • contribs) 12:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG and GEOLAND wouldn't apply. Imzadi 1979 → 19:26, 2 January 2023 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aiyshwarya Mahadev

Aiyshwarya Mahadev (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:NPOL and WP:GNG — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What national office? Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2023 (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. ✗plicit 14:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State Highway 13 (Madhya Pradesh)

State Highway 13 (Madhya Pradesh) (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)

Zero reliable sources to support the information in the article. Was draftified in an attempt to get the article approved, but an admin continues to re-add uncited information in violation of WP:BURDEN. While this does have a map, that is its sole reference. However, the map does not support any of the information in the stub. The article is about a state highway. The map's legend shows that dark green and light green are the colors for state highways (state highway and new declared state highway, respectively). Their does appear to be a 13 on a green road, but it does not run along the route described. In addition, the map does not include districts, and neither does it have the information needed to either confirm the length or have a distance measurement. This has been repeated in at least 2 other of these stubs. It would be easier, and more in-line with WP policy to simply redirect these articles to a list article, but that has been objected to. Onel5969 TT me 14:42, 1 January 2023 (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. ✗plicit 14:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State Highway 12 (Madhya Pradesh)

State Highway 12 (Madhya Pradesh) (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)

Zero reliable sources to support the information in the article. Was draftified in an attempt to get the article approved, but an admin continues to re-add uncited information in violation of WP:BURDEN. While this does have a map, that is its sole reference. However, the map does not support any of the information in the stub. The article is about a state highway. The map's legend shows that dark green and light green are the colors for state highways (state highway and new declared state highway, respectively). The first issue arises that there are at no roads on the map in light or dark green which are numbered 12. There is a road numbered 12, in a different color green (sort of yellow-green) which is not explained in the legend. But that road, is not identified as a state road. And it does not run along the route described. In addition, the map does not include districts, and neither does it have the information needed to either confirm the length or have a distance measurement. This has been repeated in at least 2 other of these stubs. It would be easier, and more in-line with WP policy to simply redirect these articles to a list article, but that has been objected to. Onel5969 TT me 14:40, 1 January 2023 (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. ✗plicit 14:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State Highway 10 (Madhya Pradesh)

State Highway 10 (Madhya Pradesh) (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)

Zero reliable sources to support the information in the article. Was draftified in an attempt to get the article approved, but an admin continues to re-add uncited information in violation of WP:BURDEN. While this does have a map, that is its sole reference. However, the map does not support any of the information in the stub. The article is about a state highway. The map's legend shows that dark green and light green are the colors for state highways (state highway and new declared state highway, respectively). The first issue arises that there are at least 3 roads on the map in light or dark green which are numbered 10. There is an additional road numbered 10, in a different color green which is not explained in the legend. And here is the crux of the issue, none of the roads begin or end in either Gunna or Bhopal. In addition, the map does not include districts, and neither does it have the information needed to either confirm the length or have a distance measurement. This has been repeated in at least 2 other of these stubs. It would be easier, and more in-line with WP policy to simply redirect these articles to a list article, but that has been objected to. Onel5969 TT me 14:35, 1 January 2023 (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) ––FormalDude (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leba Chand Tudu

AfDs for this article:
Leba Chand Tudu (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)

Another article created by the same sock chain on non-notable CPI(ML)L party functionaries. Fails WP:NPOL as a non-winning politician, and a search did not return WP:SIGCOV (though the article lists quite a few sources, these are mainly just election results). Curbon7 (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The recentism of sources being available on line creates a bias here. But looking at the material available, take for example Guerrillas: The Santals of West Bengal and the Naxalite Movement (Edward Duyker. Oxford University Press, 1987) which has Tudu covered over 6 pages (all snippet view for me, I can't make use of it for expanding article), or the inclusion in Who's who in 1982 Assembly Election, West Bengal, "SRI LEBA CHAND TUDU C. P. I. ( M. L. ) Leba Chand Tudu , ( 38 ) is the only School Final pass person among the Adibasis . He joined the Naxalbari movement in 1971 and was in prison upto 1977. He constantly struggled for the inclusion of..." (I feel there is more here, but snippet view limits me), Revolution Unleashed: A History of Naxalbari Movement in India, 1964-1972 (Amar Bhattacharya, Sampark, 2007, again snippet), Left Extremist Movement in West Bengal: An Experiment in Armed Agrarian Struggle (Amiya K. Samanta, Firma KLM, 1984) discusses the biography of Tudu across several pages (including the passage "He had promised Leba Chand Tudu a job and for that received two hundred rupees from Tudu . But he failed to procure a job , or to return the money . When Leba Tudu emerged as an activist in the party , he selected and killed Shaw as a class enemy."), quote "Duyker (1987) also mentions other influential tribal Naxalite leaders such as Gunadhar Murmu, Leba Chand Tudu, and Rabi Manjhi." in The Maoist Insurgency in Nepal: Revolution in the Twenty-first Century, "Santhal Maoists like Gunadhar Murmu, Jangal Santhal, Leba Chand Tudu and Rabi Manjhi were able to gain leadership status. Just as Mao wooed strategic minorities with promises of autonomy, as the Viet Cong wanted the tribal 'Front Unifie'..." in An Unfinished Revolution: A Hostage Crisis, Adivasi Resistance and the Naxal Movement, "The movement on West Bengal side gathered momentum after the GNLF accord came into operation in Aug. 1988 . The main JCC components are the CPI ( ML ) , N.E. Horo's Jharkhand Party , Leba Chand Tudu's Jharkhand Kranti Dal ..." ([9]), "Prominent Santhal leaders such as Lebachand Tudu and Gunadhar Murmu participated in this struggle. Violence began in the Gopiballavpur area in Midnapore from August 1969." in Marginalities in India: Themes and Perspectives, "Among the tribals Lebachand Tudu and Amulya Kalopahar from adjoining Nayagram were also included in the movement . The annihilation campaign through armed struggle in Debra took a brutal way from October , 1969 ..." in Sparks from Bidisa: Tribal unrest and tribal movement (Institute of Social Research and Applied Anthropology, 1994), "...we went to Kharikashole with the seized arms , ammunitions etc. I determined the policy of distribution of arms and placed the responsibility on Santosh to get them distributed to the guerrillas through Lebachand Tudu.." in Maoist "spring Thunder": The Naxalite Movement 1967-1972 (Arun Mukherjee. K.P. Bagchi & Company, 2007), "...forged an alliance with • PCC - CPI ( ML ) led by Santosh Rana , • Jharkhand Kranti Dal led by Leba Chand Tudu , and • IUML forming Jharkhand Sanjukta Sangharsha Morcha ( JSSM ) in June 1981." ([10]), etc. I'd say there is good indication of notability of Tudu. --Soman (talk) 22:46, 31 December 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rage Parasuram

Rage Parasuram (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. He served as Mayor of an small city and state general secretary of YSR Congress Party which are not notable positions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 17:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DaxServer not specifically at you, just the general discussion. The nomination contains no actual policy/guideline basis for deletion (or evidence of BEFORE); however, as your contribution asserts no passing of the GNG, there is a basis for the nomination to proceed (hence my comment, rather than calling for a procedural close). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2023 (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Yadav (entrepreneur)

Akash Yadav (entrepreneur) (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 entrepreneur, having only Paid PRs listed in reference section. I also got to know that a 5-year sleeper user User:Rahul9716 accepted the page for creation and 27 days old user User:PCM17092022 created this. I think it's a game and they are Socks may be. It is written Spotlight here, [11] and Brand desk content here, [12] Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2023 (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! 21:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khelna Bari

Khelna Bari (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)

Web series doesn't seem to meet WP:NMEDIA - coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE episode reviews and viewership statistics. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with Nominators' view. Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I am not in favor of deleting this page. Because I see everything on this page is presented correctly. I fixed everything that was lacking on this page, starting with accurate reliable sources. So I say this page should not be deleted in any way and I do not agree to delete this page.Nilpriyo (talk) 2:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Nilpriyo, which sources do you think are non-routine and support that WP:GNG is met? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: MrsSnoozyTurtle Please review the page carefully first. Check out the sources that have details about the series here.

For example here is Biswajit Ghosh who is the main lead hero in this series. How is his character in the series is given in the source [1]. Besides the show has Last week charted in Top 4 BARC Viewership of TRP [2] clearly passes WP:NTV with sufficient WP:GNG. Nilpriyo (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Biswajit Ghosh to play a successful businessman in 'Khelna Bari'". The Times of India.
  2. ^ "প্রকাশ্যে বছরের শেষ টিআরপি! একাধিক মেগার স্কোরে রদবদল, বেঙ্গল টপার কে?". Aaj Tak বাংলা.
  • Keep: This page has enough source and depth of various sources and this page is presented in an organized manner so there is no question of deletion. I understood that through source. Nilpriyo (talk) 1:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Note to closer: Up to know, all keep votes are from the same editor. The Banner talk 21:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FYI, editors do not all have to agree on deletion for there to be a consensus to delete an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Bombay Orthodox Diocese. As an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Orthodox Cathedral, Dadar, Mumbai

St. Mary's Orthodox Cathedral, Dadar, Mumbai (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 GNG and WP:NBUILDING. No results in Wikipedia Library and news. The article sounds very promotional and the article only has information about when the church has services. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 07:34, 31 December 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! 07:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creambell

Creambell (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 wiki page maintained for advertising purposes by the digital agency Korra Gurgaon since March 2022. Please refer to the article's edit history for further information. In addition to this, it does not pass NCORP, ORGIND, and CORPDEPTH. RPSkokie (talk) 07:01, 31 December 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. I feel the presentation of sources was sufficiently refuted by those advocating delete, and their refutations were not responded to, so I must accept them as being correct. On that basis, consensus exists to delete. Daniel (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khatabook

AfDs for this article:
Khatabook (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:ORG, News are only about funding, investment & announements. Lordofhunter (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*In a prior afd, references were not significant; but, in this article, the news coverage appears to be passing WP:RS. Although few are press announcements, I tend to lean toward soft Keep. Tictictoc (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We need at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, based as they are on announcements and/or information provided by the company/executives with no "Independent Content". Perhaps The Bestagon and Carpimaps can link to specific sources (and paragraph numbers) that meet NCORP (not just GNG) and which contain in-depth and significant "Independent Content" that meets NCORP as I am unable to locate any sources that are sufficient. HighKing++ 13:21, 12 January 2023 (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! 01:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aritra Das

Aritra Das (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 producer of no notable work. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NACTOR Lordofhunter (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. While on a pure nose count one might consider a "no consensus", the analysis of source depth and reliability (or the lack thereof) was not substantially refuted by individuals arguing to keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moj (app)

AfDs for this article:
Moj (app) (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)

All the news has the same dates, PR Based material based on the company launch, and India bans TikTok events. Lordofhunter (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: After my WP:BEFORE. I found significant coverage passing WP:GNG. The previous nomination was Keep. Tictictoc (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share those coverages here? I have seen the old Nom, and I have also seen the exact dates of them. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While you're right that a decent portion of the sources are from the app's release date, there is coverage independent of that (ie. [18], [19], [20]) TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response Techcrunch source is not reliable as per WP:RS, This ET News is published by PR wired group IANS, and not even in-depth related to Moj, Last source is again based on PR Material, please read the news, whole news is said by Ankush Sachdeva, CEO of Moj. There is no analysis. Lordofhunter (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response For companies we have WP:ORG, I appreciate if you can sources for it. Lordofhunter (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found some independent coverage - [21] [22] [23] [24] Also, some interviews - [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Himalayan7914 (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response You are again sharing the same kind of sources. The same news are related to Tiktok Ban is published on multiple platforms. It is not indepth related to Moj. We are looking for independent news related to the Company, not the interview of the spokesperson. Lordofhunter (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When Moj app was launched in India it was considered as a replacement to Tiktok which got banned. This is the reason why most of the medias refer to Tiktok when they are covering Moj app. Also, most of the coverage I shared above is from last 6 months i.e. 2022. Tiktok was banned in July 2019. You will find lot coverage which has a mention of Tiktok ban but they are not necessarily from the launch time. Also, lot of sources from the article are also from 2022 and not from it's launch time. Himalayan7914 (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Let me share you the review in detail of 4 sources shared by you, other than interview.
  • Bloomberg, NDTV is the exact same news published on 2 platforms at the same time, Do you think it is independent? Infact, It is also not an indepth coverage of Moj, there is no analyse of any journalist related to Moj. Infact the topic is something else here.
  • Your 3rd ET News is also about the same topic, not indepth about Moj.
  • FinancialExpress source is about "How 5g will change our life" How is it indepth about Moj?
Notability is too far for Moj to be consider. Lordofhunter (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg piece is an interview, Economic Times is very case-by-case in terms of reliability and the others you listed are examples of churnalism. 300m is a WP:BIGNUMBER but ultimately it's the quality of sources that matters, not the self-reported number of users. In this case, the quality of sources doesn't support an article for this subject at this time. - Aoidh (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let the Admin decide if it is ridiculous or not. Just having a PR in a reliable media site, doesn't mean they are notable. None of them is independent or significant and Userbase is not a notability criterion. Please share top 3 sources which makes it notable. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I find Aoidh's analysis of the sources at 16:41, 16 January 2023 to be the most persuasive and unrefuted. Does not meet the threshold of significant coverage that we set. Daniel (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2023 (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. This is close, but on the balance there is consensus to delete. I am very cognizant of the issue of systemic bias, but there's only so far that argument can take us, and here we are also discussing a 1991 film from an enormous industry in a country with substantial English-language media. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saathi (1991 film)

Saathi (1991 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)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE

PROD removed with "Afd it" DonaldD23 talk to me 13:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - sources had been added even before this AfD, and there are plenty of sources available online. Needs expansion, not deletion. Shahid • Talk2me 14:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the added sources are reviews. Two of the books only have one line devoted to the film, another book is just a database listing. One book doesn't have a preview available so I cannot judge its merit...but even in the off chance it is a thorough review, one isn't enough for notability requirements. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Donaldd23: Read WP:GNG. That you do not have access to the books, doesn't mean it's not a proper source. And finally, you should know by now, no sources from the era prior to the 2000s are available from the Indian press online. Your logic would mean no Indian film from older Hindi cinema could be notable. I object. Shahid • Talk2me 11:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledged that the one book I couldn't access might be counted toward notability, so I am not sure what your disagreement it? As for the other 2 books that I do have access to...they are just a one line mention and you should know by now that that is not anywhere close to meeting WP:GNG guidelines. Existing does not mean inclusion on Wikipedia. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Donaldd23: Let's agree to disagree and let the community decide. I've said it many times, I see tremendous bias against Indian articles just because they do not have the amount of coverage present in the west. I'm not accusing you specifically, I'm sure you mean well, it's a systemic problem on WP which should be fought against. I felt it everywhere, when I worked on FAs, GAs, and other instances. Shahid • Talk2me 13:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sources are non-RS for sure. Fails WP:GNG unless new sources can be found and added. Current sourcing for from sufficient.— Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moops: The books cited are non-RS? What are you basing youself on? Shahid • Talk2me 11:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably the fact that 2 of them are just one line mentions. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Donaldd23: RS is about reliability, not extent of coverage. Shahid • Talk2me 13:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but GNG is about significant coverage. And one line in a book does not meet that. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Donaldd23: Moops did not mention GNG, only RS - so I can't see why you'd defend that. And one line can establish notability, depends on what it says. Shahid • Talk2me 17:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SIGCOV is also a valid concern, thanks Donaldd23. Books, being primary sources, are okay, but not by themselves without substantiated secondary sources from a GNG standpoint. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 18:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One line in a book can establish notability? Please, please link the policy that says that. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Donaldd23: Please show where it says in SIGCOV that one line is excluded from establishing notability. SIGCOV talks about trivial mentions, and it's not the same thing. If one line says, "X, which is considered one of the best Indian films of all time", that wouldn't qualify as a trivial mention - it's one line but one that carries a lot of weight. The books cited on the page do not provide trivial mentions, in my opinion (neither do they give deep coverage but that is beside the point). Further information is provided about the film's budget, box-office performance, theme. The film definitely gets sufficient coverage and all the mentions together create what I believe is notability per WP:GNG. That's why I'm saying, it's better to agree to disagree. Shahid • Talk2me 19:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a pretty broad definition of SIGCOV covering one line. A statement by someone saying something is "the best of all time" is trivial unless backed up by multiple independent and reputable critics. I can publish a book saying that "Mouse Rat is one of the best bands ever", but that does not make it SIGCOV. But, yes, lets agree to disagree and let other editors weigh in. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like many films it's difficult to find extensive coverage, but the article looks acceptable to me in it's current form.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well sourced and satisfies WP:GNG as well as WP:NFILM. The nominator seems to be prejudiced against Indian films and even got Puthiya Vaarpugal deleted, when it had a reliable review and other reliable sources; he seemingly did not search for more sources or consult others when an AfD could have alerted more users. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (for now) Ref#1 Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema - Verifies that the film exists, nothing towards notability #2 BollywoodHungama - database entry for verification #3 Queer Asian Cinema has a trivial mention that the film is about male-bonding. #4 BollySwar - More or less a database in the form of a book #5 India Today - Provides budget and box-office verdict (aka trivial mention) #6 Tribune - Primary source (need to be discarded to prove notability) #7 White on Green - Mentions one of the lead character's (Mohsin's) favourite performance and describes what he does in the film aka description of the film aka plot summary [that we usually write in the lead] - all trivial #8 Crossover stars - A mention of Mohsin's successful film which is this film ——— I don't think the sources presented in the article count towards GNG. Since all being trivial mentions, they need to collectively establish GNG, which I believe are not. While there certainly will could be offline sources, in an AfD one should actually present them despite them being hard to find. Perhaps someday someone will be able to uncover them and the article could be revived. WP:NEXIST encourages editors to consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any, as such I'm still undecided on what my !vote would be. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC) (14:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]
    The new ref #7 Deccan Chronicle - Comment from the director - primary source. While the book "Crossover stars" says the film is Mohsin's successful film, it is unclear if that is a major part of their career - from WP:NF#Inclusionary criteria. "Most successful film" ≠ "major part of their career" unless stated by WP:RS
    Addressing a comment from above: no sources from the era prior to the 2000s are available from the Indian press online. Since we are at AfD determining the notability, these sources need to be uncovered as we must verify. Offline sources are acceptable but not a broad veil argument that "[they are] available from xyz" without providing any WP:NRV evidence. WP:N's second line reads: Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. As such.. delete — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC) (amended 14:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently looks like no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2023) 10:45, 12 January 2023 (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 Amethi#Institutions, industries and organisations. as an ATD Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Shiv Pratap Inter College

Shri Shiv Pratap Inter College (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)

Currently, zero in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Was draftified with the hopes of improvement, but returned to mainspace. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion: previously PRODded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudnine Hospitals

AfDs for this article:
Cloudnine Hospitals (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)

Nothing other than funding news and PR Based launches, and announcement coverage. Lordofhunter (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2023 (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 that the available sourcing doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce Scooter Share

Bounce Scooter Share (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)

Only PR Based News. Non notable company. Lordofhunter (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Singh, Manish (2020-01-23). "Indian bike rental startup Bounce raises $105M". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-01-01.
Singh, Manish (2021-12-02). "Bounce's first electric scooter features swappable battery, costs less than $500". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-01-01.
"Bounce's shared mobility business shrank 83% during the pandemic". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2023-01-01.
Techcrunch source shared is not even considered reliable here. In the ET we don't have the journalist's name, the whole news is based on the Financial report filed and the company future plan announcements. Lordofhunter (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are just examples. There are many, many sources available.
Goel, Vindu (2019-05-05). "Ride-Sharing's Future? It May Sit on Electric Motorbikes". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-01-03.
Walmsley, Julie. "India's Bounce Zips Up Another $72 Million To Continue Scaling Scooter Culture". Forbes. Retrieved 2023-01-03.
"Bounce is running out of cash". The Morning Context. Retrieved 2023-01-03.
"From Scooter Rental To EV Player: How Bounce Morphed To Survive The Pandemic". Forbes India. Retrieved 2023-01-03.
Singh, S. Ronendra (2021-10-22). "Bengaluru-based start-up Bounce targets $1 billion turnover in the next two years". www.thehindubusinessline.com. Retrieved 2023-01-03.
Patwa, Prasannata (2020-01-24). "This Motorcycle Lover Turned His Passion Into Business". Entrepreneur. Retrieved 2023-01-03.
Ahmed, Amaan (2022-07-28). "Bounce Infinity E1 e-scooter completes Kanyakumari to Khardung La ride, covering 4,000+ km inside 3 weeks". NEWS9LIVE. Retrieved 2023-01-03.
Livemint (2022-04-08). "Bounce Infinity begins E1 production, deliveries to start from this date". mint. Retrieved 2023-01-03.
S.H, Salman (2020-12-15). "Of Pivots, Calibration And A New Road Map: How Bounce Is Resurrecting Its Stalled Journey". Inc42 Media. Retrieved 2023-01-03.
Shanthi, S. (2021-11-11). "India's EV Race Begins Again; After Ola, Bounce To Launch Electric Scooter". Entrepreneur. Retrieved 2023-01-03.
It's not a close call. This company very clearly has received significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those were examples? I don't understand what you are trying to prove then. I will not interact if you share more such examples which even you know, are pointless. Please share your fav 2 sources not a list of junk. Don't share non-reliable sources like livemint. Entreprenue.com is not independent at all, totally driven by PR material. I have a similar comment on other sources. Kindly don't share funding, launches, announcements, or future plan-related news. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times doesn't even talk about the company in detail, it mentions Ola, Uber, Vogo and Bounce, all in relation to the industry in general. We require substantive information in the article about the thing you're trying to have a wikipedia article be about. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We need at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company - e.g. simply regurgitating quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews - these fail ORGIND. Here's a review of the references:
  • This in Money Control and this in VCCircle are funding announcements of the same funding round. They're all published using the same information and around the same date. They all rely entirely on the same information with no "Independent Content" as required by ORGIND. Here are five other articles all from the same time period, all regurgitating the same information. These references fail ORGIND
  • This in Hindu Business Line is about the parent company and doesn't mention the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This in Entrepreneur is a puff piece times to coincide with the Series D funding round mentioned above and relies entirely on interviews and information provided by the company/execs along with their investors. There is no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND
  • This about the name change from Metro Bikes to Bounce is based on an annuncement at the time of their investment round in 2018, same as this article in VCCircle, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
  • Both this and this from Business Standard are both based on company announcements with insufficient "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
  • This in inc42 is based entirely on what a company spokesperson told the publisher, followed by a basic and oft-repeated company description (e.g. here and here), fails ORGIND
  • This in CarTechNewz barely mentions any details about the company, focused as it is on a product. The topic is the company, not the product, fails CORPDEPTH
None of these meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. There's no doubt the company has an active PR and Marketing department, but volume of "coverage" doesn't translate into notability. HighKing++ 19:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Conflicting views on the sourcing, relisting for further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Thinly-veiled PR piece; most sourcing is only mentioning the company in passing. Based on what I see, I don't even thing they're notable enough to have an article. It almost seems to be a minor business. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2023 (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. Hopefully this will give people time to look for some more sources offline, and if the article proves inexpandable it can be nominated again. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manush Patrika

AfDs for this article:
Manush Patrika (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)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - the article already says its not notable: "circulation is mainly limited to Tripura,..." Even assuming it is claimed to be notable, I don't see significant evidence. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tripura has a population of 4 million, that's not an insignficiant population. In January 1982 the Press Council ruled in favour of the paper regarding the withdrawal of state government advertising due to articles critial of the government.[1][2] In 2010 it was the fourth highest selling daily newspaper in the state.[3] It's more than reasonable to assume that there would be much more available in Bengali and in offline sources.

References

  1. ^ Loghani, Usha (1986). Violation of Freedom of the Press: A Compendium of Adjudications Rendered by the Press Council of India. N.M. Tripathi. p. 69.
  2. ^ "A brief diary of attacks on the press". web.archive.org.
  3. ^ "Mass Communication - NEDFi Databank". web.archive.org. 3 April 2010.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to give editors time to respond to Goldsztajn's argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: squeaks by WP:GNG, but probably more sources closer to home area. Tripura's 4 million would make it larger than half of the US states (26) and all of the territories.  // Timothy :: talk  21:30, 15 January 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Images

Kashmir Images (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)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 2 January 2023 (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! 01:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Janathavani

Janathavani (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)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 2 January 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Janam Sakshi

Janam Sakshi (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)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 2 January 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hachukni Kok

Hachukni Kok (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)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 2 January 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdin

Ekdin (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)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Other prominent newspapers are Bartaman (534,000), Sangbad Pratidin (313,000), Ajkal (181,000), Ekdin (124,000)..." ([30]). This is the literally the first hit on google books, so the nominator doesn't seem to have performed WP:BEFORE... --Soman (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 2 January 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinasudar

Dinasudar (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)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 2 January 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Desher Katha

Daily Desher Katha (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)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 2 January 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bahujanratna Loknayak

Bahujanratna Loknayak (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)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 2 January 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avadhnama

Avadhnama (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)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 2 January 2023 (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! 01:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Akhbar (India)

Al Akhbar (India) (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)

Can't find any significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 17:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:01, 2 January 2023 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajker Fariad

Ajker Fariad (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. I am unable to find sources about the newspaper in internet. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 17:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notable subjects have too many news articles from independent or third party news source and also it's circulation is very low from many notable newspapers so it can't be said that it is notable. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:01, 2 January 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mukti Sangharsh

Mukti Sangharsh (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. I am unable to find significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 17:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:59, 2 January 2023 (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. Disregarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, there is a (weak) consensus to delete below. Daniel (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bengali songs recorded by Asha Bhosle

List of Bengali songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (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)

Referencing is atrocious. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NLIST. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:53, 2 January 2023 (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. Disregarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, there is a (weak) consensus to delete below. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Telugu songs recorded by P. Susheela

List of Telugu songs recorded by P. Susheela (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)

Referencing is atrocious. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NLIST. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bengali songs recorded by Sadhana Sargam

List of Bengali songs recorded by Sadhana Sargam (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)

Disputed draftification. Referencing is atrocious. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NLIST. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:52, 2 January 2023 (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. Disregarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, there is a (weak) consensus to delete below. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bengali songs recorded by Udit Narayan

List of Bengali songs recorded by Udit Narayan (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)

Disputed draftification. Referencing is atrocious. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NLIST. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:52, 2 January 2023 (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 Golconda diamonds. Clear consensus against keeping, but split between merge and delete, the disagreement being whether there remains anything to merge. That is now for editors to figure out through the editorial process. Sandstein 19:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Golconda diamonds

List of Golconda diamonds (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)

List of Golconda diamonds has become an unsourced WP:CONTENTFORK of Golconda diamonds#Notable diamonds and List of diamonds. Originally a simple bulleted and unsourced list on 22 September 2021 in the Golconda diamonds article, it was modified that day into a table in the same format as List of diamonds was on that day. Then on 10 November 2021, images were added to the table. Finally, on 2 August 2022, the list was removed from Golconda diamonds and used to create the new article List of Golconda diamonds, which is basically an unsourced subset of the current List of diamonds. Since then, the section Golconda diamonds#Notable diamonds has regrown again (by the same editor who split out the content to create List of Golconda diamonds) to include the entire list again, and has acquired a collection of citations which weren't there before and which weren't also added to List of Golconda diamonds). Also, this list article is basically an orphan, so it's an unused content fork. Grorp (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: A merge is unnecessary since the content is/was already in both articles. And someone just made that more obvious by formatting the section Golconda diamonds#Notable diamonds back to a bulleted list (from prose format). Grorp (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the prospect of a Merge is being contested by the nominator as unnecessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect. There is nothing to merge as has already been pointed out, and we don't need to keep the editing history of unsourced content forks. That only encourages recreation. SpinningSpark 16:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Liz: There is nothing to merge, as another editor has also pointed out. The fork is a pure fork. There is nothing in the fork that isn't already in the main article, therefore nothing to be merged. Are you considering "votes" instead of "reasoning arguments"? Or for me to concede in lieu of getting more votes? Notice that no one has said "Keep". Okay, then I concede to "merge and delete", and please note that the 'merge' has already been done. Grorp (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Grorp, it's just my preferences as an AFD closer but I like to see a potential closure decision recommended by more than one editor. I think this discussion will be closed soon given your statement tonight. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested. Maybe I'm overlooking something here, but as far as I can see this list contains details that are not present in the main article, and might well be integrated again without swelling the size too much - that is, weight and color. So that's a merge, not a plain redirect. Agree that the standalone list is not needed, however. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:02, 12 January 2023 (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:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 01:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vardhan Puri

AfDs for this article:
Vardhan Puri (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)

NN actor. Notability is not inherited. UtherSRG (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 31 December 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=1131933349"