Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

See also: Points to remember when debating in India related deletion discussions.
Note: AnomieBOT removes and archives closed debates from this page a few times a day, so there is no need to manually remove such pages.
Deletion sorting by state or union territory:
- Andhra Pradesh
- Arunachal Pradesh
- Assam
- Bihar
- Chhattisgarh
- Delhi
- Goa
- Gujarat
- Haryana
- Himachal Pradesh
- Jammu and Kashmir
- Jharkhand
- Karnataka
- Kerala
- Ladakh
- Madhya Pradesh
- Maharashtra
- Manipur
- Meghalaya
- Mizoram
- Nagaland
- Odisha
- Punjab
- Rajasthan
- Sikkim
- Tamil Nadu
- Telangana
- Tripura
- Uttarakhand
- Uttar Pradesh
- West Bengal

India

2008 Gujarat bus crash

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

Unable to find sustained coverage in secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Just a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and India. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ROUTINE news event that is not notable with no enduring significance. RangersRus (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neem Phooler Madhu

AfDs for this article:

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

Prior deletion discussion resulted in soft delete and was then recreated by SOCK. I do not see the significant coverage required to show notability, just NEWSORGINDIA press from TOI and then the republication/churnalism of that coverage in MSN.com. Claims of 600+ episodes (I removed as it was not sourced) which tells me there would be more press should the media find it worthy of notice. Appears they do not. CNMall41 (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing is mostly plot summaries from the Times of India, which is a marginal RS. I don't see much else we can use, but there might be some in the local language media. Happy to revisit if we can find more sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are about launch and sneak peek on plot of an episode and the twist. No significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atmaprajnananda Saraswati

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

Expired but declined PROD as it was previously deleted. Result of the previous deletion discussion at an alternative title was delete. I still think the subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and the WP:GNG. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Hinduism, and India. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor to unreliable to self published sources and blogs mostly with some deadlinks. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:PROF. Subject authored two books and neither are notable. I cannot find subject's work that has made any significant impact and achievement to be worthy of notice and noteworthy. Fails WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusion (film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a film that has never actually been released, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFF criteria. It is true that Deepa Mehta announced about 15 years ago that a film about the Komagata Maru was entering development -- but it's never actually been completed or released at all, and certainly not in 2014 as this article claims (per this article, which states that the film was "still in the pipeline" as of 2019.)
But the references here are mainly primary sources and dead links, which are not support for notability — and the only nominally acceptable source is a brief glancing (and likely erroneous) namecheck of it in an overview of Mehta's entire career, not coverage about this film. And while a bit of reliable source coverage can be found about her announcement that this was going into development, there's not enough of that to suggest a reason why a never-finished film could remain permanently notable despite its failure to ever come to fruition: there's no evidence that it even entered photography at all, and the search string "Deepa Mehta exclusion" mainly just brings up references to the narrative themes of Beeba Boys and Funny Boy.
So this film was simply never completed or released at all, and thus isn't permanently notable as an unrealized project. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deepa Mehta -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. The film was never made. It never even reached principal photography. In 2006, Deepa Mehta was doing the planning and research and not all the cast were confirmed such as Amitabh Bachchan who the maker had a wish list to cast him. 4 sources on the page, source 1 is just an entry , Source 2,3 is 404 page not found and source 4 is unreliable with just a passing mention incorrectly calling it 2014 film. No need to have a page on the film that does not even exist. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anshuman Jhingran

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

Declined twice at WP:AFC moved to main space by creator, Holding a Guinness world record is not notable in itself. Fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and India. Theroadislong (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Durga Puja, Bihari

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

No significant coverage except BAU news articles in regional news. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism, India, and Bihar. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y. Ravindranath Rao

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

Fails WP:GNG, there are no sources which discuss about the subject in depth. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Karnataka. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. One source and that is a minor passing mention. The subject has not made a substantial achievement worthy of notice that has been significantly covered by multiple secondary independent reliable media and news coverage. RangersRus (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cyanochic (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghamalia

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

Donot satisfy WP:GNG. It is merely a subcaste of Kurmi caste, need to mention it in that article that's all. But, a seperate article is not needed. Adamantine123 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. Adamantine123 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Chennai Air Show stampede

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

While the article suggests that the five deaths were the result of a human stampede/crush event, law enforcement and the cited news pieces all seem to confirm that those who lost their lives died of a variety of causes related primarily to heat. A case of WP:BLOWITUP with an understanding that this subject may be more notable for the overall event itself, not just the tragic deaths. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and India. Pbritti (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 04:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence that a stampede or crowd crush occurred. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:EVENT. Even if a stampede did occur, which seems far from certain based on the cited sources or from a web search, this would still fail under WP:EVENTCRIT #4 in particular. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS, opinionated misinformation. A mention of the tragedy should be in a larger article about the 2024 Indian Air Force Air Show. YogeshwarB 12:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ROUTINE news event that is not notable with no enduring significance. RangersRus (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some weird SYNTH/ OR that just isn't said in the sources. The last one literally has "heatstroke" in the title. Could be a small line in an article about the event if it is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Estimating the crowd size by vague hundred thousands (please be clear and concise, most readers do not know what a lakh is!) is poor and feels like a rush report. This needs to be a part of a general article about the air show, but it needs to be improved with much better numbers and sources. Nate • (chatter) 18:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:BLOWITUP per nom. I'm uncertain this event fails WP:EVENTCRIT outright, it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but in any case, the current article reflects a version of events thoroughly debunked by reliable sources, including those it cites! Per Cullen328, there is no reliable evidence of a stampede or crowd crush; news articles on the Googles suggest this version of events was based on inaccurate social media rumors. Carguychris (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cos ^{(X + Z)} 00:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

120 Bahadur

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

Film is scheduled to be released a year from now and just started filming. Majority of sources are announcements or press releases. CNMall41 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my vote is for keep, kindly understand that there are many Hollywood and Bollywood movies that are upcoming in 2025 some are more than a year away yet many already have established wiki pages on them such The Accountant 2, F1, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3, and more the list is endless. The information current available on the film 120 Bahadur is good enough to create a wiki page and as time progress and more info is available the wiki page will definitely grow with time. Moreover it is a film about a historically significant event. So the wiki page deserve a place with other films that are up for release in 2025. Bonadart (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to fall under WP:OSE which is not something that can be used to support notability. Can you point out which references are specifically significant coverage that would count towards notability? The ones I see do not but will look at any you provide in case there is something I missed. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i am in no mood to argue, my contention is if The Accountant 2, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3 which are pure fiction can have well established wiki page, then 120 Bahadur which is based on real life and a immensely historical and significant event if you may think of, also deserves a place, and if you want to talk of capturing space in that case i think this page doesnt even grab a space more than tip of safety pin out of whole wiki sphere. Bonadart (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I am in no mood to argue" - This is a discussion, not an argument. It does sound like maybe you should back away if you are not in the mindspace to discuss. I will reiterate that everything you stated, including in the reply above, would fall under WP:OSE.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be draftified, or redirected, but please don't delete.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history it previously was. Creator objected to the draft and moved it back to mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, China, and Ladakh. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. WP:TOOSOON. Sources are announcements and unveiling of the look and is in pre-production with cast and crew not confirmed yet. No significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOOSOON - then what will say or opine about The Accountant 2, F1, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3, and more; all these films are 6 months to 1 year away yet they have established wiki pages. most of the crew of the film 120 bahadur are already on board as for cast the film is centered around Shaitan Singh Bhati who is played by Farhan Akhtar which is decided, as for others the cast hasnt been declared but may be revealed pretty soon, as for shooting it has already started as declared. So in all sense and purpose much of the info in wiki page is valid, and so deserves to be in live space. Bonadart (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atma Rama Ananda Ramana

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

How does a college short film that is screened at its own parent company's film festival yield notability? Annapurna College of Film and Media is owned by the same people as Annapurna Studios. The only reliable source is The Hindu which talks about four other short films too, not just this film. The Telugucinema.com source is about the festival and not the film. All other sources are unreliable (not listed as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources because there are so many unreliable sources that exist and not possible to list all of them. tollywoodbuzz.com has the same reliability as Tracktollywood.com or Tollywood.net.

I genuinely feel that this article was created by [1] to have an extra link at PVR Raja. DareshMohan (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. Only two reliable sources, The Hindu and telugucinema and rest all are unreliable. The Hindu source has no significant coverage on the short film and telugucinema is about the school that created the short film. Short film is not notable. Redirect to the school page was considered but the school page is poor with only 1 source that has no notability and significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable student film; the only coverage to be found is already used in the article. These aren't sufficient to show notability; one is minimal and the other appears related to the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persian well

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

Misleading article. There's nothing called Persian well, subject actually refers to Persian wheel and is a WP:Content fork of that article. Kalhana's Rajatarangini is not ancient, it was written in 12th century and, by that time, this mechanism was already popular. The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Engineering, Social science, Technology, and India. The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saqiyah: Per nominee - This is essentially a duplicate topic and the other article/name seems to be much better supported in the literature. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 15:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThadeusOfNazereth, the problem with redirecting is that this name is non-existent. There's nothing called "Persian well", you can Google it. The article creator just put a name to the wells in which Persian wheels are used. There's nothing special about the well.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would that not just be a redirect from the incorrect name? It seems like a reasonable enough search term to me. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and ThadeusOfNazereth. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanuman Media

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

I am not persuaded that this passes WP:NCORP 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Business, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. No significant coverage about the production company in any of the sources on the page. The sources are all about what are streaming and on what network. WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG also no significant coverage. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Shahi

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and notable sources, more like paid pr page. Suspected creation by sockpuppet. Imsaneikigai (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor to unreliable sources with no significant coverage on the subject in secondary independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NDIRECTOR and WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amala Shaji

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable internet personality.Lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom Spworld2 (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jasubhai Digital Media

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, which is a key criterion for notability on Wikipedia. Additionally, the content primarily focuses on the company's promotional activities Moarnighar (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was purchased by another company almost 20 yrs ago and we only have two or three lines in the article. We could merge to the new company, but they don't seem notable either. This appears to be a permastub that was PROMO at one point. non-notable stub article about a defunct company. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Lawyers' Congress

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

lacks sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. Additionally, much of the content is either promotional or lacks verifiable third-party references Moarnighar (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fitpass

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. Tons of sources (too many, see WP:CITEKILL) but they are primary and mostly non-independent. bonadea contributions talk 20:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP because i have seen the app mentioned in most downloaded apps in india https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-downloaded_Google_Play_applications — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.240.194.224 (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in a Wikipedia list article does not mean it's notable, though. --bonadea contributions talk 15:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dogspot

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

Per WP:NSUSTAINED Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. The coverage is centered on it receiving some investment from a notable Indian businessman in 2016. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. — hako9 (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. — hako9 (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Animal, Websites, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in any of the cited sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Sachchidanand Tewari

AfDs for this article:

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

Created under different name but previously deleted pursuant to discussion twice and also speedied due to recreation by likely UPE. Strange this was created with full name when the references do not mention it. Relevant discussion for that is here. I do not see anything that has changed since the last deletion discussions. References are about his company, brief mentions, or otherwise unreliable. CNMall41 (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pinging previous participants @Aoidh:, @UtherSRG:, @AABC234:, @Khorang:, @Lordofhunter:, and @Bearian:. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. CNMall41 (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there are more sources in the article compared to when this was deleted last year, in terms of notability nothing has changed as far as I can tell as this subject still does not meet any of the relevant notability guidelines. A previously non-notable subject can later become notable, but there's no evidence that this is the case here. Note that I became aware of this discussion because of the above ping due to previously commenting in the 2023 AfD. - Aoidh (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At the very minimum, gaming the system to avoid the existing rejected draft and the previous two AFD deletions. UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: both this version and 'Naveen Tewari.' Enough is enough; let the next one to take a swing at this convince an admin to release it. One might hope that by then they'll have found genuine significant coverage in third-party sources, rather than this mishmash of press releases and namedrops. Ravenswing 05:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page for promotion and also reads as resume but the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The subject has not made any substantial achievement nationally or internationally to be worthy of notice to be warranted a page on. RangersRus (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: AFD is not the appropriate forum to report or discuss upe. While a page may have been previously created by someone involved in UPE, that alone is not grounds for deletion. The article should be evaluated based on the subject's notability and whether there is significant, independent coverage. It's possible that the previous versions of the page lacked sufficient reliable sources or were poorly constructed. However, the current version of the article now appears to include multiple sources that provide significant coverage of the subject such as Business Today, Livemint, Forbes India, DNA India.

The individual in question is the founder of two unicorn companies, both of which are notable and have their own Wikipedia pages. This person was given the state award by the chief minister and two awards by prime minister of India Narendra Modi for his ventures. He was also listed among the country's top 30 startup founders according to the Tech In Asia database. Subject meets WP:NBASIC & WP:ANYBIO. There are more coverage Fortune India, Hindustan Times, Entrepreneur and many more.Chains2711 (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC) — Chains2711 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was 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!} 07:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sumit Gupta

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

Fails WP:GNG since there is an evident lack of reliable sources to establish notability. Not sure if the subject warrants a standalone article at this time. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Companies, and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Upon my check, I found that the DNA article is just close to meeting WP:SIGCOV, while the other articles are trivial news about CoinDCX’s investments, business news, interviews, or statements from the subject. While doing searches for SIGCOV sources, I found nothing, currently no multiple sources provide significant coverage of the subject, hence the subject currently fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 07:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Iltija Mufti

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

The article fails to meet the criteria of WP:NPOL. She has received media coverage primarily due to being the daughter of Mehbooba Mufti and granddaughter of Mufti Mohammad Sayeed. However, according to WP:INVALIDBIO, there is no clear indication of notability. It does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NPOL is *not* a guideline that can be failed, that is, if a subject does not satisfy the criteria it does not mean they are not notable for Wikipedia. NPOL is an inclusive measure, not exclusionary. NPOL sits separately from the GNG because it provides "presumed notability" - the idea being that a person elected to office is generally likely to have WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. FWIW, no comments to date have indicated why sourcing presently in the article does not satisfy the GNG. Regards,Youknow? (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Youknowwhoistheman: If you have no comments on how she meets WP:GNG, then what is the basis of your Keep !vote?. There is no significant coverage available about her in the currently cited sources. Which source do you think provides SIGCOV? GrabUp - Talk 17:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh come on @GrabUp, I agree that there are references to the elections in the article. However, if you use Google's tools effectively, you'll find hundreds of news reports on the subject from well before the elections, which are completely unrelated to the electoral context. Best! Youknow? (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you list two of the best sources published before or after the election that meet WP:SIGCOV? It would be helpful if you could find them. GrabUp - Talk 09:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Google has provided enough search tools, and you should also put in some effort. Additionally, you can refer to news articles from reputable media outlets. Youknow? (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have done my checks, and I can’t find any WP:SIGCOV sources. That’s why I voted to delete. I am asking sources from you becasue you !voted Keep, It seems your vote is not backed by any source; it’s just copy-pasted. That’s why you are failing to provide any WP:SIGCOV sources. GrabUp - Talk 15:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, WP:POLITICIAN or WP:NPOL is a guideline. GrabUp - Talk 14:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jannatulbaqi: WP:NPOL is a guideline. It presumes Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage as notable. The onus is on users who are seeking to keep this article to prove how this subject meets WP:SIGCOV. Your comment "if you use Google's tools effectively, you'll find hundreds of news reports on the subject from well before the elections" is not helpful in this case, and a deflection at best.Ratnahastin (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Unable to find WP:SIGCOV sources; recent coverage is trivial due to the heated election. Since she lost, she does not meet WP:NPOL. The current sources are also insufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 17:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea an election does not mean you can't write about them and the current sources are well enough good (as per me) we just have to update it a bit Sarim Wani (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just opened my laptop NDTV,Indian express,BBC,news laundry and the wire are good sources and I am not affilied or paid by anyone to write wiki articles Sarim Wani (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles from The Hindu Business Line and The Print (excluding the quotes by the subject) are convincing me to at least strike my delete vote. Additionally, a significant number of sources cover her statements, comments, and related content, contributing somewhat towards notability. However, the article should be updated, and quality sources should be added. While many sources consist of quotes from the subject, there are notable sections within these articles that provide coverage of her. Therefore, I am changing my vote to Weak Keep. GrabUp - Talk 17:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Youknowwhoistheman: ... cough ... um, attribution, please. :) Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is there any problem? :) Youknow? (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck? So you are now copy-pasting votes from your nominations? Lol, that means these were not based on your own judgment and checks. GrabUp - Talk 14:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I copied and pasted because I agreed with Goldsztajn. If it's wrong to agree with someone, then that's not my issue. What's wrong with that? Do you have a problem with it? Regards! Youknow? (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Youknowwhoistheman, there's nothing wrong with agreeing with another, and I'm flattered you appreciated my wording, but as with everything here: "you must give appropriate credit". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not giving you the credit you deserve earlier. Youknow? (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the GNG/BASIC (NB:"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability") - multiyear indepth RS coverage available, eg: the BBC Hindi (8 April 2023), appearded on BBC Hardtalk in 2019, The Print (2022), plus widespread coverage of the recent election loss. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn: How can interviews help meet the criteria for WP:GNG? WP:Interviews are WP:PRIMARY sources and cannot establish notability on their own. Additionally, the BBC article doesn’t provide much depth about her, as it only reports on the passport incident without offering more substantial information. GrabUp - Talk 07:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GrabUp leaving aside the status of WP:Interview as an essay, the text itself does not indicate that *all* interviews in and of themselves cannot be used to assist in establishing notablility, it depends on context. Obviously, puff pieces, PR etc are not, but HardTalk is renown as an extremely critical interview format. The BBC Hindi piece is not an interview but a news report. The Print piece includes quotes, but is not an interview, but a long, indepth examination of her life with analysis and sythesis of information. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The print piece is an interview filled with quotes from the subject. To confirm it is an interview, check the tags at the end of the article. GrabUp - Talk 08:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Print piece has 65-70 paragraphs, around half do not have quotes. The basis of her notability is not one single piece, but the existence of multiple sources. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:NBIO. The subject did not make any significant achievements noteworthy nationally and internationally to satisfy notability about the subject role as politician. Sources are also poor with passing mention to sources that are not secondary independent. RangersRus (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• ~~Keep~~ due to the reasons above Sarim Wani (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i meant below Sarim Wani (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at this point I am just being bullied by the bigger guys I did not even write something contervical Sarim Wani (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sarim Wani is the creator of this article. TheBirdsShedTears (talk)

I am 99% sure NDTV,Indian express,BBC,news laundry and the wire are preety good sources while as for abp we can say something who ever filed this is probably some one who is right wing Sarim Wani (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarim Wani: Assume Good Faith, there are valid grounds to suggest that the subject does not meet notability guidelines, which is why an editor nominated it for deletion discussion. Do not label someone as right-wing simply for nominating an article for deletion. AfD is a place to discuss the notability of the subject, and there is no room for politically biased accusations without evidence. GrabUp - Talk 13:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

test Sarim Wani (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBirdsShedTears @GrabUp @RangersRus @Goldsztajn @Youknow? @Youknowwhoistheman

Bludgeon

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

it does not fail WP:NPOL due to "The following are presumed to be notable:
- Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
- Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." judging by her name when I search it on google she has been mentioned by
- Times of India
- NDTV
- Indian Express
- Mathrubhumi
- The Hindu BusinessLine (would take too long to mention everyone by link)
- The Wire
- Scroll.in
- The Quint
- Hindustan Times
- Outlook India
- The Print
- Firstpost
- The Hindu
- BBC News
- Al Jazeera
- The Economic Times
- India Today
- Deccan Herald
- The Tribune
- Greater Kashmir
- Kashmir Observer
- Rising Kashmir
- The New Indian Express
- Zee News
- CNN-News18
- The Statesman
- The Telegraph India
- Business Standard
- Mint
- The Pioneer
- DNA India
- Republic World
- Asian News International (ANI)
- Press Trust of India (PTI)
- Reuters
- and more... which are more than enough to ensure that is passes WP:NPOL
- as for WP:NBIO "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary."
- the unusualness of iltija muftis popularity ensures this hence this is a clear too hence this is a
- Keep

Sarim Wani (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no it also fails WP:INVALIDBIO

That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Jason Allen Alexander is included in the article on Britney Spears and the page Jason Allen Alexander merely redirects to that article.

It also meets WP:GNG and I quote

"General notability guideline

[

edit source

]

Shortcut

WP:GNG

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
CLEAR it has enough good sources like ndtv bbc news laundry greater kashmir etc. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
- The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
- Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
- CLEAR already explained
"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
CLEAR it has enough reliable sources like ndtv bbc news laundry greater kashmir etc.
"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
CLEAR sources like Al Jazeera probably do that
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
CLEAR sources like Al Jazeera / BBC probably do that too

@TheBirdsShedTears brother if you don't know of the subject pleas don't flag a random complaint out of nowhere like a well you know... Siblings my enemies ayeee we got smt in common well there is a lot more common but this is one of them! Sarim Wani (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarim Wani: You don’t need to post all the guidelines like spam; we already know them. Just provide summaries and include links to significant sources. Most of the sources you provided above are neither significant nor primary. They mainly quote the subject, and the articles are almost entirely made up of quotes, except for the Hindu Business Line article. I don’t think any of these provide significant coverage (SIGCOV). You mentioned Al Jazeera, Reuters, and BBC, so please cite them. GrabUp - Talk 13:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is leader of an party and is quite active in politics. Should retain it. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continued

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

Who is Iltija Mufti, Mehbooba Mufti’s daughter who lost in J&K? What does this mean for PDP? – Firstpost

Who Is Iltija Mufti? J&K Ex-CM's Daughter Accepts 2024 Election Defeat (shethepeople.tv)

Jammu and Kashmir election: Mehbooba Mufti’s daughter Iltija Mufti loses debut election in J&K | Latest News India - Hindustan Times

Iltija Mufti: ‘It is good J&K has a govt with full majority. We saw the dilemma we had with 28 seats’ | Political Pulse News - The Indian Express

Iltija Mufti: India looking to crush dissent in Kashmir (bbc.com)

Jammu and Kashmir election: The region goes to vote after a decade (bbc.com)

I woud quote more but I am too tired/lazy to find them Sarim Wani (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think her life is fairly well enough documented for this Sarim Wani (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and if you go to local newspaper(s) her life is fairly well documented

You searched for Iltija - Page 2 of 12 - Greater Kashmir Sarim Wani (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://scroll.in/article/954196/mummys-girl-iltija-mufti-recalls-growing-up-one-kashmirs-major-political-families

https://www.outlookindia.com/national/interview-iltija-mufti-on-dynastic-politics-life-after-abrogation-of-article-370-and-making-of-narratives-in-kashmir-news-315485

https://twocircles.net/2024sep15/450394.html

https://www.outlookindia.com/national/interview-iltija-mufti-on-dynastic-politics-life-after-abrogation-of-article-370-and-making-of-narratives-in-kashmir-news-315485 Sarim Wani (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have p-blocked Sarim Wani from this discussion as their POV has been heard. Star Mississippi 18:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article clearly meets WP:BASIC. There are plenty of sources available that address the subject in detail and many of which have already been listed here. While the current state of article is poor, it has the potential to be improved. The assertion that she has received media coverage primarily due to being a part of the Mufti family is inaccurate, in my opinion. --Ratekreel (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that the subject is not the leader of the Jammu and Kashmir People's Democratic Party; her mother is. A critical source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A failed political candidate, being related to a famous person, neither of which are notable. Maybe merge to an article about the parent's family, "Family of Mehbooba Mufti"? This would be like the various Trump children that came up in AfD recently, they were put in a family article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sukanya Verma

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

Fails WP:GNG. AmericanY (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and India. AmericanY (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable and prolific film critic, winner of a notable award, columnist with Rediff.com and The Hindu. Highly cited on Indian cinema-related articles on WP. Member of the top film critic circles in India, and an approved film critic on Rotten Tomatoes. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the Rotten Tomatoes external link source. — Maile (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transworld Group (shipping and logistics company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP: mainly covered by WP:TRADES publications or covered by sponsored media, i.e. WP:RSNOI. Gheus (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Arab Emirates and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An older version of this article was nominated for deletion back in 2018 while it was under a different title at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transworld Group (Shipping and Logistic company); closed as no consensus but there are several additional sources that were presented in that AfD. Left guide (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in 2018, that might be enough, but now we know that these are regurgitated press releases. Gheus (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources out there, I added three RS to the existing sources but there's more, as a quick Google confirms. We're easily past WP:GNG before getting to NCORP here and I do note the previous AfD thanks to Left guide, which already demonstrated the company passed WP:GNG. I don't like people moaning about WP:BEFORE, so won't... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did review those sources before coming here. As I mentioned above, most of them are without a proper byline, like this article is part of Hub branding and for Indian references it is now well-established that those references are paid/advertisements WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Other articles are mostly about partnerships/warehouse opening which we consider as routine coverage, WP:CORPTRIV. This kind of coverage just shows that they have an active PR department, nothing else. Gheus (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all the sources ID'ed at the previous AfD lack a byline. For example, this one: Cruising calmly through rough seas from The Business Times (Singapore) was authored by Vivien Ang, its chief sub-editor. The group has received plenty of coverage, some in context of its subsidiaries:
- Dixon, Gary (19 October 2023). "Transworld falls just short in bid to delist Shreyas Shipping". TradeWinds.
- Mascarenhas, Rajesh (17 October 2023). "Shreyas Shipping falls over 8% as delisting move fails". The Economic Times.
- Abdul Basti, Ashaba K (27 December 2007). "Transworld to cut fuel costs with new vessels". Emirates 24/7.
- Berrill, Paul (3 February 2005). "Shreyas on course for expansion". TradeWinds.
- Belle, Nithin (19 February 2015). "Dubai firm keen to enhance coastal shipping in India". Khaleej Times.
- Simhan, TE Raja (1 August 2021). "Transworld Group plans to double fleet within next two to three years". Business Line.
- Boonzaier, Jonathan (19 December 2014). "Transworld's next generation drives group beyond box niche". TradeWinds.

One of its subsidiaries is WP:LISTED in India: [2]. Certainly appears to be a notable enough group. Yuvaank (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis of the newly added ones.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Batra

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

This article is heavily refbombed (just to make it difficult to judge the notability). On a closer look, I didn't find any in-depth reference. Due to COI concerns, I don't think it is possible to maintain such articles even if he is weak notable. Most of the references are sponsored and not acceptable per WP:RSNOI. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Original state of the article before my edits. Gheus (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, Delhi, Haryana, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahirbhoomi

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

Fails WP:NF, and does not meet GNG either. Htanaungg (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Htanaungg (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Htanaungg, Make sure you check the article one more time before taking any action. Thank you. Msnlalithprem (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- *Keep WP:BASIC, i reviewed the reliable non-English news sources. Asianet News 1, NTV (India)2, CNN-News18 3, Namasthe Telangana 4
AgniPuthra (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NF, and GNG reliable multiple published news sources 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8.

Msnlalithprem (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I always prefer articles with two reliable reviews, but Dilse, Sakhi (2023 film), Kaalam Raasina Kathalu etc exist. DareshMohan (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to the references mentioned in the article.

Induvadhone (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear some opinions from editors more experienced in AFD article and source reviews.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harish S. Mehta

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

Article is a WP:PROMO, fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. WP:NOTRESUME. Charlie (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Charlie (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:subject has significant coverage to meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO and the company, NASSCOM they founded is notable Tesleemah (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC) 05:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tesleemah At the moment, there are no reliable sources on Google News that covers him significantly, and independently. You are welcome to update the page and make it qualify as per WP:HEYMAN. But, please avoid using interviews or self-quotations. Charlie (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could have updated the page if you agree it could be improved to meet WP:HEYMAN Tesleemah (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you were not able to comprehend my statement. Charlie (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tesleemah, for good or ill, the burden falls on editors wanting to Keep the article to bring reliable sources to the article or to the AFD discussion. Just saying that good sources exist carries no weight at all if you don't provide evidence of what they are. Other editors are not responsible for finding evidence to support your argument. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright @Liz Tesleemah (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Gujarat, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBIO, there's no significant coverage about him or his life in the cited sources, most of them infact are about the organisation he founded. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He co-founded NASSCOM (about which we have an article) with half a dozen or six dozen others. He wrote a book. The book was well received, and we have an article on it. He is apparently a somewhat-known name in India, anyway, but for the purposes of his article, he does not seem to pass GNG, as the coverage I've found tends to be either in-passing mentions or non-independent. The article itself is quite dreadful, as it happens, but it's not worth trying to repair his resumé at his current level of demonstrated notability. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 08:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about a Redirect to NASSCOM? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz A redirect is usually the best option. It could point to either NASSCOM or the book he authored, The Maverick Effect, which recently met the Heyman Standard. Charlie (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laxmichya Paulanni

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

Attempted redirect as there is no significant coverage that shows notability outside of unreliable sources, mentions, and general announcements. Created by blocked user and IPs (likely LOUTSOCKs) have objected to the redirect so here we are. CNMall41 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gaatchora: not sure why there's no Adaptations/Remakes section there. Not opposed to deletion given the existing coverage, which allows verification: notable music director and notable cast. So very opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary notes why it was removed. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor to unreliable sources with no significant coverage. Needs more than announcements and passing mentions to pass notability. Fails WP:N. RangersRus (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programmes broadcast by Star Pravah: As above - source are routine marketing fluff, nothing significant post release from a good source Ravensfire (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly consensus so far is to get rid of this article. However, there is no consensus yet on what to do with it - merge, delete, or redirect. Some additional discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that if a redirect is created, we will be right back here because IPs (UPEs I will bet my life on) continue to remove the redirect. If a redirect is consensus, I would request it be protected. In fact, I would recommend the title itself is protected. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and semi-protect it to prevent recreation by IP / new accounts. If it's an autoconfirmed editor, can decide then if more steps are needed. Ravensfire (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran into this issue with another page after a deletion discussion now that I am thinking of it. I think the best would be delete and then allow the redirect to be created and protected. If consensus is redirect, that would allow the removal of the redirect at anytime (since there was no official delete consensus). If it is deleted, it can be reverted if someone attempts it without consensus based on G4. Thoughts?--CNMall41 (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Electric Traction Company (Mumbai)

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

due to its lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, making it difficult to establish notability. Additionally, the content primarily relies on primary sources and promotional material, failing to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CESC Limited, the company that this firm was ultimately merged into per Raman Dubey, 2015, as an AtD. No standalone notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Cinemas

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

Fails WP:ORG; does not demonstrate sufficient notability, as it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Furthermore, the content appears to be largely promotional and fails to adhere to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage, in The Hindu, to which one can add https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/asian-cinemas-to-open-nine-more-multiplex-screens-shortly-114041000365_1.html https://telanganatoday.com/allu-arjuns-aaa-cinemas-is-now-open-in-ameerpet-hyderabad https://thesouthfirst.com/entertainment/venkatesh-and-mahesh-babu-join-hands-for-a-new-multiplex-in-hyderabad/ https://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/new-cineplexes-come-up-in-hyderabad-suburbs/article6304545.ece etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And "promotional", how?? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mazhanoolkkanavu

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

PROD removed with statement "Google/English language websearch is not good for Malayalam culture". If that is the case, why is it that Google Malayalam also yields nothing [3]. Changing the year parameter to today yields an unrelated music video of a similar name. Please find a review or two before keeping this. DareshMohan (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we can be sure this was released, with a solid source, I might support a redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2003 (or to Augustine's filmography?) because the cast is rather notable. But we have only IMDb and the other Db to prove it. Is that enough? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. Fails significant coverage WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. If anyone can find secondary independent reliable sources with significant coverage and two or more reviews from known critics, let me know and I will reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is impossible to just do a general search to find sources due to the way sources are archived. Best to check the Sify [4], Indiainfo [5], and Keralatalkies [6] reviews. A quick ctrl-f finds nothing. DareshMohan (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kwality Wall's

AfDs for this article:

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

doesn't have enough reliable sources to prove that the brand is significant or notable in the ice cream market Slarticlos (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely notable. Try reading this source for a name. It has gained WP:SIGCOV for ages. Lorstaking (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable and has gained widespread significant coverage as visible from here and here. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Public Health Association

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

lacks enough reliable information showing that it is important or significant Slarticlos (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is often hard to find in depth coverage of national professional associations because they operate in a quality controlled walled garden. They don’t generate much chatter in the mainstream press and they own the specialist outlets. They’re much larger than the UK’s Royal Society for Public Health and probably more active. Mccapra (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuirial Hydro Electric Project

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

Should delete due to a lack of significant coverage and reliable sources, which could indicate that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Additionally, if the content is deemed to be too promotional or lacking in verifiable information Jiaoriballisse (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable for an article as it passes WP:GNG. It is clear that WP:BEFORE was not conducted before putting up this article for deletion. Sources are available[7][8][9][10]. Piscili (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I am pretty much meh regarding the state of the article. It is not promotional, but it is not really anything at all! Not a huge facility, but it exists and the size (60MW) is large enough to attract notice. It has coverage in some sources as above, it is a visible feature in the locality. Needs improvement, not deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 sources on the page. One is a permanent deadlink and the other does not even have a passing mention. So there are no sources, no secondary independent sources, no significant coverage. This page fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. If sources exist with significant coverage in secondary independent sources that is not just an entry or passing mention or trivia news, I would reconsider my vote. This project is owned by North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited per source so why need to have separate page. If reliable secondary sources exist, some of the content can be Merged to the owner company but the other problem is that the owner company has 2 sources with deadlinks. So no sources there either and owner company can be AFDed too. I am going to have stay on delete. RangersRus (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NBUILD, this is infrastructure, and so it needs to meet GNG not NCORP. If it were under NCORP, I'd agree it should go. But also, if going by the project owner, that would be a case for a redirect I think. NBUILD suggests a redirect is normal for non notable infrastructure. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But redirect to owner company North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited that has no sources, would not be right. If owner company had significant coverage and secondary independent reliable sources to pass WP:NCORP, I would gave reconsidered redirect to it. RangersRus (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modhalum Kaadhalum

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

This is actually the third deletion discussion. Originally deleted under this discussion in early 2023 prior to being recreated under alternative name which was then a no consensus at this discussion. Out of the 21 references listed on the page this is the only reference that may be notable but I cannot read it so not sure. The rest fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA or are otherwise unreliable. Would recommend a redirect to the original program it is based on (Yeh Hai Mohabbatein). CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: There are reliable sources present, opposed to deletion. Also have a strong references from (The Times of India, medianews4u.com, Dinamalar, Indian Express Tamil). It was one of the famous show, and also notable cast. Original program and Tamil version are very different.. story was also changes. also cast also different. the original version was aired 1,895 episodes (lot of cast and long story), Tamil version was aired only 304 episodes. i am against of recommend a redirect to the original program. i don't Kmow why, You are very interested in deleting this article. This is third time for Nomination of Modhalum Kaadhalum for deletion. Strong Keep--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The references that you state (which I am assuming are the ones on the page) are all unreliable and fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Cast, number of episodes, it being a "famous show" has no bearing on notability unless there is significant coverage from RELIABLE sources to support. Can you link to the sources that are significant (and reliable)? Please do not link to anything that falls under NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and add sources like https://tamil.timesnownews.com/entertainment/modhalum-kaadhalum-serial-last-episode-coming-soon-at-vijay-tv-big-shock-to-fans-vikram-vedha-thanvi-article-110957049 (or similar articles in the same media, all bylined) or https://www.skspread.com/vijay-tv-modhalum-kaadhalum-serial-ending-soon-latest-news/ ; some of the numerous TOI articles can be used for verification; at the very least, redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Star_Vijay#Scripted_series_2 or merge with the article about the series it is a reboot of (Kalyanam Mudhal Kadhal Varai#Spin-off, rather than the original series, but would that help the reader as much as a page? Not sure. And a lot of informations would be lost. (Opposed to deletion, too) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Yeh_Hai_Mohabbatein#Adaptations. Per nom. Sources are poor to unreliable like source 1,2,4,6,12,13,18,20,21 and the others fall in WP:NEWSORGINDIA criteria with promotion and launch of the show, mentions on debut of an actress, exit of an actress and cast additions. RangersRus (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kalyanam Mudhal Kadhal Varai: or other target as proposed to be enforced by blocks or protection. I was AfD1 closer and AfD2 nom and I still don't think this meets the requirements for independent notability as sourcing is far from sufficient. Star Mississippi 02:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE or REDIRECT: Poor sources. Low notability. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a source evaluation: simply grouping all the TOI sources under RSNOI without properly evaluating each and every source seems inappropriate especially when the RFC on TOI does acknowledge that only some articles have issues.

After all, this is an Indian TV show and the only sources that will discuss this is Indian sources. Simply eliminating almost every source under this RSNOI from an information page doesn’t seem like a well thought-out rationale, especially when only TOI is on WP:RSPS. — Karnataka 20:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming that was not done. They were evaluated and are churnalism falling under NEWSORGINDIA. If there is one you feel isn't, please provide the link and I will have a look. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sufficiently sourced. Times of India is usable per WP:TOI. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a perspective to have. However, being usable does not mean it can be used to establish notability. That is also the reason why I did not discredit these simply for being from the TOI. The many RfCs have concluded that the TOI needs additional consideration to determine if if it reliable for that specific reference. I checked them all and these are churnalism and promotional. If you want to provide some that you feel can be used to establish notability, I will have a look and withdraw the nomination if they are usable to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dewair (1606)

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

This article is a WP: REDUNDANTFORK from Mughal conquest of Mewar. There was no need to create this standalone article as the content is already present in the other article. Hence it should be deleted. Admantine123 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mughal conquest of Mewar per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted. I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merge or if this article should just be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal–Rajput wars

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

This article is a poor WP:CONTENTFORK (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) from several articles like Rajput Rebellion (1708–1710), Rathore rebellion (1679–1707) and List of battles in Rajasthan. The individual topic like Battle of Khanwa has been stitched together to create an article suggesting that something like Mugal Rajput wars were a single homogeneous event spread over the different period of time. The individual topics are isolated events and a duplication from the List of battles in Rajasthan. So it should be deleted and content if anything that is here but not in List of battles in Rajasthan should be merged to latter. Admantine123 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like so many Maratha/Mughal articles recently, a hopeless mix of WP:SYNTH, exaggerations, and misrepresentations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Mughals and Rajputs not Marathas! Dilbaggg (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been a sock magnet, so I don't think Soft Deletion is the best option. It either needs the support of editors to keep it sock-free or to be Deleted or Redirected or Merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no need to keep this sock magnet as the material is already covered. A hard delete is needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Mughals and Marathas have been at war between 1526-1779, this article lists a collection of WP:RS battles and also the cronological events. Every history and major source agress there was a long lasting war between Mughals and Rajputs, there is no denying it. I don't see a reason this WP:Notable historic article has been nominated for deletion! Dilbaggg (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Existence of this article is an improvement and provides for easier viewing for interested people. The article title is phrased plurally; Mughal–Rajput wars. Not being a made up single conflict. Deleting this article is an inappropriate course of action for the problem. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-There were surely wars between Rajputs and Mughals and this article summarizes that but what is wrong in this is its tone and possible same content from other articles. All it needs is an improvement of in depth details about topic and a good tone. Rawn3012 (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest India (pre-1947)

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

Article about a non topic, consisting of snippets of information we already cover properly and in depth in other articles. Mccapra (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and India. Mccapra (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete if not improved: The article is extremely sparse at present and everything there is already covered in other articles. But the historical-cultural idea of "northwest India" (as opposed to specifically the Indus Valley, Punjab, etc.) does seem to have some scholarly attention, at least from outsiders: [11], [12]. If the article weren't fairly new, I would be a firm delete, but I'm willing to give the author the benefit of the doubt for now. But the article as it is isn't ready for mainspace. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my position to redirect to Northwest India#Ancient era as suggested by author. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the author of the article, I don't have much to add to it or to voice on its fate. Some options might be to merge the contents into Northwestern South Asia, to redirect to Northwest India#Ancient era, or if seen as necessary, to create a new article called 'Northwestern Indian subcontinent' and then include the post-1947 history of the region as well into that article. GreekApple123 (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, draftify, merge, redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t support a redirect as this isn’t a plausible search term, and there’s nothing to merge because the content in this article duplicates content we already have in the relevant articles. This article is entirely redundant. Mccapra (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Northwest India#Ancient era seems viable. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE Don't do it. 58.152.63.206 (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santhwanam 2

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

Probable failure of the notability guideline for films, but the more pressing concern is the amount of sockpuppetry this article has attracted. I didn't think it was appropriate to tag this under CSD G5, as a few other editors have worked on this, but at least two socks have edited this, and most of the rest comes from IP addresses that have edited the same articles as the socks and geolocate to the same city, suggesting block evasion. I also have concerns about the sources, many of which look like paid promotion disguised as news coverage, and a quick look for better ones did not reveal anything promising. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India, and Kerala. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The IPs have removed the redirect three times now despite the three editors who disagreed so I guess here we are. Sad we have to be here over SOCKing. Judging notability outside of the editor conduct, it fails WP:NFILM as there is no significant coverage. Out of the 12 sources on the page, only one could possibly be used. The rest are unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES or WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pandian_Stores_2#Adaptations: of which this is an adaptation. Not opposed to Keep at all given the existing coverage. Opposed to deletion. Note: the page was accepted through the AfC process, for what it's worth. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank: Could you point to the sources you believe have the most significant coverage so we can better evaluate the subject's suitability under NFILM? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a film but a TV series, so, I don't mind you and other users judging it by NFILM standards, if you wish to do so (that could make sense, actually), but in general it's GNG that applies for TV series (WP:NTV being an essay, as I am sure you know, but just stating it for the record). Among bylined articles in English you have articles like https://www.news.keralatv.in/santhwanam-2-launch-date/ (and 5-6 similar articles by the same media outlet, in English) ; in Malayalam, also bylined, this kind of things (not great journalism) https://malayalam.oneindia.com/entertainment/santhwanam-2-asianet-released-a-new-promo-video-goes-viral-here-is-how-fans-reacted-461819.html https://malayalam.samayam.com/tv/celebrity-news/actress-gopika-anil-says-that-no-one-from-first-part-is-acting-in-the-santhwanam-2/amp_articleshow/110149785.cms seem to show this is popular enough. The content of The Times of India non-bylined articles might be challenged so I won't even mention it (but I suppose you had a look). I had redirected this myself at some point, I think (I seem to remember I did at least!), but that was challenged too, apparently. There are a lot of adaptations of the Tamil (5, 6 ?) original and their mentions are regularly removed from the tables, so for me, navigation-wise, as this seems quite popular and given the basic facts (including popularity) are verifiable with various sources, either R or K are good. Also, a detail, the fact that it's Santhwanam 2 but not a real sequel, as it has different characters, makes a redirect to the Santhwanam not the best option. For me a Keep would help the reader more efficiently but I understand the current coverage is not of extremely high quality, hence the suggested compromise. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out that NFILM doesn't apply — that was a silly error on my part! However, the same issue prevents the subject from meeting GNG, and the links you've shared here don't help in that regard, except maybe Samayam Malayalam. Looking at the about pages for OneIndia and Kerala TV shows that they have no editorial team, and the latter seems to be a blog run by one person. I think keeping would be out of reach here, but the target you've mentioned for a possible redirect sounds good to me. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu University of America

AfDs for this article:

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

This institution is unaccredited, and SCHOOLOUTCOMES#2 cannot apply. Thus, it needs to pass the stringent WP:NORG, which it does not — there is no significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Hinduism, India, United States of America, and Florida. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Doesn't meet notability, fails WP:SIGCOV. Ratekreel (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded the article by adding several references, including to a fairly in-depth profile in the Orlando Sentinel, and to a book by a sociologist who describes the emergence of the university and calls it a "milestone". Notability is arguably established, and even if it isn't, more references with nontrivial material can be found. One of the primary purposes of notability guidelines is to ensure that there is sufficient material to create an informative article, and there is clearly enough published material on this university (even though one might wish for more so that an even meatier article would be possible). For further expansion, there just needs to be effort put in to tap that material and integrate it into the article. --Presearch (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noted that this "fairly in-depth profile" has no author? So, no — an advertorial (churnalism) in a local newspaper does NOT add toward notability.

Notability is arguably established, and even if it isn't, more references with nontrivial material can be found This article is at AfD because I (and others) believe that notability is not established and I am happy to see you accept that. Regrettably, we cannot speculate about sourcing esp. that we are discussing an organization in USA and not, say, Sudan! Further, WP:NEXIST cautions, 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.

It's not my case that no sources exist — 1 and 2 from among the very few hits in Newspapers.com — but that they are trivial and/or they are routine run-of-the-mill coverage. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several more sources, all with named authors, and arguably all from reliable sources. All of these provide "more than a trivial mention," and in some cases the university was indeed "the main topic of the source material", so each of these arguably contributes "significant coverage" for meeting general notability (WP:GNG)

Regarding the Orlando Sentinel article, that may now be moot, but it's worth noting that the newspaper is reputable, and the userfied (non-Wikipedia) essay on "churnalism" acknowledges that "If a reliable source decides to fact check a press release and write a story about it, it then meets the definition of coming from a reliable source" - that raises the question of whether an absence of named author is enough grounds to treat this article as unreliable when it's from an otherwise reputable source (have you found any duplicate versions of the same material on numerous sites?). (By the way, friend, I suspect you know that a statement that something "is arguably established" is different than stating that it is "not established") --Presearch (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"News India Times" is not even a RS in all probabilities. And, a couple of articles in India Abroad — a now-defunct publication aimed exclusively at the Indian diaspora with a peak circulation of ~ thirty thousand — do not make the entity wiki-notable; if anything, such meager coverage in such a niche publication only goes to demonstrate the non-notability.

Further, NCORP has a higher standard for sources to contribute toward notability. This is due to the levels of (undisclosed; see WP:TOI) paid-coverage frequently engaged in by business entities. So, we look for sources that do not mechanically reproduce what the organization says and show some critical engagement. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether it's just a republished press release or not, but just because a newspaper is small, defunct, or aimed at a particular audience does not mean that it is not reliable as a source. Besides, 30,000 people is a large number. If there's any good reason to believe that it is not an RS or is a press release, then I see your point, but just size does not disqualify sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. I get 290 hits on Newspapers.com, including the fairly substantial Mark I. Pinsky, "School of Thought: Hindu University begins journey in teaching... with a degree of karma", The Hilton Head Island Packet (July 3, 2004), p. 1-C, 3-C, and Amy Limbert, "Kuldip Gupta, 66, helped found, lead Hindu University of America", The Orlando Sentinel (February 9, 2007), p. B6. Also, "Hinduism: Studying the ancients", The Atlanta Constitution (September 28, 1996), p. G4; "Beavercreek: Online Hindu classes", Dayton Daily News (January 9, 2021), p. B3. BD2412 T 01:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet notability, fails WP:SIGCOV. Plus the clash between editors about it being promo (see history) makes me uneasy. The Banner talk 14:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to get a futher review of sources presented in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source listing:

https://www.rediff.com/news/2007/nov/20ia.htm -- Rediff -- author unspecified -- significant coverage -- does not seem like a press release
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/varanasi/Prez-of-US-vedic-univ-visits-BHU/articleshow/4928958.cms -- Times of India -- probably republished press release
https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/news/indianamerican-entrepreneur-donates-usd-1m-to-hindu-university-of-america-101680149211128.html -- Hindustan Times -- author unspecified -- unclear if press release?
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2810929379/ -- Hindustan Times, very old -- inaccessible
https://search.worldcat.org/title/60630626?oclcNum=60630626 -- also inaccessible
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2002/02/09/a-foundation-for-learning-understanding-2/ -- Orlando Sentinel -- author unspecified -- very significant coverage, clearly not a press release
https://search.worldcat.org/search?q=n2:1071-0248 -- Inaccessible News India Times, possibly a press release
https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0046-8932 -- Inaccessible India Abroad
https://books.google.com/books?id=DxneawQ8sKQC -- published book -- "Two other milestones during this period were the establishment of a Hindu University of America in Florida and..." -- cited as having a significant description of it
https://web.archive.org/web/20210613071213/https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/haryana/special-session-on-bhagavad-gita-188605 -- it's just a news article happening to have a quote from the university president

So the book, the Orlando Times article, and the Rediff article seem like good sources, even if the latter two have no author listed for some reason. The book seems to think it is significant in the history of what it recounts.

Voting Keep in absence of these sources being discredited, because those three are good. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The RS Noticeboard considers both Rediff News and the Orlando Sentinel to be reliable sources. Although neither article has a byline, these publications provide enough WP:SIGCOV to satisfy WP:NORG. DesiMoore (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Redirects for deletion

MFD discussion debates

Other deletion discussions

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]