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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to India.

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 edit

Priyanshi Arya edit

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

Fails WP:GNG. Being a the general secretary of a students' union does not inherently makes one notable. There's also generally no SIGCOV anywhere. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Potentially notable as the first Dalit general secretary in 30 years. This article from the Deccan Herald looks like SIGCOV: "Who is Dhananjay? All you need to know about JNU's first Dalit president in nearly 30 years". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 2024-03-26. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain I’m surprised to how you interpret SIGCOV. Is Dhananjay the same person as Priyanshi Arya? Obviously not and the only mention of this person there is

In addition to Dhananjay's victory, Avijit Ghosh from the Students' Federation of India (SFI) secured the vice-president's post, while Priyanshi Arya of the Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students' Association (BAPSA), supported by the Left, won the general se..

Where’s the SIGCOV here? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtami (TV series) edit

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

Non-notable series per WP:GNG and the essay WP:NTV. Can't find significant coverage in English or Bengali (অষ্টমী). Editors hunting for coverage will need to filter out results for the notable festivals with this name: I used "Zee Bangla" as a search term (জি বাংলা). There was a short burst of WP:NEWSORGINDIA publicity for the upcoming show, but it's been running for a month now and seems to have received very little coverage. Article appears to have been copied piecemeal from the UPE article moved to draft. Wikishovel (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Bangladesh, India, and West Bengal. Wikishovel (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. The series is an individual television program and is far less notable as it likely airs in only one local media market and not to a broader regional or national audience. RangersRus (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lipi Singh edit

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

nothing notable, regular SP level rank officer, regular coverage that all SPs have Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, India, and Bihar. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is highly notable and covered by large number of news sources for various reasons. This is not the case of WP:1E and many articles about bureaucrats exist on Wikipedia with less number of sources than this. Also, sources have done in-depth coverage of the subject.-Admantine123 (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like this and this fulfills WP: THREE. Many such sources are there on web.-Admantine123 (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those with the knowledge of India will know that such coverage is widely available for almost of the SPs/DMs. MILL. 13:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 13:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the issue and whats the meaning of notability then.? Admantine123 (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per Admantine123, also subject clearly passes WP:THREE, Thanks! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is very notable who is also known as Lady Singham by major media sources. Simple search on her brings up many major media news sites with enough coverage on her and her significant achievements as IPS officer. Page has many reliable sources with enough coverage. Passes WP:N. RangersRus (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Priyamani edit

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

Fails CFORK, NLIST this information could very easily be accommodated in the main article, there is no need for a stand alone list, has not been discussed as a group by independent non-promotional reliable sources. // Timothy :: talk 16:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is not needed. WP:FORK. Page Priyamani#Awards_and_nominations has the list of awards where necessary information can be merged to. RangersRus (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manini (1979 film) edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, interviews, nothing that addresses the subject indepth meeting WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 08:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List_of_Kannada_films_of_1979. Film does exist but the page has poor unreliable sources. Not much can be found other than on imdb and watchable link on Amazon Prime Video. RangersRus (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to K._S._Sethumadhavan#Selected_filmography -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trikanya edit

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

I can't find much sources that this film establishes notability per WP:NFILM. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The movie fails to meet WP:GNG due to the absence of significant in-depth coverage. Additionally, it lacks reviews from national critics, failing WP:NPOL. Grabup (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOL? I see that is a mistake. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have voted to redirect it to List of Odia films of 2024 but such page has not been created yet. Film exists but lacks reviews, receptions and coverage about the film, cast and crew. RangersRus (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Indian films of 2024: The list of Odia films does not exist for 2024. If sources are presented, obviously, not opposed to K. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manini (1985 film) edit

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing found to support notability DonaldD23 talk to me 00:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was unable to find any reliable sources, much less threshold needed to meet GNG. Cara Wellington (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Ravi_Kinagi#Odia_film. Page has poor unreliable sources. Not much can be found other than on imdb. RangersRus (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my !vote, but if to a list of films by year, it should be redirected to one of Odia films not Kannada. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I got mixed up with same name film from 1979 in Kannada. RangersRus (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ravi_Kinagi#Odia_film: it is listed there. The Routledge Handbook of Indian cinema gives 1986 as release year. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ravi Kinagi#Odia film: as per other comments. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Splitsvilla season 12 edit

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

Pretty clear failure of WP:GNG. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 23:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into MTV Splitsvilla. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 23:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MTV_Splitsvilla#Season_12. All seasons 1 to 15 pages should be merged with necessary information. RangersRus (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnolinguistic regions of South Asia edit

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

WP:OR WP:UNSOURCED WP:NPOV. Completely unnecessary generalisations about which regions supposedly "belong" to which "ethnic groups" just because their native languages are widely spoken there. This is ethnic nationalist nonsense without any encyclopedic value. All the relevant information has been gathered much better in articles such as Ethnic groups in South Asia, Languages of South Asia, and so on. NLeeuw (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Ethnic groups, Geography, Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and India. NLeeuw (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and good case made by NLeeuw. Poor sources, editorial bias and problem with verification. RangersRus (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muni Mohjit Vijayji edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced article about a niche religious figure. Only one in-depth reference – a 2003 press article in the Gujarati language (a copyvio scan is on Commons); all the remaining references are at best passing mentions of the subject. The disciples / religious community he left behind doesn't appear too numerous or active, either, at least judging from its Facebook page. All in all, this looks like one of a myriad of gurus found across India at any time who preach to their small following; and not a person with an encyclopaedic notability. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and India. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Poor and unreliable sources. One or two reliable source do not have coverage to warrant notability. Sources that cover younger generation or an IITian who gave up their career for Jain vow of renunciation does not help either. The religious figure is minor to unknown even in media and simple search on Google. RangersRus (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milke Bhi Hum Na Mile edit

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

Fails GNG, sources in article and found in BEFORE did not show anything meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources in article are promo and interviews, with some routine mill entertainment news, nothing with SIGCOV from independent reliable sources. // Timothy :: talk 16:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haripriyaa Bharggav edit

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

Resume BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, are mainly promo bios, interviews, and name mentions in routine mill news, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 16:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would be willing to look at references that talk "about" her but everything I see it about her film (Panch Kriti), is a brief mention, falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA or is otherwise unreliable. I also do not think the film meets GNG as the page says it is scheduled to be released in 2023 and no update since. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject had no significant achievement to warrant a page on her. The "one" film produced by her is not notable either. Sources do not help. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. RangersRus (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Kumar Sangwan edit

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Never elected into any notable political office, only being a candidate in an upcoming election doesn’t inherently make one notable. Sources from BEFORE also didn’t help as they’re either affiliated with the subject or unreliable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of his role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on him. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha–Nizam wars edit

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

This article clearly fails WP:GNG & full of WP:SYNTH mess and WP:OR. Maratha–Nizam wars? More like every war against Marathas (as it is mixed up by Anglo-Maratha wars and French conflicts with Marathas) and there's no source for the timeline of this event (1720-1819), clearly fabricated by the author of the page. Neither I found any source explicitly referring to it as Maratha–Nizam wars nor did I find sources for its fictional timeline of 1720-1819. Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!!

I have noticed that there is a discussion happening about the articles on the Maratha-Nizam wars. I am eager to participate and cast my vote for the article. After thoroughly reviewing the content, I have concluded that it comprehensively covers all the necessary information, supported by reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.I think that all the paragraphs in the article accurately depict the context and are verifiable according to Wikipedia guidelines WP:VERIFY.

Here is one source that mentioned it as maratha nizam wars:

•Britannica:[1]

•Britanicca(for further details):[2]

I think britannica is a better and clearly citing source for the article.It's verifiability and reliability can be checked at ->

•[3]

Timeline isn't mentioned in the heading of article but it is mentioned in the infobox.If there are any doubts some some sources are definitely needed for a better understanding about the timeline with the citation.But if article is undergoing deletion because of it's heading than the Britannca is one of the sources that cites it as 'Maratha -Nizam War' not as 'Anglo-Maratha War'.[4]

Suggestion:It is recommended that the editors and administrators involved in this matter thoroughly examine all sources and make decisions from a neutral Favourable Renaming the article to 'Maratha-Nizam War' instead of 'Maratha-Nizam Wars' would be appropriate as the Britannica source also refers to it in the singular form, given that the article primarily covers individual battles rather than overarching conflicts.

Thanks!! Kemilliogolgi (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, but the source you shared doesn't cover the Maratha-Nizam war in its body instead it spun around the Anglo-Maratha wars. If you'll search "Maratha-Nizam war" under Britannica's sort searching then you won't find any article on Maratha Nizam war through filter searching under Britannica again I don't know how you concluded that it covers this topic while we don't find a single article on it. We know that Britannica is WP:RS but as I said it doesn't even cover this topic so kindly provide sources for Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
Timeline isn't mentioned in the heading of article but it is mentioned in the infobox, that's the issue we don't find this particular timeline in any source. The author too is clearly aware of this therefore they didn't cite any source for this timeline. It's clearly a mix of several hostilities between Nizam, Marathas, Anglos and French and represented as "Maratha Nizam war". Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nominator clearly lacks an understanding of what WP:GNG entails, and I strongly suspect that this action is against me as the author because I nominated their articles for AFD. Please specify the section on the talk page where the sources were synthesized. Neither the Anglo-Maratha wars nor the French-Maratha conflicts are included; technically, it's feasible to add them since the article's scope covers conflicts between two parties: the Nizam and the Marathas, regardless of whether they were supported by the British East India Company, the French, or any other entities. I am listing the sources that explicitly state "Maratha-Nizam War(s)".

822 results in JSTOR [12] almost 3,000 results in ProQuest[13]. and we have several other sources that do not explicitly mention "Maratha-Nizam wars" but provide detailed descriptions of the entire conflicts (a lot in the article itself). I will await the nominator to post the synthesized part on the talk page. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a platform for someone to boast their ego.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator clearly lacks an understanding of what, then why don't you show us a single source covering this event as Maratha-Nizam war (1720-1819)?
Neither the Anglo-Maratha wars nor the French-Maratha conflicts are included; technically, it's feasible to add them since the article's scope covers conflicts between two parties be sure. Is it conflicts or wars? It's clearly noticeable from the artificial timeline of this event (1720-1819) that it's heavily synthesized.
the Nizam and the Marathas, regardless of whether they were supported by the British East India Company, the French, or any other entities. I am listing the sources that explicitly state "Maratha-Nizam War Now that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH you're mixing Anglo Maratha wars and French conflicts with Marathas just to get a fictional timeline so it can be "Nizam victory", Now I'd say it's also WP:POVFORK and please WP:DONTHOAX. Now let us look at the sources provided by you. The first two sources are identical.

[14] only gives insights of Maratha-Nizam war of 1751-52 but there's no Maratha nizam war 1720-1819 as currently the timeline decided by the author.
The third one [15] only talks about Maratha-Nizam hostilities of 1785-1787 again there's no mention of Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
Fourth source [16] is not accessible so it'd be helpful if you provide a quotation for the Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
Coming to the 5th source [17] again not accessible so provide a quotation for Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819
Next [18] only found a topic of "Maratha-Nizam relations" I wonder if this led you to the conclusion of Martha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
At last, [19] this also can't be accessed so provide a quotation for Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.

Now coming to filter/sort keyword searching through JSTOR and ProQuest. Anyone can see that, It gives NO result for even the "Maratha-Nizam War" as a whole forget including timeline, all we see is individual results for Maratha and Nizam. So that's how you concluded that it has almost 3800 results (from both JSTOR and ProQuest)?
You have yourself yelled that we have several other sources that do not explicitly mention "Maratha-Nizam wars" but provide detailed descriptions of the entire conflicts hence proved it contains synthesis. And above too the sources provided by you don't give insights of Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado Indeed Wikipedia is a collaborative project therefore we have to make sure that an article shouldn't exist in mainspace as long as it doesn't pass general notability, and contains synthesis, original research and POVFORK. And No one is being egoistic here. Why do you think so?Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Based Kashmiri, you're just increasing the volume of discussion with no improvement. You still haven't provided the synthesised part in the talk page, failed to prove it's not notable (waiting for others to make thier comments). There is a thing called WP:UCS. The "Maratha–Nizam wars" basically ends with the fall of the Marathas, as their conflicts lasted till then. The article body covers the contributions of the Nizam for the fall of the Marathas. Cheers. Imperial ^[AFCND] 07:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I literally showed how the sources provided by you (most of them don't even cover "Maratha-Nizam war" but cover some relations and hostilities). We just need a single source for the specific Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819 and I'll pull off the prod with myself. Maratha–Nizam wars" basically ends with the fall of the Marathas, as their conflicts lasted till then. At least provide a source to back your statements, this is WP:OR and no WP:UCS doesn't give you waivers for extending the timeline on your own. We're still waiting for you to provide sources for your defined Maratha-Nizam war (1720-1819).Based Kashmiri (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominators arguments are nowhere found in the article. I don't understand how this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Suggesting the nominator to keep personal bias away, as it seems to be the problem here.--DeepstoneV (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Nominators arguments are nowhere found in the article. I don't understand how this doesn't pass WP:GNG." You also didn't understand that a screenshot from YouTube video is not a reliable source (at Gupta empire talk page), I already replied how this article is fully based on WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, POVFORK and it doesn't passes general notability. Feel free to reply to my response below. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, you're taking everything personally. What was the reason to drag another discussion here? Please don't continue this thread, or use other talk pages. Imperial ^[AFCND] 07:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado it'd be better if you give this advice to DeepstoneV as at first they accused me of having Personal bias. Based Kashmiri (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article appears to amalgamate various wars without citing any reliable sources that acknowledge such a conflict by this name. The timeline presented (1720-1819) seems implausible, and the outcome is equally questionable. Even if the Nizam’s actions in Anglo-Maratha Wars contributed to the Maratha downfall, that could be the subject of a separate article. It’s not appropriate to include it in a comprehensive conflict spanning over a century. This inclusion could distort the narrative and lead to misinformation. A MUST DELETE ONE! --Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, we might also have to delete Ahom-Mughal conflicts, Roman–Persian Wars, Roman–Parthian Wars....etc. Imperial ^[AFCND] 08:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And probably Ghaznavid campaigns too! Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado kindly refrain from pushing WP:OTHERCONTENT you should go through WP:AADP. I'd not extend it because of WP:OTHERCONTENT but since you already gone off topic so I'd respond to it.
In Roman–Persian Wars and Roman–Parthian Wars the dates and timeline of the wars are already cited in the lead but that's not the case in Maratha–Nizam wars you have not cited any source in the lead or even in the article body to support your preferred timeline of 1720-1819 neither you're providing sources here for this timeline.
Similarly we can't do the same with Hundred Years' War and Seven Years' War because its timeline is affixed by scholars. Based Kashmiri (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was no prolonged war but the wars that happened time to time with each of them taking years of years. The article is misleading also because it was the British Empire who caused elimination of Maratha Empire, not Hyderabad State. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harish Kumar Gupta edit

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

Resume vanity BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Appears to be mainly sourced from a LinkedIn resume and government bio page (both fail WP:IS, WP:RS), with other refs being routine mill news and name mentions. Government service awards are routine, not meeting WP:ANYBIO. // Timothy :: talk 15:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Learn edit

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

Outside of the typical WP:NEWSORGINDIA, the only thing I find is a press run about insolvency and one about rebranding. Nothing that meets WP:NCORP. Can likely be redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises and a mention made on that page. CNMall41 (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Education, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Zee_Entertainment_Enterprises#India after including it in the list of channels. Per nom fails to meet WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bannu edit

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

The battle is not historically accurate and the page is littered with various passages which are not correctly cited and the references cited are inaccurate, and the page itself requires deletion.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Afghanistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor and unreliable sources. Sources do not help with verification. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gandgarh edit

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

The battle is not historically accurate and the sources are unreliable and relies heavily on WP:Raj sources. The page requires deletion.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Afghanistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor page with very unreliable sources from WP:RAJ written by British administrators and some others fail verification and WP:HISTRS. RangersRus (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hoshiarpur (1711) edit

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Battle of Hoshiarpur (1711)

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

The battle is not historically accurate and when and where the battle took place does not appear in any historical work, printed, or in manuscript and thus it is required for the deletion of this page

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have repaired this somewhat malformed nomination, which initially proposed deleting the nonexistent Battle of Hoshiarpur article. (That this indicates possible overdisambiguation is a matter not necessarily relevant to AfD.) No opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hasan Abdal (1813) edit

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Battle of Hasan Abdal (1813)

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

The page is littered with unreliable sources to promote ethnic heroism and its statements are not fully cited and there is no contemporary proof of the occurrence of this battle and the page requires deletion.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have repaired this somewhat malformed nomination, which initially proposed deleting the nonexistent Battle of Hasan Abdal article. (That this indicates possible overdisambiguation is a matter not necessarily relevant to AfD.) No opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Afghanistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kashmir (1814) edit

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

The page is littered with unreliable sources and relies heavily on WP:Raj sources to promote ethnic heroism and the events do not indicate a victory for the Afghans. This page requires deletion.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Afghanistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Three of the sources are WP:RAJ which can be removed as they are only passing by sources attributed by other secondary sources. Not sure what you're referring to as unreliable sources here, would be nice for you to identify, because historians like Hari Ram Gupta are more then WP:RS. Also pages 124-126 clearly show the expedition was a failure and an Afghan victory: [20]. Noorullah (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further adding from the source: "It took Ranjit Singh four years to overcome his defeat and disgrace suffered in the Kashmir expedition of 1814."[21] (page 128) Noorullah (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

Only the sources from WP:RAJ mention any defeat occurring and are clearly required for the final result of this article but do not pass the standards of Wikipedia. Historians that you noted such as Hari Ram Gupta are specific on page 125 that , “Aghar Khan joined Ruhullah Khan. They spread the rumour that the Sikh army had been defeated.” There was no battle against Wazir Fateh Khan mentioned as noted in this article nor any defeat in battle against Wazir Fateh Khan. The article itself is littered with errors as it mentions this is the third campaign or invasion of Ranjit Singh. This is incorrect as there was no campaign in 1812 as noted by Hari Ram Gupta and in 1813 the campaign was a joint collaboration with Wazir Fateh Khan where the former was to give a tribute.

Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The expedition ended in failure, Hari Ram Gupta made this clear on page 126 [22] when he clearly identifies it as a Sikh defeat. The WP:RAJ sources can be removed as I said because they are only passing references while attributed by other secondary sources (such as Hari Ram Gupta). Also the article is being cleaned up, and thus can stay per WP:HEY. Noorullah (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet edit

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

Poor attempt of the author to keep Pala Tibetan War from AFD. Same content with different title. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War.Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, China, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet has no issues like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War as you said.
This article is Notable and has been given significant coverage by reliable sources.

Devapāla came into conflict with Tibet, there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Raja Dharma- pala to submit. Devapāla also may have come to clash with them and defeated them.^[1]
Devapāla might have come into conflict with Tibet; there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-Srong-Ida-Btsan and his son Mu-teg-Btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharma- pāla to submit. Devapāla also may have clashed with them and defeated them^[2]

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop listing down this big {{tq}} here. It was already a mess at the earlier discussion. Comment down if you've any possible arguments that could potentially save the article. I am pretty sure you haven't read what WP: NOTABILITY, and this reflects everywhere in the AFD. Long paragraphs are not the factor that determines whether it passes GNG or not. And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here. Imperial ^[AFCND] 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This event is notable and has received significant coverage in Reliable Sources (WP:RS) and it passes WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV and this isn't WP:OR since reliable sources mention the event as Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet.
Also what do you mean by "And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here."?? I gave you two reliable sources which mentions the event in a similar way. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Based Kashmiri, what you've done is exposed plagiarism. They mention the event in a similar way because one source plagiarized the other, not because this is a conventional way to write about this. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the WP:DEL-REASON guideline, there is no reason to delete this article and I have provided multiple reliable sources about this event here in the replies below. Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is obviously a recreation of the previously deleted article. It does have a better title, in that it is no longer claiming there was a "Pala Tibetan War", but this is the same issue. We can write about this hypothetical conflict (one of the sources you list above even says "might have"!) on Devapala (Pala dynasty). If eventually we find sources to justify a separate article, we can spin out out from Devapala (Pala dynasty). But we did not find those sources in the last AfD, so I doubt we will find them here either. While I'm looking at that article, I note that we also have the sentences There is nothing impossible as the Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharmapāla to submit. Therefore, Devapāla must have also clashed with and defeated the Tibetan kings. Not only does this not follow the sources (our article says "must have", while neither source says so), it is obviously plagiarism. -- asilvering (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a recreation of the previously deleted article, also this article doesn't have any issues like that article, if you think there is any issue in this article then list them down.
The previous article had issues with the "Dharmapāla's Conflict with Tibetans" section and the "Conflict with Nepal" section, which is excluded from this article. This article focuses on the conflict between Devapala and Tibet, with reliable sources mentioning the event as "Devapala's Conflict with Tibet." The main problem with the previous article was the uncited title, but this article provides reliable sources to support its claim.Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean "it literally contains the exact same words as the previous article". If that were the case, it could just be nominated for speedy deletion. I mean "it is in effect the same article with the same problems", which is true. At least one of the two reliable sources you brought up above appears to be plagiarized, so not only is this not two separate sources with in-depth coverage, it's only one source with very brief coverage. This can easily be written about on Devapala (Pala dynasty) if necessary. (But I'd advise against plagiarising a plagiarised source to do so.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article cannot be deleted for the reasons you've provided, as per the Wikipedia deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON.

Additionally, here are some additional reliable sources about this event:
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These sources do not support your case. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas edit

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

A copy of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala invasion of Kannauj. Same content, fails WP:GNG, poorly found in reliable sources. Part of Tripartite struggle, can be added to it. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not even a single thing here is copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala invasion of Kannauj. That article was about Dharmapal's invasion of Kannauj and this article is about Devapal's campaign against the Pratiharas, Plus this has nothing to do with the Tripartite Struggle and this definitely doesn't fail WP:GNG. All of the sources cited here are completely reliable.

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No results for "Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas" in Google scholar, JSTOR [23], and literally zero result from Google keyword searching. Hardly found few sources (including what present in the article), that barely mentioned no more than two or three lines about the so called "Campaign". And passes GNG? See WP:SIGCOV. Imperial ^[AFCND] 15:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very notable and has been given significant coverage in reliable sources therefore it passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.
The Gurjara lords against whom Devapāla fought must have been the Pratīhāra rulers. It is possible that Nagabhața II tried to assert his power after the death of Dharmapāla and if, as some scholars believe, he transferred his capital to Kanauj, he must have achieved some success. But Devapāla soon re-established the Pala supremacy, and it was possibly after his (Devapāla's) successful campaign against the Pratihāras that he advanced to the Hūņa and Kamboja princi- palities. Nāgabhața's son, Ramabhadra, probably also had his kingdom invaded by Devapāla. The next Pratihāra king Bhoja also, in spite of his initial success, suffered reverses at the hands of Devapāla, and could not restore the fortunes of his family so long as the Pala emperor was alive. Thus Devapāla successfully fought with three generations of Pratihāra rulers, and maintained the Pala supremacy in Northern India.^[3]^[4]

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It is notable because I said so." Industrial Insect (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore WP:RS which has significant coverage about the topic of the article and just say "It is notable because I said so.", wow.
The article is notable for several reasons. First, it has significant coverage from WP:RS. Second, It passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I hope this helps clarify why the article meets the notability criteria. Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article appears to be successfully meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia's Notability guidelines and the issues raised in the nomination do not appear to be evident within the article itself.

Khotanese26 (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742) edit

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

Fails WP: NOTABILITY. The event is a part of the Maratha invasions of Bengal, and the prelude of First Battle of Katwa. Not much coverage in WP:RS, except some scattered lines. Not enough coverage in reliable sources for an article; and "Plunder of Murshidabad" is WP:OR as such an event is not named by any Historians. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Look, this article has already been accepted by the admin, and that's proof of its notability. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Akshunwar #Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Plunder_of_Murshidabad_(1742)_has_been_accepted] Even in Reliable Sources, this event receives significant coverage: 1. {{tq|In 1742 Maratha general Bhaskar Ram invaded Bengal and surrounded the Nawab at Burdwan, but he escaped. The Marathas plundered Murshidabad, the capital of the Nawab, and secured a booty of about 2 crores of rupees. They captured Orissa.}}<ref>{{Cite book |last=Vaish |first=Devi Charan Lal |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wvcgAAAAMAAJ&newbks=0&hl=en |title=The Rise of British Power and the Fall of Marathas |date=1972 |publisher=Upper India Publishing House |language=en}}</ref>

2. The nawabi had since 1740 been ruled by a Turkish adventurer, Alivardi Khan, who had, from the abundant treasury at Murshidabad, sent two crores of rupees to Delhi to secure his nomination as nawab. The British found him ready to sustain the conditions in which business flourished, but he was no match for the Marathas, who swept into Bengal in April 1742 and plundered Murshidabad. Their outfliers caused panic in Calcutta where the Company began to dig the Maratha ditch to keep them out. For the next seven years the golden province of Bengal was afflicted by roving armies, until Alivardi Khan bought off the Marathas by paying chauth of 12 lakhs of rupees a year. The merchants of Calcutta trembled, but one merchant in Bengal saw only advantage in the weakness of formerly powerful Mughal princes in the face of Maratha attack.

3. <ref>{{Cite book |last=Cavaliero |first=Roderick |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BxKJDwAAQBAJ&newbks=0&hl=en |title=Strangers in the Land: The Rise and Decline of the British Indian Empire |date=2002-06-28 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-0-85771-707-8 |language=en}}</ref>

4. There are already articles on Wikipedia which are based on the place name where the event took place and this doesn't violate WP:OR. Akshunwar (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Several historic books use the exact phrasing "Plunder of Murshidabad", which dispels the notion that it is original research. Some of these are History of Orissa: From the Earliest Times to the British Period (1980) and Bengal, Past & Present Journal of the Calcutta Historical Society (1934).Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards 2023 edit

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

Fails WP:GNG. Main page Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards exists which is also likely not notable so not seeing how this would meet notability guidelines. Cannot find enough coverage to establish it for this specific year. Will likely add the other years as a global discussion as well. CNMall41 (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nomination --Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kalloor edit

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

See Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Kalloor (" the place in Tamil Nadu, India, where the Apostle Thomas, one of the 12 disciples of Jesus, is believed to have been killed"). Possible hoax, and unreferenced. Fails WP:V. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and India. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally unsourced, and most of it unverifiable. That alone suggests deletion, but checking the history of the article, I find the original text (which is still there, with minor changes, but more has been added) is sufficiently out of line with anything in any source that I can find to make it fairly clear that it was a hoax. The result of that is that we have an article which is totally unsourced, most of ut unsourceable, and a significant part of it probably a hoax. No justification at all for keeping it. JBW (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW In the discussion linked above @Malerisch suggested this may not be a complete hoax. In either case, this was now incorrectly speedied, sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Yes. Originally I thought this was certainly a hoax, but then I read that discussion, as far as it had gone at the time, and reduced my opinion to "fairly clear" that "a significant part of it [is] probably a hoax", as I said above. That is why I posted here rather than speedily deleting the article. I should have also removed the speedy deletion tag, but I missed doing that. I have now read the current version of the discussion you mentioned, and further information has been added, which makes me think it is not a hoax. However, I still think it should be deleted. JBW (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW For the record, I also think it should be deleted due to lack of sourcing, but after AfD runs its course. I'll go ask at WP:AN for undeletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_undelete_incorrectly_speedily_deleted_article_(now_at_AfD):_Kalloor _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is another place in Tamil Nadu that could be confused: Kallur, Kumbakonam. Google maps shows both. Zero^talk 06:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is completely unsourced and at least the part about Apostle Thomas is clearly a hoax, and the other part, about "prominent families" bearing that name, seems spurious too. We have an article on a Kalloor Oommen Philipose, but there it's a personal name, and generally the name (in this spelling) doesn't seem to be common. So, without verifiable content, there is no need for an article. Gawaon (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. It is a hoax, with some revisions adding barely verifiable details. LOLHWAT (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sourced content and that the most notable part of the article (Thomas the Apostle's deathplace) is most likely a hoax. SparklessPlug (talk | contribs) 17:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kallur, seems to be a plausible misspelling. Current content is unverifiable and probably a hoax. sohom@enwiki 19:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Sikh Invasion of Rohilkhand edit

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

Unreliable sources per WP:HISTRS, many primary sources as well. Noorullah (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Afghanistan, and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 2 primary sources mentioned, and the authors I cited are historians who aswell proved the event that happened the deletion is unnessecary. Alvin1783 (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. Infradream Limited edit

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found routine mill news articles, mentions, nothing showing this meets NCORP, or SIGCOV meeting GNG. // Timothy :: talk 05:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timonthy, can you please help me in improving this article. I am still looking for reliable sources for this article. I am editing this article again, please let me know whether it meets Wikipedia criteria or not. GrooveGalaxy (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharti Bharat Kamdi edit

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

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Subject is only going to contest in the general elections that is to come in June, being a candidate from a party doesn't automatically pass WP:NPOL, and being a Chairperson of the Palghar Zilla Parishad doesn't pass WP:NPOL either. This is more or less too early. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Owen× ☎ 23:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOO SOON. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Maliner (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Claire 26 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aapla Alpha Awards edit

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

Fails WP:GNG. Redirect disputed by IP. Cannot find sources to show how this meets notability. CNMall41 (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aboli edit

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aboli

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

Fails WP:GNG. Recreated by likely SOCK after prior deletion discussion. CNMall41 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thushar Vellappally edit

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

Fails WP:NPOL, coverage seems to relate to his candidacy in the current Indian election. No sourcing to support claims of being a philanthropist. AusLondonder (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Kerala. AusLondonder (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election for his constituency is completed on April 24, 2024 and this is not for the election. Just starting the page for adding more information. He is a notable politician and lot of political controversies are reported in the news. Links are added.(talk)

Delete: Similar to other adfs, there has been a proliferation of premature articles regarding candidates for the 2024 Indian General Elections. Like this individual, they too fall short of meeting the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Since they have not yet been elected as Members of Parliament, the news reports solely focus on their candidacy. Some similar other AFDs: Kompella Madhavi Latha and Neeraj Tripathi. Grabup (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable politican, fails WP:NPOL, can be re-evaluated if candidate gains place in legislature to satisfy the presumed qualities of NPOL. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
more citation is added to indicate the notability. Mettleboy (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain : More reference were added to emphasize the notability. Mettleboy (talk)

Delete This page is an election candidate only, no proof of victory, and does not specify otherwise, Fails WP:POLITICIAN~~ Spworld2 talk 01:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Software industry in Madurai edit

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

I don't see a reason why this article should exist -- none of the sources (that aren't broken) talk about the software industry in Madurai as a broader trend. This failed a PROD for being potentially notable, but absent any evidence to support that potential, I think this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of in depth, significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bajirao's Konkan Campaign edit

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

The article is entirely based on original research and the synthesis of multiple events involving various states. It discusses military conflicts labeled as "Bajirao's Konkan Campaign," incorporating entities such as the Siddis, Nizam of Hyderabad, the British East India Company, and the Portuguese Empire. However, no reliable sources consider all these entities as belligerent allies against the Marathas during Bajirao I's campaign. The creator has conflated conflicts involving Bajirao with those of other kingdoms/states/entities and inserted "Maratha victory" in the infobox, despite the differing outcomes recorded in historical records. It's unclear what the author intended, but the content of the article largely duplicates information already present in numerous parent articles. This attempt seems to glorify an entity through the use of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, combining unrelated conflicts. Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, Portugal, and England. Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:If articles of this kind fall within the scope, we could also maintain an article titled Alexander the Great's Punjab Campaign, alongside Indian campaign of Alexander the Great and Battle of Hydaspes. Ironically, this would involve including both the Achaemenid Empire and the Pauravas in a single infobox!! That would afford everyone an opportunity to express their creativity, but this isn't the appropriate venue for it.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 21:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tharahai Cuthbert edit

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

Fails WP:NPOL (for now) and WP:GNG, the subject is only a candidate of an assembly election that is to come, hopefully, in July. She is yet to be elected, we don't even know if she'd be. So, for now, it fails WP:NPOL and also WP:GNG isn't satisfied. Draftifying would also not be a bad idea. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Tamil Nadu. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject's achievements and of role as a candidate of a political party is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There has been a notable increase in the creation of Wikipedia pages for candidates in the 2024 Indian General elections. However, many of these pages fail to adhere to Wikipedia’s Politician notablity guidlines WP:NPOL or the general notability guideline WP:GNG. Merely being nominated as a candidate and having some media coverage does not automatically make someone notable. Additionally, creating articles for these candidates at this early stage is premature. According to Wikipedia's notability policy for politicians WP:NPOL, candidates who win the election and become Members of Parliament will inherently meet the criteria for notability. Therefore, it is recommended that these premature articles be deleted, this article is same as previous AFDs: Kompella Madhavi Latha, Neeraj Tripathi. Grabup (talk) 16:27, 3 May 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.

Gauda–Gupta War edit

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

If the article focuses solely on the conflicts between the Gauda kingdom and the Guptas, it lacks WP:RS and historians do not consider these mutual campaigns as a single state of war, known as the "Gauda—Gupta War(s)". If we include the mutual conflicts between the Guptas and Gaudas in the article's scope, it becomes a result of original research and the synthesis of multiple conflicts. The conflicts involving Ishanavarman, Jivitagupta I, and Gopachandra are mentioned, but figures such as Kumaragupta III, Dharmaditya, and Samacharadeva are not addressed in the War section, but in the infobox. Upon reviewing the sources, authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus. In essence, the article combines non-notable military conflicts, cited by low-quality sources, involving different kingdoms—the Maukhari dynasty and the Later Gupta dynasty—against the Gauda kingdom, and labels it as the "Gauda—Gupta War". It adds minor conflicts to create the impression of significance, which is not justified. The article fails to meet GNG and contains original research. There are significant issues to address, AFD is limiting the discourse. Imperial ^[AFCND] 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @ImperialAficionado There's no synthesis and OR, every cited source comes to the conclusion that Maukharis and later Guptas fought against Gaudas on behalf of the Gupta emperor.

It's quite likely that the war of Ishanavarman against the Gaudas whom he had forced to take shelter on the sea shore and the victory of Jivitagupta I over the enemies who stood on the sea-shore, refer to the expeditions launched by the Maukharis and the Later Guptas, separately or jointly, against the kings of Bengal discussed above who had declared their independence of the empire and had assumed the imperial title. Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers undertook these campaigns in the name of the Gupta emperor who was their nominal overlord, though their success increased their own power, and not of the emperor. From Goyal (1967).

The people of Gauda (W. Bengal) also achieved prominence, and a Maukhari chief claims to have defeated them. The Later Guptas also fought against some enemies who lived on the sea-shore. The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above, and the military campaigns of the Maukharis and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly or severally, on behalf of the Gupta emperor, their nominal overlord. Majumdar (1970).

Quoting these two should be enough. The other sources are right there, you should have thoroughly verified it before proposing AFD for this article. According to nom it's cited with low quality sources seriously? As far as I know the works of S.R. Goyal, R.C. Majumdar, K.K Dasgupta, H.K Barpujari and others are qualitatively reliable. If nom has any doubt for the cited sources then they should verify those at RSN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi (talk • contribs)

@Jonharojjashi, cited with low quality sources is referring my earlier statement in the proposal authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus, take the time to read the whole proposal reason. The weakness of the statements from the sources are evident from the above quotes, presented by yourself above. It's quite likely that...Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers un... from Goyal and The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above...and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly or from Majumdar. Keeping this weak statements aside, surprisingly I couldn't find any latest records about the event(s).--Imperial ^[AFCND] 17:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the issue then the article body should reflect the sources whether they have "weak consensus" or not. And that is what I have done in The War section. From what I have seen, many articles are made after being based on even less consensus, like Sasanian–Kushan Wars, you should also see my question regarding this at the help desk [24], and here the sources do say "possibly" so I can do the same in Infobox and article body (basically I'm reflecting what the sources say). Again I don't get what the problem is, just because sources hold weak consensus thus they are of low quality? And you didn't answer where does it contains synthesis and OR. Looks like you didn't even read the article and verify it with the cited sources and stuck to the possilikely words. -- Jonharojjashi (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear. That's why I said AFD is limiting the discourse, I need a bigger space to expose the whole mess within the article. And no need to drag Sasanian–Kushan Wars here. Take that to the respective talk section if you have any problem with it. Imperial ^[AFCND] 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No that should not be a reason, AFD is what exactly for highlighting all the cons of the article, there's no limiting discourse. Just say you can't show where this article contains synthesis, OR and weak sources. You're free to expose any drawbacks of this page. There's no need to be in the grey area. I'd assume that you're either procrastinating or failing to prove your points.

I'm not dragging Sasanian–Kushan Wars here instead, I cleared your doubts regarding "weak consensus" through it. Don't just throw away it by saying no need to drag.

For other voters: Note that there's an AFD discussion going on their own page [25] and also note that the nom hasn't clearly provided anything to show this article holds any OR, synthesis and weak sources. Jonharojjashi (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another WP:SYNTH mess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup edit

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

These articles are unnecessary WP:CFORKs from the main article 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup, and are not required. We have never created articles for teams at Cricket World Cups before, as they are wholly unnecessary, and just copying content available on other articles, such as 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup and 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup squads. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, South Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, England, and Australia. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating articles for other countries at this event:

Keep - The following articles would be suitable as in the T20 World Cup, many matches will be played and in these articles, the readers can read the per match summary, team's tournament progression, tournament kit, scorecard, per team statistics and many more of the respective cricket team at a single article, which is not possible to mention at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup article. Any articles which haven't been created earlier doesn't mean it is unnecessary, there should be an article to record any team's particular tournament edition journey. Wowlastic10 (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament summaries should be in the main article anyway, which would cover the important matches and information, so a split out for match summaries for every match including the WP:ROUTINE coverage ones is not required. Tournament kit would be WP:TRIVIA, team statistics sounds like it would violate WP:NOTSTATS/WP:TRIVIA. None of this sounds like encyclopedic content, and just because people create these articles for e.g. IPL teams (which are questionable to do anyway), that doesn't mean they are valid WP:CFORKs for this tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we keep it until first week of T20 World Cup? If you feel it useless then also, then you're free to delete it. What say? Wowlastic10 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be against this, as the onus is to prove that they are valid articles, not keeping in the hope they might be, against any evidence that they'll be anything other than a WP:CFORK with trivia and stats obsessions (like the IPL season articles). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The concept is basically like India at the 2020 Summer Olympics, where pages like India at the Cricket World Cup are split for every edition. This is infact a very important addition to wikipedia and should be made for all teams having played every ICC tournament. Like the IPL teams, county teams; this is a very valuable addition as each page will contain stuff others cant.

I have been working on similar articles in my private space, but havent published them yet as I want to properly finish the thing before publishing.

@Wowlastic10 I would encourage you to make similar articles for all editions of the T20 World Cup. Do remove the words ICC Men’s and make it like India at the 2024 T20 World Cup; following the common name process. Furthermore, include national stats such as viewership, tournament stats of players of that country, pictures, quotes, squad information and match details with some description. Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not rename these as suggested without WP:RM consensus, as the main article is at 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Also this comment doesn't address WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc
Proper matchwise description - not there on any other page
More information about reaction of said mactches and tournament in the country
Place to add pictures

Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information on individual players as well. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc - can be added to squad article, as has been done for some 50 over World Cup events.

Proper matchwise description - only needed for notable matches, not those with routine coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a fandom site.

Reactions are mostly trivial and unencyclopedic, and any events/reactions that are actually important can go in the main article.

Lots of pictures violates WP:NOTGALLERY

So none of these are a good reason to create these WP:CFORKs. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup I agree with the nom. I don't see these as being necessary as content for these forks will just be re-hashed details for the main article, and then lists and stats that violate WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS as they will just be random indiscriminate. If a particular team has a 'special' tournament, or gains significant coverage for another reason, then perhaps a fork can then be made, but one for each team is unnecessary, and the comparison to the Olympic articles doesn't wash given how much bigger an event (with loads more events and athletes) than a cricket tournament. We don't have forks for Football World Cup articles for example. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia, and these lists provide extra information about the playing nation than the main article. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per @Wowlastic10, this can be more than a list, and it warrants an article for each country. If the article does not have unique info it can be merged back. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I'm saying, thanks for explaining it on my behalf. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia- true, but putting information into various sub articles so people can add stats trivia isn't the best way of displaying it. We have an article on the events and squad articles, and those are the main 2 things about each team anyway. WP:CFORKs are still not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I can see these becoming unnecessary, poor quality, content forks consisting of minimal prose and just scorecards... nothing which can't be included in the main tournament article. AA (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let this discussion end, i'll again start including all the necessary details Wowlastic10 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont mean to bludgeon, but this has high chances of not ending up as a mere stub; per my reasons stated above. Each ipl team gets an annual page for its tournaments, as do the english county teams. This will only broaden and improve wikipedia's scope on the matter, considering the quality of cricket articles on here is way down compared to other sports. Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE, just because other events like the IPL get articles like this every year (which I don't agree with anyway), that doesn't mean these should too. Nobody so far has demonstrated why this isn't an unnecessary WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many times a player has played in the tournament - how many matches a swuad member played

top 5 batting and bowling averages in the team etc

catches and dismissals

reaction / outrage / media coverage of tournament and team in said country

prizes and awards won by players for performance in tourney

explicit knockout stage performances

I respect your opinion wholeheartedly, but ipl and county teams have existed for long, with some of them featured and good articles. This is an opportunity for editors, who will add more valuable info and like i said, simply broaden wikipedia’s scope. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of these things are encyclopedic enough, and no article with them will be a GA or FA if the process for GA or FA is applied properly. County teams don't have season articles and most IPL teams have tables and no prose, which is what these articles are and likely will always be. This is an encyclopedia and not a fandom site. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's easy for a visitor to get all the details about their desired team at one place. I'd say we keep the Teamwise articles and should nominate the Squads article for deletion. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
If the squads article isn't there, and all the fixtures are instead transcluded from the main page; it won't be a WP:CFORK. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emaan Singh Mann edit

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

Fails WP:NPOL, subject was never elected in any of the contested elections, and fails WP:GNG too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Asia, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being the father of a notable person doesn't confer notability. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG criteria and hasn't been elected as an MP or MLA which fails WP:NPOL. As previously stated regarding Indian politicians, these articles are premature and should be deleted. Referencing past instances like Kompella Madhavi Latha and Neeraj Tripathi underscores the need for deletion. Grabup (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Splitsvilla season 1 edit

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

A list of 20 contestants, only 2 of whom have their own pages, plus details of who they were "dumped by" is essentially a summary-only description of a work. This season of the show is not notable independently of MTV Splitsvilla, and there's no content here that couldn't be merged to that article.

I'm creating an AfD rather than boldly redirecting etc. as MTV Splitsvilla lists individual pages for 15 seasons so think it's worth a discussion. Feedback welcome on whether this is the right approach. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India, and Goa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MTV_Splitsvilla#Season_1. Seasons for same show do not need to have separate pages. RangersRus (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MTV_Splitsvilla#Season_1: Per nom. Not enough content for a stand alone article. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion. Have editors looked at this redirect target? It's a blank section on this article point to the page you want to delete. You're advocating redirecting an article to just a header on an article. This doesn't seem like the most sensible resolution. How about a Merge consideration?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm suggesting MTV_Splitsvilla#Seasons overview as the redirect target for MTV Splitsvilla#Season 1 (and other seasons), and removing the headers for each season. The "seasons overview" table seems to sum up all the content that would be merged anyway. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to MTV_Splitsvilla#Season_1. All seasons 1 to 15 pages should be merged with necessary information. RangersRus (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antarapata edit

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

None of the three sources on the page are reliable as they all fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. A WP:BEFORE was also unable to find anything better than a few mentions and announcements. CNMall41 (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India, and United States of America. CNMall41 (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: With some update with reviews and more sources other than pre-release publicity ones, this probably would be notable. Based on the actions of the article creator, moving this to draft will probably need the draft move protected and redirect created here pointing to Colors Kannada that would need to be protected. Ravensfire (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would always recommend draftify as an WP:ATD. The issue is that when that happens we have to deal with the bludgeoning of redirects and submissions without improvements from socks, IPs and UPEs. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 7 May 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) 18:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyadarshini Raje Scindia edit

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP that makes few claims to notability other than her marriage to a notable politician. Recent coverage relates to her campaigning in the current Indian election, hardly demonstrating significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Royalty and nobility, India, and Madhya Pradesh. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has done notable work for the society. (https://www.travelandleisureasia.com/in/people/interview-with-tl-champion-community-empowerment-priyadarshini-raje-scindia/). Shobhit Gosain ^Talk 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Married to politician does not establish notability. The subject has not made significant, interesting, or unusual achievement enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Fails WP:N. RangersRus (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article lacks sources to prove the subject's notability beyond her marriage to a politician. Being mentioned in a newspaper, journal, or magazine doesn't always guarantee notability. She has made little independent notable achievements for an article. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At most, this page could be merged with that of her husband. — TheWikiholic (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ajmer edit

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

There is no such a battle named "Battle of Ajmer" in any of the WP:RS nor any Historians named a battle as "Battle of Ajmer" between Mher tribe and Ghurids. The article body talks about a conflict between Mher tribe and Ghurids, whereas the infobox describes Rajputs as the belligerents. Neither from the source of R. C Majumdar, nor from Romila Thapar, I could even find a scattered line about this event. The actual event per cited is the prelude of Battle of Kasahrada (1197). The current content could be added into this parent article (edit: it is already present the background section). Fails WP:GNG, and not found any RS calling the event by the name of "Battle of Ajmer". Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Geography, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Very Weak Keep. The sources from Majumdar and Thapar, like ImperialAficionado I too could not verify or find on this Battle and would have opted for delete but the source from Dr Ashoka Srivastav from Department of history at University of Gorakhpur had me hanging from where the page got its attribution from. There is need for improvement on this page and some more detail that is missing or wrong about the battle, siege, and the belligerents. From Srivastav Belligerents were Mhers, many Hindu Rajas, Raja of Nagor, Raja of Nahrwala. It does not say Rajputs. More sources will help too. RangersRus (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kalanaur (1748) edit

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

The sources on this page almost all deal with WP:RAJ, with many of the sources (including Singh), tracing back to the Panth Prakash, which fails WP:RAJ. Some of these sources don't even state that such a thing happened, and nor do any other major sources regarding this campaign such as Hari Ram Gupta. Noorullah (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, here's Hari Ram Gupta, who is a major historian in this region and has no recollection of such events whatsoever. [26] Singh (who relies on Prakash as stated on page 49) [27] Noorullah (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Copy and paste of previous AFD vote- Over the past year, these topic areas have been inundated with poorly written and sourced articles that paid no heed to neutrality, proper sourcing, or historical accuracy, but rather on aggrandizing their religion as much as possible. Tactics included an over reliance on primary sources and ref spamming Google books snippets or sources which only made negligible mention of topic at hand. This article is one of the many, many examples. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, additionally, No historians calls this event by the name "Battle of Kalanaur", which makes the title is made up by WP:OR, and backed by religious texts.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 06:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Raj era source is if it's written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. Indian historians like Sarkar's sources are used because historians today depend on their secondary work. Quick overlook, this page has four reliable sources and two of them are on the battle segment that I can see from historians Gandhi and Singh. RangersRus (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the reliable sources are used in the aftermath section, while the other two in the battle rely on said primary source.

The article in general is poorly written and no historians even call this battle the "Battle of Kalanaur", which as aforementioned by Imperial, would make this entirely WP:OR. Noorullah (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you will find many pages created by editors where title is given pertaining to the location given in source where fight presumably happened. RangersRus (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RangersRus, Only the two sources cited in the aftermath section (which has no connection with the article's scope) are reliable. Sikhs In The Eighteenth Century by Gandhi is not WP:HISTRS; both the publisher and the author are involved in religious-related areas. While the reliability of Ganda Singh is acceptable, I wouldn't cite him here due to his political involvement and stances, especially in Operation Blue Star, which are based on religious issues. Considering the article's scope falls within his area of interest, citing from him would not be appropriate imho. However, I would not object if his citation were to be reinstated again. And yeah, just because a military conflict was occurred at a place called "x", we can't call the conflict by the name "Battle of x", that lacks in the sources in this case.-Imperial ^[AFCND] 07:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know about any or what political association of historian and maybe is best for discussion with evidence on WP:RSN. Some pages on wikipedia I came across these historians are well accredited. The location, you will find many pages created by editors where title is given pertaining to the location given in source where fight presumably happened and the source does not have to explicitly say the title but any piece of information that indicates location where the fight took place is used to create the title. You should reinstate the sources as the nomination is still in progress and use WP:RSN for discussion. RangersRus (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's best not to conflate RSN with AFD as it complicates the discussion. We can carry RSN later without mixing to this session. I'll reinstate the sources, but I still disagree with using titles like "Battle of X" regardless. The source must explicitly state "Battle of X" for it to be acceptable. If articles are created with such titles, it's preferable to move them to more suitable titles or assess whether they meet GNG. Imperial ^[AFCND] 17:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The source must explicitly state "Battle of X" for it to be acceptable. If articles are created with such titles, it's preferable to move them to more suitable titles or assess whether they meet GNG." You are right here. I was giving examples of what I noticed how many page titles were made like the nomination here. But you gave a formidable tip. RangersRus (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Super League broadcasters edit

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are archived pages of primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and India. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag Sinha edit

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

I initially tagged this for UPE for cleanup but after it was challenged by two SPAs, and at the request of one, I dug further into cleanup. The issue is that the references, other than this, are not reliable to show notability. Everything is mentions, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, press releases, churnalism, interviews, or otherwise unreliable. I removed some WP:FAKEREFerences prior but kept everything else in tact so the AfD could be judged based on how it sits currently. CNMall41 (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41

I think you are indulging in provocation to prove you’re correct. Please refer this case to senior editors and administrators for opinion. My knowledge about Wikipedia rules is limited. However this nomination for deletion seems fishy. Hope fellow editors will objectively contribute to sort this, whatever is right.

Request to refer to the Talk Page of Anurag Sinha to understand the case. His notability and credibility is vouched and acknowledged.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixing001 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fixing001, Don't worry this ADF discussion will surely closed by an Administrator of Wikipedia. Grabup (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CNMall41

I would really like to contest your decision to provocatively send the article for deletion, while I was engaging in a meaningful conversation with you in the talk page. I will also request the inclusion of other editors and administrators to have a look at this case as I feel that this step may have been influenced due to reasons while this could have been avoided certainly for an actor who has a valid presence and calibre in the indian films industry.

Please have a look at the references right from 2008 till 2023 where these references are attributed from TOI, Press Trust of India, ANI News, NDTV, Organisational bodies, Etimes, Recognised Production Houses and International Film Festivals, Directors and fellow actors from the industry of India.

While some citations may come from a list of as you call “Paid Media”, there is a plethora of other google search articles and references in the article where the subject is not in ‘Mentionary terms’, but actuality a major point of interest.

Articles by reputed journalists of India, like Mr Subhash K Jha, Mr Khalid Mohammad and other prominent journalists have done interviews and wrote articles on ‘Anurag Sinha’. His recent Best Actor Award in International Film Festivals is also merited by TOI and PTI, ANI News, The Week, Zee5 News etc.

While, you discredited the article and the subject 2 months earlier accusing of Paid Creation, why did you not send it for deletion then itself when proper cleaning of language and any inkling of promotional intent was also removed by myself.

I had only requested you remove the “paid template” and present any transactional proof made by the user/article subject for creating the page, to which there is still no evidence provided by you. You have stated the ‘creator of the page’ has been flagged, but that does not mean that all articles created by the creator are false and paid, when the merit of this particular artist/actor is recognised by a mass audience and people of his industry.

However, I again repeat that today seems out of hasty decision, you have altered the article by your edits which are not justified. This article is on my watchlist and some removals are uncalled and was not needed at all. While you also have wrongly exercised your rights to put templates and send the page for deletion. Why?

Also, for clarification of my interest in the article, I certainly am interested in the work of actors and indian film industry and will want to contribute positively towards it.

As a responsible Wikipedia editor, I again would address you to clean the page, if you find it dissatisfying. According to me, all current references are reliable third part sources that are not just mentioning, but are talking about the subject or acknowledging the achievements of the subject.

I trust this process and hopefully this matter will be justly resolved. I will also invite other editors and experienced editors to engage in its resolution.

Thanks Fixing001 (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article must be uploaded back and edited with supervision. The article subject is legit. DSTR123 (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that DSTR123 and Fixing001 might be the same individual, given that the DSTR123 account was created today following this nomination and has only posted this comment thus far. Grabup (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grabup:, They likely are. SPI filed here. I believe the image uploads are a pretty good trail of breadcrumbs. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Based on my checking, I've discovered that sources are only WP:NEWSORGINDIA and press releases, sponsored articles, and interview pieces can't establish notability at all. The individual clearly doesn't meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG due to a lack of comprehensive coverage on the subject. Grabup (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Keep’’’ - The article subject has a 16year career where he has recently won Best Actor Awards in his field at International Film Festivals in New Jersey and Toronto. The notability can’t be debated with the individual being working with premium indian production houses like Mukta Arts, Emmay Entertainment, Applause Entertainment, T Series etc in leading roles with directors and co-stars who are also having a sterling background.. like Subhash Ghai, Anil Kapoor, Nikkhil Advani, Shefali Shah, Purab Kohli etc. The article references are cited from the premier news agencies of indian media viz..Times of India, HT, Rediff, The Week, Press Trust of India, ANI News, NDTV, Money Control, The Print etc. Mostly all the articles in India media are cited with references from the above agencies, if that’s the case, we may need to delete every article in Indian Films section.

This article must be added with citations available in the public domain and be made available. It’s a KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixing001 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is enough information on public domain for the credibility of the actor. The article needs more citations. Not all artist must have a comprehensive coverage, consistent qualitative work over a sustained period with accreditation from international film festivals and other platforms must be taken in account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E5:1041:EA04:B517:90B9:EDEE:D31E (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions (one for which he was nominated for a FF award; another that received minor awards; which also contributes to prove the roles were significant); his role in P.O.W. – Bandi Yuddh Ke can also be considered significant. So, at least 3. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with other AfD's I have requested this, can you show me the specific references that show notability? Simply having "various significant roles in notable productions" does not grant notability, it only says they "may be considered notable." --CNMall41 (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The actor debuted in a leading role with one of the most renowned and controversial director of Indian Film Industry, Subhash Ghai where he was nominated for Best Actor at FilmFare Awards. He has a list of projects where he has worked in leading roles with premier directors like Nikkhil Advani Radhika Rao etc. He has exhibited credible performances in numerous productions, some of them being immensely popular and genuinely praised for acting performances, like the ones in Black & White (2008 Hindi film) Sanam Teri Kasam P.O.W. – Bandi Yuddh Ke Kaun Banegi Shikharwati Mannphodganj Ki Binny Shadow Assassins etc. The actor has demonstrated acting calibre at par with the likes of his co-actors like Anil Kapoor, Naseeruddin Shah Lara Dutta etc. There are references available on the public domain. For Shadow Assassins, he has won Best Actor Awards.

Here are just some of the articles that are published where the actor is talked and discussed in a positive prominent light and not merely in mentionary terms. This merely are a few articles from only one of the indian publications, Times of India, TOI Entertainment.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/kill-terrorism-not-the-terroristshubash/articleshow/2849557.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anurag-in-black-and-white/articleshow/2917175.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/genres-dont-matter-says-anurag/articleshow/3184943.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/i-think-i-can-handle-the-curiosityanurag/articleshow/2864389.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/actor-anurag-sinha-to-marry-on-nov-19/articleshow/5156245.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anurag-sinha-wins-best-actor-award-feature-for-shadow-assassins-at-alternative-film-festival-toronto-altff-2023/articleshow/104649337.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/subhash-ghai-feels-inspired/articleshow/3973118.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/star-plus-p-o-w-bandi-yuddh-ke-gets-3-new-faces/articleshow/56625506.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anil-is-jealous/articleshow/2787866.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/another-honour-for-subhash-ghai/articleshow/3900541.cms?_gl

Again, all this issue of notability was only brought by the editor who flagged the article, when was requested on the Talk page to remove the paid templates as there was no citation of proof for payment by the artist in discussion for a period of two months or so. I still am not clear why is it happening here, where the article on this actor in discussion can easily be expanded with reliable reference and citations that are available on the public domain.

My perspective - The India media is suffering with the malady of copying and publishing information from one source to another and is suffocating genuine talents and films with the issue of paid marketing and publicity. If Wikipedia doesn’t provide a platform like its own of credible acknowledgement to authentic artists/talents, soon must find it surfeit with articles on Arts & Entertainment , that are already influenced and published under bias and discreet funding from production houses. Why are we not calling out the ones overtly known ? As for this article, this feels like a pitiful hassling over an unjust removal of a credible and relevant indian talent.

Comment Times of India is totally not reliable when it comes to BLP. They are known for their paid editing and promotional material. See WP:TOI and WP:RSN archives. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I went through all the sources cited in the article. Can't find any that satisfy reliability + independence + significant coverage. Most of the sources are about the movies the subject played a role in, with trivial mentions of him interspersed. I doubt the notability of the movies too, These are sponsored stories [28][29]. This is an interview. So not WP:IS. Alternative Film Festival best actor is not a significant award or honor. The article is just deliberate and malicious refbombing. — hako9 (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The article must be reassessed. The references are from the most read publication of India, TOI. Barring a few, the references are credible enough to abide by WP:NACTOR. The actor has worked as protagonists in films that have been notably popular. The present article is acceptably consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40d2:103a:b4e6:2d76:969:3718:41d3 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was Draftify‎ as per the request of established editors which also preserves attribution for any future merges or restoration Star Mississippi 20:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Kingdoms overthrown due to Muslim conquests edit

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

Fancruft-esque POV article backed by author's original research and synthesis of different sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent. Can't agree that this is made up by the synthesis of sources, as most of the list-type article exists similar way. As the author, I do agree that it appears in an abnormal way, and that can be overcome by copyediting. The idea of the article indeed notable.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent per WP:ATD; that page is over 12,600 words already, so any merge would be unhelpful for page length. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources in article and child articles show this subject has been discussed as a group meeting NLIST and it serves a navigation purpose for readers meeting WP:CLN. A merge would not improve either the content here or the target. I think this is an appropriate SUMMARYSTYLE split from Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent. If there are issues with the content, they can be cleaned up on the article talk page; any POV issues can be handled with cn and fv tags rather than afd. // Timothy :: talk 07:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally based on original research WP:OR and synthesis WP:SYNTH of different sources, which isn't allowed in wikipedia. Moreover, this is a fan page.

Based Kashmiri (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure trivia, xenophobic and full of WP:OR. I am sure we are not creating a List of Indian Kingdoms regained by Indians after Muslim conquests. ❯❯❯Pravega^g=9.8 10:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the mention of "Muslim" in the title triggers concern, I wouldn't object to substituting it with "Foreign." This adjustment would certainly broaden the article's scope, potentially addressing concerns about it being considered xenophobic (or the "Indian"). Never knew personal feelings are taken as a valid rise. Regarding original research, it seems that most list-type articles here follow a similar format; moreover, each entry appears to be properly cited, doesn't it?Imperial ^[AFCND] 12:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The concept of the page is based on WP:OR. What really constitutes as "Muslim conquests"? Was religious motive really involved in all these conquests? Is it really correct to generalize that whole period as the period of "Muslim conquests"? I don't think so. Suggested title change won't address it. CharlesWain (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant but asking if the same could be applied on Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent and List of early Hindu–Muslim military conflicts in the Indian subcontinent? I've asked about such naming in the talk section of Talk:List of early Hindu–Muslim military conflicts in the Indian subcontinent, and none was interested to involve in it. Imperial ^[AFCND] 17:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looks more like a fan page than a Wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi (talk • contribs)
Delete per WP:OR. A broad brush cannot be used for paintaining a very long period of history as mere "Muslim conquests" unless there are scholarly sources but they don't exist in this case. >>> Extorc.talk 11:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado: the above delete votes are IDONTLIKEIT nonsense. Don't worry about this discussion, the article clearly meets WP:CLN and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, even if it needs work.
Note to closer: If you intend to close as delete, I request a courtesy Draft on behalf of @ImperialAficionado: to preserve the contributor history. If you are not willing to do this, please WP:REFUND to Imperial's userspace (or mine) after deletion.

Thanks, // Timothy :: talk 13:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on this. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:02, 6 May 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.

Bandhan Mutual Fund edit

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

Trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. Citations are collections of paid news which are highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The primary issue arises from the editor's attempt to pass off two financial products (exchange traded funds), namely BANDHAN S&P BSE SENSEX ETF (BSE:540154) and BANDHAN NIFTY 50 ETF (NSE:IDFNIFTYYET), as company's own stock market listings, which they are not, thereby failing to adhere to WP:LISTED. A comparable effort was observed in the AFD discussion of Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance, wherein the company tried to be part of NIFTY 50 without proper validation. In a nutshell, the company falls short when it comes to meeting WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. To put it mildly, they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a banjo and their depth is about as shallow as a puddle in the Sahara. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mutta (tribe) edit

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

I couldn't find sources to show notability - I am aware this isn't my area though or language. Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 5 results show up if you search "Mutta people" on Google Books. [30] They do exist, but maybe they are a small community (I don't know) and not much has been written about them. However, I found 5 results on Google books alone. I haven't checked other venues like Scholar etc. If this is a keep, maybe changing it to Mutta people.Tamsier (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Mutta tribe definitely exists, i've been able to find some mentions of them on JSTOR and Google Scholar. Samoht27 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 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) 05:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chashni (TV series) edit

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

Notability issue. It's not even runed for 6 months. Xegma(talk) 07:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TV Series ran on Star Plus and streamed digitally on Disney+ Hotstar. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NTVNATL. Reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NTV Imsaneikigai (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redirect to StarPlus would be an acceptable WP:ATD but experience shows me it would likely end up in an edit war over the next year. The issue is not that the series exists, but the referencing. Notability is not based on WP:ITEXISTS. It is based on secondary "RELIABLE" sources. In this case, the sources cannot be considered reliable as they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. No bylines and churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:CNMall41, i have updated the article with primary and better sources, hope now it is better. Please suggest improvements if any and please reconsider your vote. Imsaneikigai (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You included one reference which squarely falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Byline is "web desk." Not sure how much clearer I can make this. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These references [31] [32][33] [34] are primary sources and also have bylines. These also do not have any churnalism. Kindly check. @CNMall41 Imsaneikigai (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interview with the actress about the actress and only mentions her role, This is an interview with the director which is not independent nor does it have editorial oversight, This is a brief announcement about it losing a time slot, and This is about an actress and only verifies she plays a role in the show, not in-depth about the show itself]. As previously stated, there is enough to verify its existence but WP:ITEXISTS couldn't be used as a valid argument. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This [35] interview is of the actor (hero) and not director, also can you explain what do you mean by "editorial oversight" because this article is based on the interview taken by the media house itself with the actor. Thanks. Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Editorial oversight is about fact checking. Interviews like this are not. Similar to you asking me a question and me answering, there needs to be editorial oversight where there is not in this case. I could say that I am a billionaire but without editorial oversight, there is no way to verify that. Regardless, it is not indepdnent and none of this is significant. AGAIN, it only VERIFIES the existence of the show, not establishes notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but how can you say that there is no reference that denies WP:NEWSORGINDIA? because there are personalised interviews of the cast with the specific media house like Times of India and The Tribune! Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I understand what you mean by "no reference that denies NEWSORGINDIA." The references you just pointed out are not independent and only brief mentions so there is no need to even evaluate them under NEWSORGINDIA because they couldn't be used to establish notability regardless. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to tag the articles/references i was talking about. This [36] the interview of one of the main cast about the track with The Tribune, second [37] this tells about the development a particular cast member has put to fit in role. Also this reference [38] tells us about the production phase of the series and is reliable as per WP:ICTFSOURCES Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming ad nauseam and seems to be grasping at straws at this point. I realize you have a passion for this as the creator the page, but these have already been addressed. Interviews are not independent - PERIOD - It does not matter that they verify. One of the references is about an actor losing weight for the show. It only mentions him as having a part in the show, not anything about the show itself. The BH articles clearly falls under NEWSORGINDIA if you look at the byline. This I know you are familiar with as you talked about bylines above. Not sure what else to tell you at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 20 April 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) 08:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A high profile tv series well sourced. Desertarun (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG as far as the basic skeleton of the article, but the plot summary needs to either get better sourcing or needs to be switched to a two-sentence logline. Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Can those voting !Keep possibly point out the references that show notability that do NOT fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA? I am seeing nothing but. I will gladly change my !vote if someone is willing to show me what I do not see. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what policy that is, as thats a redlink@CNMall41 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Me Da Wikipedian:, I fixed it. Two letters were transposed. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A number of the 'keep' !votes are on the weaker end, and I think CNMall41's question 6 days ago is a reasonable one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is well-sourced plus 6 month long run is not insignificant run. Pri2000 (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, can you point out the significant coverage that does not fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The series only ran for approximately 2.5 months. Despite being featured on a notable channel with a notable cast, the main issue with this article is its references. While it may meet WP:NTV, it certainly does not pass WP:GNG. & I agree with CNMall41's viewpoint, as it raises a valid point. ManaliJain (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @ManaliJain, I have just updated and sourced the plot as well as cited the cast with sources which I feel are sufficient to determine significant coverage and verifiability. Also I have removed no bylines references as well. Please check. Thankyou. Imsaneikigai (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolkur Sadashivapet Indian Railways

Proposed deletions edit

Files for deletion edit

Category discussion debates edit

Template discussion debates edit

Redirects for deletion edit

MFD discussion debates edit

Other deletion discussions edit

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]

^ Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2.
^ Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages.
^ Majumdar, R. C. (2009). History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume 04, The Age Of Imperial Kanauj. Public Resource. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. pp. 50–51.
^ Others, Muzaffar H. Syed & (2022-02-20). History of Indian Nation : Ancient India. K.K. Publications. p. 287.

[1] Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2.

[2] Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages.

[3] Majumdar, R. C. (2009). History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume 04, The Age Of Imperial Kanauj. Public Resource. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. pp. 50–51.

[4] Others, Muzaffar H. Syed & (2022-02-20). History of Indian Nation : Ancient India. K.K. Publications. p. 287.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]