Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

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

India

Añjana

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

Lack of reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 09:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source, the website https://mandalas.life, is definitely not reliable for this. Bishonen | tålk 10:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Nepal, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramam Raghavam

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

~~Not able to find two full length reviews in reliable sources and there are~~ not enough independent sources for GNG apart from routine coverage. Fails NFF/GNG. Draftify/ATDR - Dhanraj (actor). Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see enough coverage that GNG is met, especially since this is before release of the film. I'm willing to revisit in two to three months if the coverage completely dries up after release. —C.Fred (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you are seeing in the article is WP:CHURNALISM. Routine coverage of announcements, articles without bylines and interviews given as part of the film's promotion. If you actually thought that GNG was met here, then there would be no point in revisiting this article in two months. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful India

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

A highly promotional page for a non-notable fragrance brand. (Sample puffery: True to India’s philosophical essence and its universal message of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam—Sanskrit for “ The world is one family “— it is a reminder that we are all ONE and that PEACE is our true nature.) Not a single source would qualify for WP:NCORP; it's all press release-based churnalism, unbylined content in WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources, sponsored content, etc. Nothing qualifying found in WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and France. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Typical paid for advertorials and promotional content you would expect from likely UPE. Nothing meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly promotional and nothing to suggest notability. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatantly promotional, no sigcov. Procyon117 (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murugan Chillayah

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

Looking at the given sources:

[1] is not SIGCOV and only links him as a contact, also not independent as it's a partnership with his association
[2] and [3] do not mention him at all
[4] is IMDB
[5] is his association's official website (primary)
[6] only lists his association in a bullet list of many others, no SIGCOV
[7] is another of his websites
[8] is an interview he gave to a council his association joined, neither independent nor secondary
[9] is another SIGCOV-free bullet list
[10] doesn't mention him, and, looking at the context of how it was used, wouldn't have been independent either way
[11] is his speaker profile at an event, not independent
[12] is literally an advertisement
[13] is the same as the first source, but this time with the title of a different paragraph
[14] is yet another list with no content beyond names
[15] and [16] are open letters he helped writing, very primary
[17] gives me an error 404, but appears to be another open letter

All in all, out of 17 references, exactly zero provide secondary, independent SIGCOV, making this a very likely WP:GNG failure. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism, Malaysia, and India. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this link should work (grabbed from archive). You're right that it's just another open letter. Procyon117 (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vigraharaja IV's first war against the Ghazanvids

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

Regardless of the notability of the event (which I cannot check definitively, partly due to my lack of expertise in history in general, and partly due to some of the sources about this being books I do not have access to), it is clear that this article is almost wholly the output of an AI chatbot and therefore in dire need of WP:TNT. I am surprised that an obviously AI-written article has slipped below the radar for so long. Java Hurricane 19:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, India, and Rajasthan. Java Hurricane 19:47, 18 January 2025 (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/2025 January 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is poorly notable, and once I questioned about the existance of the battle by its name (earlier name of the article), the creator changed its name by thier own synthesis. There is no way anyone can create articles as such "X's war aganist Y", in MILHIST topic area, as it opens ways for many such poorly notable military conflicts. Also, the article lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources, and existing sources found to be lack reliability as it is built on many assumptions, like "thr ruler might have fought..." etc. Additionally we can see the creator used much offensive terms in the article itself (obviously targetting a community). --Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
note to the closer : Please check the background and edit history of the voters, as meatpuppetry and sock puppetry is common in this TA.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vinhere railway station

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

Is not notable. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 08:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 08:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JNN - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Konkan Railways. A quick google search only brought up info about the train timetable at the station, no other sources. TNM101 (chat) 08:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no explanation or justification for the claim that this station is not notable. Doesnt appear to be any WP:BEFORE research. Please come back with a better nomination statement. Garuda3 (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 17:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Konkan Railway zone: Doesn't look like this passes WP:GNG on its own, but redirecting to parent topic is preferable per WP:ATD. Java Hurricane 15:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Gopan Swami

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

Not encyclopedic. Just a sensational news in Malayalam media, see WP:RECENTISM. Lacks long-term notability and fails WP:EVENTCRIT. also refer WP:NOTNP. The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Hinduism, Spirituality, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's far too soon to decide if anything noteworthy has actually happened here, or whether events develop and go on being discussed in future years. So far it looks much as nom suggests, not encyclopedic material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Birbhum (1743)

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

This article relies heavily on works like "Seir Mutaqherin Or View of Modern Times" and "Hooghly: The Global History of a River," which are not widely cited or considered credible in scholarly discussions on the topic, violating WP:V and WP:RS. The article contains original research, especially in its narrative of Alivardi Khan’s strategy, which is not backed by verifiable sources, thus breaching WP:NOR. The battle is portrayed in a simplistic and historically inaccurate manner, failing to provide a balanced and comprehensive view of the Maratha-Bengal conflict, and the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources makes the event non-notable, violating WP:N. CelesteQuill (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A book published by OUP is hardly unreliable. Content disputes should be sorted out on the talkpage, not on AfDs. LucrativeOffer (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination, no significant coverage about this battle. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Minor military engagement, found no in-depth coverage in any reliable sources. Furthermore, Battle of Birbhum by name, doesn't exist as a battle by itself.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rudra Shiva (statue)

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

Fails WP:GNG: no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sources include two travel blogs, Tumblr, a Tripadvisor-like website, three websites promoting tourism in the area, and one news article. Suggest redirecting to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Travel and tourism, Mythology, Hinduism, India, and Chhattisgarh. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect: There does seem to be a book written about the statue which contains articles/chapters written by several scholars including Michael W. Meister and Hans T. Bakker. However, I cannot access this source presently, and the article in its current form doesn't really say anything that isn't already mentioned in the article about the temples, and I suspect parts of it were written using ChatGPT. -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex. RangersRus (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title of this article is actually not specific to the statue at this temple complex - Rudra is a name of Shiva / Siva (see Shiva, Rudra, and also [18], and there could be (probably are) many statues of Shiva in the form of Rudra. If anyone was searching for this particular statue, they would be likely to include a place name - and indeed, the book found by AmateurHi$torian and an article I found on Google Scholar [19] refer to it as the Tala Icon or the Tala Siva. (Both of those sources are already included as references in the article Devrani Jethani Temple Complex, though not in this article.) So I don't think it's an appropriate redirect. I think it might be more appropriate to include a photo of this statue and a link to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex in the Rudra article - or a list within that article of notable statues of Rudra - and certainly better to delete this, it doesn't add anything to what's already in the Devrani Jethani Temple Complex article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uttara Foods and Feeds

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

Seems to be written like an advertisement. May need a good dose of WP:TNT to encourage this article to improve since the issues with this article have existed since at least 2009. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and India. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty easy delete here, google search doesn't bring up any notability or significant coverage. Article is only referenced to the company website and also incredibly promotional. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't show notability, and a WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything that would meet WP:ORGCRIT. Bakhtar40 (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page and is written with WP:PROMO intent. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A redirect to parent V H Group could be a possible WP:ATD but not sure if that page meets notability so could be a waste of time. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rasha Thadani

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

The subject looks non notable. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON Zuck28 (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Women, Film, Television, and India. Zuck28 (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR as it says, "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films" but the subject has role in only one film. Taabii (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is not yet notable independently.. Fails WP:ACTOR for now. It is too early for a wiki page i think. Bakhtar40 (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Azaad (2025 film), which is her only project for now, or to the page on her mother Raveena Tandon#Personal life. Keivan.f^Talk 14:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Azaad (2025 film) or Delete. Only 1 film to her credit this is just WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:NACTOR with no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Subject has also not yet made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. RangersRus (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON, WP:NACTOR looks for multiple significant roles or winning a major award. One source is basically an interview which is nice for info, but interviews aren't independent of the subject and generally don't help show notability, especially when it's part of a publicity push for a film. Ravensfire (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON, WP:NACTOR as other upcoming projects with possible major roles are also not known yet Awsib (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient history of Bangladesh

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

POV fork of History of Bengal and content copied from elsewhere based on synthesis and misrepresentation of sources, this topic fails WP:GNG, there is no such thing as "Ancient Bangladesh", Bangladesh did not even exist as a polity prior to 1971, "the ancient history of Bangladesh" is a ridiculous neologism and an oxymoron that no scholarly source supports. All sources are referring to the region of Bengal, not Bangladesh. WP:TNT applies. Nxcrypto Message 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Hinduism, Asia, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Pakistan, India, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Mizoram, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. Nxcrypto Message 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at all of your edits on the Ancient history of Bangladesh I have noticed how you keep on mentioning 'POV' and how you believe I am POV pushing but even after reading Wikipedias page of POV pushing I can't quite seem to understand how I am POV pushing and unless I am mistaken, this page is within Wikipedia guidelines.

Regarding your claim of the page being a fork of the History of Bengal, you are mistaken. This page covers the history coinciding with the political borders of Bangladesh, today. This excludes the modern state of West Bengal and other parts of Bengal which are not within the confines of Bangladesh's border such as Tripura or the Barak Valley. Many pages have been published in this format for example the List of wars involving Bangladesh or History of Bangladesh or History of Bangladesh (1971–present) all of which do not include information for events occurring outside today's modern borders. This page also lacks information concerning specific kingdoms and events unique to the present day state of West Bengal such as the Suhma kingdom. As a sidenote I would like to add that I am open and happy to merge this article with the History of Bangladesh.GtAM6 (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination, I also note that GtAM6 has tried to merge the entire article into already large History of Bangladesh [20], perhaps in an attempt to bypass the impending deletion of this article.- Ratnahastin (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, concept of "Ancient Bangladesh" is anachronistic and unsupported by scholarly sources. CelesteQuill (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)— CelesteQuill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Horrible display of pseudohistory. Agletarang (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom RangersRus (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator's rationale is unclear. If there is a POV or content dispute, where is the discussion in the talk page? AfD is not a way to resolve a dispute. This article also doesn't seem to be on a neologism, rather about the ancient history of the place that is now called Bangladesh. The scope looks very clear to me and I don't see any reason to delete. The rest of the delete !votes seem to be "just votes" with one even being a WP:SPA. That makes it hard to assume good faith about the motivations behind this nomination. LucrativeOffer (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, The Topic (History of “Ancient Bangladesh”) is not mentioned in any of the sources (hence it's WP:OR). Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination, OR, WP:TNT, and because it's not even wrong. This is a fork of History of Bengal, filled with fringe ideas, and an ahistorical title. It's like creating an article on Ancient history of Canada. In 2025, everybody knows we have never intentionally published original research. Even a new editor should know. Bearian (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination. Behappyyar (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We have no article even on "Ancient history of India". Creating an article on "Ancient history of Bangladesh" is even more pointless. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Sharma (politician)

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

Political candidate who fails WP:NPOL as he has only held local office. JTtheOG (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Delhi. JTtheOG (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete the subject fails NPOL, as explained in nomination. The subject doesn't have much coverage rather than routine coverage of election related news. In absence of significant coverage in reliable sources, the subject fails general notability guidelines as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mayor of South Delhi though a local office but governs a larger area than most if not all Delhi Legislative Assembly members, mayors of big cities are generally assumed notable. Xoocit (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not candidate, but elected official of major city. Mayors of mega-cities, as has mentioned above, are generally assumed notable per Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES. Djflem (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
POLOUTCOMES is an essay, neither policy, nor guideline. It also says: Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville" This article is just that. The subject has not received any more coverage than any other incumbent/ex mayor or MLA/MP candidate. Nothing special to make him notable. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

POLOUTCOMES clarifies precedents and a points of view of many participants in AFD discussions, establishing a preference for Wikipedia users and editors for these types of articles and has been written by many of them, so it's not single author essay by any means.Djflem (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable local politician. Fails Wp:NPOL and Wp:SIGCOV. Zuck28 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The keep !votes assume notability, and I'd like to assume it as well, but I'm not sure being in charge of the South Delhi Municipal Corporation would automatically pass WP:NPOL, the sourcing in the article isn't WP:SIGCOV, and the only sourcing I can find that might be WP:SIGCOV is just election results. The keep !votes so far just assume notability. So as of now, delete, but I won't be surprised if this can be WP:HEYed. SportingFlyer T·C 07:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zoop India

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Zoop (company)

Articles for deletion/Zoop India

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

Fails WP:NCORP as no sources can be identified beyond WP:CORPTRIV or recycled press releases. Moreover, this article is nearly identical to the one that was deleted after a deletion discussion last year. The creator of that article was blocked as a spammer, and this could be the same individual, given the similarities to the deleted version. Yuvaank (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and India. Yuvaank (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: WP:G4 Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this would be borderline for WP:ORGCRIT but that's all I can find. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baidyapur Ramkrishna Vidyapith

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. I am tagging it after getting informed from another AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Balurghat_Lalit_Mohan_Adarsha_Uchchya_Vidyalaya, including a list of other schools that fail the same criteria. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and West Bengal. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the same criteria :

Digha Vidyabhawan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
--☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zuck28 (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page is WP:PROMO. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. No sources on the page. No significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant independent coverage to establish notability per WP:SCHOOL. It is mostly unreferenced, contains promotional content violating WP:NOTADVERT. Nxcrypto Message 19:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the following articles as having no claim nor proof of notability: Begri Girls High School (no claims, zero Google news articles), Bhogpur K. M. High School (primarily vocational, no Google news articles), Birsingha Bhagabati Vidyalaya (mentioned in passing in a single news article), Chakdwipa High School (one article 25 years ago), Chakdwipa High School (one teacher 16 years ago shared an award with 298 other teachers), Deshabandhu Vidyalaya (once hosted a political event), and Digha Vidyabhawan (zero reliable sources online other than the one already in the article). By comparison, tentative keep: Baidyapur Ramkrishna Vidyapith as having claims to notability (age of school and winning a regional championship), Aligunj Rishi Raj Narayan Balika Vidyalaya (twice in the news for academics), and Burdwan C.M.S High School (ongoing news coverage of academics). Bearian (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Gupta (software developer)

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

Non-notable businessman; fails WP:NBIO/WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to:

WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in coverage of other subjects ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29])
WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interview ([30])
His own writings ([31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36])
WP:PRIMARYSOURCE patent docs ([37], [38], [39])

A couple sources here don't even mention him ([40], [41]); perhaps they were included by mistake. I didn't find any other qualifying coverage in my WP:BEFORE search, and I checked for an WP:NAUTHOR pass but didn't find any independent reviews for his books. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, India, and Canada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I suppose there could be an argument under WP:NPROF#C4 based on being a contributor/editor for multiple textbooks and reference works, but I don't buy it at all — none of the works seem to be in wide enough use. I would also have to assume based on his bio that he has published in journals, but the name is too common for me to work out what he's actually published (Google Scholar says that the 'Deepak Gupta' listed as an author on one of his books has an h-index of 70, but it's clearly pulling together publications from multiple people with the same name). Agree that there's no indication of passing WP:GNG as a businessman or WP:NAUTHOR as an author, and I'm very, very sceptical that his research work could be enough for an WP:NPROF pass. MCE89 (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Software, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biplab Satpati

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

The subject does not pass WP:ACADEMICS. Taabii (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Education, India, and West Bengal. Taabii (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok delete it. I am leaving wikipedia btw. This is really depressing. Hypothetical Painter (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hypothetical Painter Pls read Wikipedia:Notability (people). Taabii (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An assistant professor who doesn't pass WP:NPROF. 268 total citations and an h-index of 9 is a long way off meeting C1, and I wasn't able to find any indication of major awards, editor positions, memberships etc. that could meet any of the other NPROF criteria. MCE89 (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPROF and GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not meeting PROF, appears to not be a highly-cited individual. Career is routine otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professors do not usually meet our standards for academic notability (the rare exceptions are often those with major international awards showing that they're already a star and their academic rank hasn't caught up). I see no evidence that this one is any exception. Citation record is not yet strong enough for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An assistant professor with an h index of 9 which i think is not enough to pass WP:PROF#C1 also he hasn’t received any prestigious national or international level award to claim notability. He also not being elected to any named chair in any university or high educational institution. Hence fails WP:NPROF. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Arya

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

Self promotional article about a civil servant. I have struggled with trimming the uncited text. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Promotion can be trimmed or improved. Prior to nominating this article you should do a WP:BEFORE. Your rationale should be emphasize notability and Significant Coverage. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I've further trimmed the text to match the sparse citations. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nasher Miles

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

Falls well short of the sourcing standards set at WP:NCORP. Sources are either WP:CORPTRIV fundraising notices or plain churnalism lacking a byline. The article content is also overtly promotional. Yuvaank (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, and India. Yuvaank (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and lack of significant coverage. I don't see how someone who raises a budget equivalent to a cafeteria has done anything notable, but an SPA thought it was. I don't see significant coverage, either. Bearian (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of miniature sheets from India Post

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

This page is just a plain a list and should be deleted and I'm not even certain this list of almost 300 miniature sheet from one country warrants a listing because they are not really notable and none appear to have their own article. Besides which, the prose does not directly even address the title of the page in any significant way. ww2censor (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but fairly weakly. It seems to me that these are an important commemorate feature in India and have been noted in various journals for Philately in India. Indeed it would be odd if they didn't. Second we have this kind of thing for various other countries including for example United Kingdom commemorative stamps 2010–2019 and whilst I understand WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I don't really see a strong reason to either !keep or !delete this kind of thing. JMWt (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt I agree that similar WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but this and the similar lists are essentially just extracts that exist in stamp catalogue with a few sources and wikilinks added. IMHO they really don't have much, if any, real encyclopaedic value or individual notability.

Manuel Cruz Darwin

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

Apart from co-producing some movies, the subject hasn't accomplished anything noteworthy for an article. All the sources are mostly promotional about the movies which he produced. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, no in-depth coverage about the subject in question. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources about him; all but one of the sources are either trade publications or churnalism - with the Times of India article about the film and its actors, not him. Bearian (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wesean Student Federation

AfDs for this article:

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

notability KabirDH (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, this fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. Without significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, the article does not meet the standard for inclusion. Chegouahora (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Chegouahora (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Fraternities and sororities, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The article violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and Verifiability policies. There are multiple Extreme POVs trying to link the group with insurgents by using “seemingly” valid reliable sources, but these have nothing to do with how the term is used by the organisation itself. Stating this the Etymology section is excessive and unsupported by reliable sources discussing the term in the context of the organization, violating WP:UNDUE. Also Newspaper sources merely repeating the organization’s claims do not meet WP:RS standards as independent, third-party references. I don’t feel the lyngdoh paper is reliable as it’s written by a high schooler and newspaper articles mostly just repeat what the organisation has said. So this article needs to be further cut down and taking all the sources into account I don’t feel it will should be more than 1-2 paragraphs long ZoUnified (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a separate discussion happening regarding the undue weight on the Talk page, and a possible RfC if additional edit warring occurs. The POV issues can be resolved without deletion/draftifying EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 01:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All the sources listed are Third Party and Reliable. There is also considerable coverage on the organisation that would support keeping the Wikipedia article on it. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there's at least one article on the page that meets WP:GNG as an independent secondary source and WP:SIGCOV from other sources. The Lyngdoh source, the currently used Haokip source and the Mokokchung times source would each, by themselves, fulfill GNG. By policy, this article's content may need better verifiability but clearly meets standards for inclusion as an article.

As an outsider to WP:INDIA, I've additionally observed bludgeoning with citation tags that have been mostly resolved as well as a lot of wishywashy claims of a lack of notability over the last day. If these stem from an objection to the WP:POV views on the term Wesea, wikipedia is not censored and it's merely an uncomfortable fact that Wesea is in the organisation's name. All of this is, of course, irrelevant to this AfD but is perhaps relevant context to consider given that the nominee did not explain at all what their concerns are. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fringe topic SN bastion (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— SN bastion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I am very surprised that there is this much coverage for a student group founded less than a year ago, but the sources narrowly get it over the line IMO. The best by far is the Haokip article, which seems to be a proper peer-reviewed journal article focused entirely on this group. The other sources are much less convincing. The Lyngdoh source is by a high school student and I'm sceptical that the site is a WP:RS. The other sources, including the Mokokchung Times, EastMojo, Shillong Times, and Hub Network pieces, don't have bylined reporters and seem to essentially repeat the group's announcements, so I think they should be discounted somewhat. But the Khasi language source is good, and the sources I can find make me strongly suspect there is much more out there in little-spoken northeast Indian languages that I'm just not able to find. I would also note that this group split off from Northeast Students' Organization, which seems to be unambiguously notable. So at worst I think this is potentially a case of WP:TOOSOON. MCE89 (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article clearly meets the inclusion criteria, contrary to the nominator's claim. The sources cited such as Lyngdoh,Haokip, Mokokchung Times and the Morung Express article strongly support the article's compliance with WP:GNG.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balurghat Lalit Mohan Adarsha Uchchya Vidyalaya

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

Non-notable high school (Fails WP:NSCHOOL) --☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and West Bengal. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well the school has created so many results. But the lack of media coverage made this school so infamous. My point is go search about other school page in west bengal where the pages are not so well organized and not even famous. So what is the point of delete this page even after so much of hard work to create it? If anyone can suggest to decrease the amount of writings, I will do it but please consider this page. Hypothetical Painter (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, with no significant coverage found online. This is a copy of Draft:Balurghat Lalit Mohan Adarsha Uchcha Vidyalaya by same editor, declined at draft four times. Wikishovel (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, is there any solution to fix it? Hypothetical Painter (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody consider to delete this school page which have created results but the writing in wiki is bad for you judges then please go through these schools which have no records of results, does not cite any sources and the writing even bad than this article:

1)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidyapur_Ramkrishna_Vidyapith

2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begri_Girls_High_School

3)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aligunj_Rishi_Raj_Narayan_Balika_Vidyalaya

4)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhogpur_K._M._High_School

5)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birsingha_Bhagabati_Vidyalaya

6)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdwan_C.M.S_High_School

7)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakdwipa_High_School

8)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charghat_Milan_Mandir_Vidyapith

9)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deshabandhu_Vidyalaya

10)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digha_Vidyabhawan

I can go on and provide more school list which does not have good writings and results. If you consider my argument, then this school must also be existed in wikipedia just like these schools. Hypothetical Painter (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. In fact, it suggests maybe even some or all of those other articles should also be deleted. Go ahead...try WP:BEFORE and then maybe nominate them for deletion. DMacks (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article. Hypothetical Painter (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks, close as WP:CSD#G7 per above? ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 04:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the edit patterns of certain accounts/IPs, I'd rather let this run its course to consensus involving others. DMacks (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them will be on for AFD. I will look on it further. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me when you do. Bearian (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baidyapur Ramkrishna Vidyapith if you see it. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. Claiming that "the lack of media coverage made this school so infamous," is not a reason to keep, unless there is some conspiracy in the media to blacklist the school. Bearian (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page is WP:PROMO. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Metalics and Energy

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and West Bengal. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this company is notable, or is little more than a holding company. Bearian (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with deleting the Shyam Metalics page. Instead, I propose marking it as a stub, indicating it requires expansion and improvement.

Shyam Metalics is a significant player in the Indian steel industry, and its presence on Wikipedia provides valuable information. Deleting the page would deprive readers of this information.

It is a Fortune India 500 company. Deleting the page would be unjustified; it should be retained and improved to reflect its industry importance. 115.187.51.153 (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IdeaForge

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Maharashtra. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is sufficient coverage such as Livemint, MoneyControl etc. Drushrush (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kamalakanta Nayak

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Subject works for Argus News, so the reference article mentioned is not independent of the subject. Online search results show coverage of another person, Kamalakanta, who is a para-athlete. Junbeesh (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Odisha. Junbeesh (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, cannot find any coverage too. Article was speedy deleted in 2021 as created by a sock, but I don't know whether the article was about another person like the mentioned athlete. Anyways Kamalakanta777 should disclose their WP:COI. Killarnee (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Narkar

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

Fails the notability test for politicians, and of course WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. A cursory search doesn't bring up anything useful. Also, peoplesdemocracy.in would be very much unreliable in this context, because it is not independent of the subject and would hardly be unbiased. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Theatre, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Without resorting to WP:OTHERSTUFF, I will like to draw attention to the amount of blue-links at Template:Democratic_State_Chairs. State chairs in Democratic Party are generally less important than state secretaries/presidents in Indian political party like CPIM which is one of the only six national parties. State presidents/secretaries are highest position in state unit of a party.

Multiple reliable media have covered Uday Narkar. What this article needs is improvement, not deletion. Besides People's Democracy is indeed a reliable sources for this because the citation covers just the event of state conference and election of Uday Narkar as state secretary. Besides he is also the member of Central Committee of CPIM. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently 16 citations are there (many Wikipedia articles only have 1-3 citations). More can be added with the passing of time. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was on the fence about this person, but the new trivia, unreliable sources and unencyclopedic content added by XYZ demonstrates that the topic is not notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:@Ssilvers Can you suggest some improvements? I think discussions are not for deletion only, improvements of Wikipedia are main motive. Which are the sources you think unreliable? Besides can you please the reason for which you were on the fence first? XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did suggest some improvements, which you undid. For example, Wikipedia articles do not include titles like "Dr." in the first sentence of the lead. Later in the article, you can say where the person earned a doctorate, if you have a WP:Reliable Source. Any fact that is not cited to a WP:Reliable source should be removed per WP:BLP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers Here is one of the citations. (https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/maharashtra-assembly-polls-cpim-12-seats-uday-narkar-interview-9597342/lite/) XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides this article contains many inline citations. Please make your valuable contributions such that this article can stay in Wikipedia. XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Now the article is filled with inline citations and passes WP:GNG. XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have assessed the sixteen citations. The intention was to demonstrate notability - it demonstrated the reverse.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) updated 22:15.[reply]
Comment : The Lokmat Times citation also adds a view of Uday Narkar regarding organising the march. : Keeping in mind the concerns arising out of the high temperatures, the organisers have made suitable arrangements for drinking water, shade, walking only in the morning and evening hours, etc, Narkar said.. Besides the citation on RTI activists adds his views on the matter and also indicates that he is RTI activist. Besides Daylight murder of democracy citation mostly adds his views only unlike the citation just before it where a press statement is released. I think the fact that he is a Central Committee member of CPIM is to be derived from the list of the Central Committee members only because how separate lines/paragraph on each member is possible. XYZ 250706 (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddy1@Ssilvers The motive of this discussion is improvement of Wikipedia. You all are requested to make your valuable contributions so that this article can pass GNG and stay undeleted. Besides one cannot deny that multiple reliable sources have mentioned and covered Uday Narkar and all the information I have derived is from those source only. XYZ 250706 (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@XYZ 250706 Please, do not remove or edit Toddy1's source assessment. Do your own source assessment without removing or replacing Toddy1's own. I just reverted your edit again as you've done it twice. Also, please read WP:BLUD, the more often you express the same ideas in a discussion, the less persuasive you become. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces I am not removing anything. I just added my own. Yes at first I misunderstood and thought that I have to edit the table. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Toddy1
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Shaikh, Zeeshan (1 October 2024). "CPI(M) sets sight on 12 seats in Maharashtra Assembly polls, says MVA not properly engaging smaller allies". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 5 October 2024.	~ A newspaper interview with the subject	~ Interview about the party, not about the subject	~ Partial
Jadhav, Rohidas (17 June 2019). "SFI State Camp Plans Series of Student Struggles in Maharashtra". Students' Federation of India. The subjects and the teachers in the four-day class were as follows: ... 6. What is Socialism? – AIKS state vice president Dr Uday Narkar		Passing mention	✘ No
Narkar, Uday (3 April 2022). "Maharashtra State Conference of CPI(M)". People's Democracy.	The subject is the author	Passing mentions	✘ No
"Author: Uday Narkar". LeftWord Books.	His publisher's list of authors	~ Short biography	✘ No
"Democratic Centralism: CPI(M) 23rd Congress and Central Committee". Advocatetanmoy Law Library. 24 August 2024.		Passing mention	✘ No
"Central Committee Elected at the 23rd Congress". Communist Party Of India (Marxist). 2022.		Passing mention	✘ No
"Defying police notice and heat, Maha farmers start 52-km 'long march' in Ahmednagar". Lokmat Times. 26 April 2023.		Passing mention	✘ No
"Trouble for MVA as ally CPI(M) plans to contest 12 assembly seats in Maharashtra". Business Today. 1 October 2024.		A summary of The Indian Express article of 1 October 2024. Mentions the subject 5 times, but says very little about the subject.	✘ No
Pawar, Tushar (2 October 2024). "CPM urges MVA to finalize seat sharing ahead of polls". The Times of India.		Mentions the subject twice, but says little about him.	✘ No
@cpimspeak (May 11, 2024). "Marathi Editions of Prabir Purkayastha and Justice K Chandru's Books Released by Janshakti Prakashan in Mumbai" (Tweet) – via Twitter. Director of 'Janshakti' and Editor of 'Jeewan Marg', Dr Uday Narkar, introduced the work and the recent titles of the publishing house.	Twitter - Communist Party of India	1 mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"Dr Uday Narkar". Ballotbox India. 5 October 2023.	ballotboxindia.com		~ 1 paragraph biography	? Unknown
"About Us". Janwadi Lekhak Sangh.			This source is cited to say what Janwadi Lekhak Sangh is. The page does not mention the subject.	✘ No
"Over 50 RTI activists attacked in Maharashtra". Daijiworld Media. 22 February 2015. Activist Uday Narkar said, "Kolhapur has been called the home turf of progressive movements. Comrade Pansare has been insisting that it is no longer so. Over the last few decades the reactionary forces, rabid specifically Hindutva forces have gained grounds in Kolhapur and neighbouring areas."			Quotes the subject twice	✘ No
"Release Elgar Parishad political prisoners: CPM". Pune Times Mirror. IANS. 24 December 2022. Archived from the original on 15 January 2025.			~ Article about CPI(M)'s demands. The subject is their spokesman. Big photo; 1 quotation.	~ Partial
Bose, Mrityunjay (11 January 2024). "Death blow to democracy: CPI (M) on Maharashtra Speaker's Sena split verdict". Deccan Herald. Bose, Mrityunjay (3 July 2023). "Daylight murder of democracy: CPI(M) slams BJP over Ajit Pawar's flip to Shinde camp". Deccan Herald.	Each "story" consists of a statement by the subject	~ Reliable as a statement of the subject's view	~ About CPI(M)'s views; very limited indication of notability of subject	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment : Here is the assessment table based on current citations. XYZ 250706 (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:XYZ 250706
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Shaikh, Zeeshan (1 October 2024). "CPI(M) sets sight on 12 seats in Maharashtra Assembly polls, says MVA not properly engaging smaller allies". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 5 October 2024.	~ A newspaper interview with the subject	~ Interview about the party, not about the subject	~ Partial
Jadhav, Rohidas (17 June 2019). "SFI State Camp Plans Series of Student Struggles in Maharashtra". Students' Federation of India. The subjects and the teachers in the four-day class were as follows: ... 6. What is Socialism? – AIKS state vice president Dr Uday Narkar		~ Mention of him being AIKS Maharashtra vice-president and giving lecture in SFI seminar	~ Partial
"CPI(M) Maharashtra State Conference Concludes". Communist Party of India (Marxist). 26 March 2022. Retrieved 20 January 2025. The 23rd CPI(M) Maharashtra state conference concluded with Comrade Uday Narkar being elected as State Secretary.		Coverage on his election to the post of CPM Maharashtra state secretary replacing Narsayya Adam.	✔ Yes
"Author: Uday Narkar". LeftWord Books.	His publisher's list of authors	~ Short biography	✘ No
"Democratic Centralism: CPI(M) 23rd Congress and Central Committee". Advocatetanmoy Law Library. 24 August 2024.		~ Mention in the list of the members of Central Committee	~ Partial
"Central Committee Elected at the 23rd Congress". Communist Party Of India (Marxist). 2022.		~ Mention in the list of the members of Central Committee	~ Partial
"Defying police notice and heat, Maha farmers start 52-km 'long march' in Ahmednagar". Lokmat Times. 26 April 2023.		His quote on the organisation of the march is given	✔ Yes
"Trouble for MVA as ally CPI(M) plans to contest 12 assembly seats in Maharashtra". Business Today. 1 October 2024.		~ Indicates that he took part in MVA seat sharing discussions	~ Partial
"Seat allocation to be declared soon: Narkar". The Times of India.		Mention about subject's taking part in MVA seat sharing discussions	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
@cpimspeak (May 11, 2024). "Marathi Editions of Prabir Purkayastha and Justice K Chandru's Books Released by Janshakti Prakashan in Mumbai" (Tweet) – via Twitter. Director of 'Janshakti' and Editor of 'Jeewan Marg', Dr Uday Narkar, introduced the work and the recent titles of the publishing house.	Twitter - Communist Party of India (Marxist)		~ Mention about publishing Jeevan Marg and directing Janshakti	~ Partial
"Dr Uday Narkar". Ballotbox India. 5 October 2023.	ballotboxindia.com		~ 1 paragraph biography	? Unknown
"About Us". Janwadi Lekhak Sangh.			This source is cited to say what Janwadi Lekhak Sangh is. The page does not mention the subject.	✘ No
"Over 50 RTI activists attacked in Maharashtra". Daijiworld Media. 22 February 2015. Activist Uday Narkar said, "Kolhapur has been called the home turf of progressive movements. Comrade Pansare has been insisting that it is no longer so. Over the last few decades the reactionary forces, rabid specifically Hindutva forces have gained grounds in Kolhapur and neighbouring areas."			Mention of his views on the matter and also indicates him being RTI activist	✔ Yes
"Release Elgar Parishad political prisoners: CPM". Pune Times Mirror. IANS. 24 December 2022. Archived from the original on 15 January 2025.			~ Article about CPI(M)'s demands. The subject is their spokesman. Big photo; 1 quotation.	~ Partial
Bose, Mrityunjay (11 January 2024). "Death blow to democracy: CPI (M) on Maharashtra Speaker's Sena split verdict". Deccan Herald.		~ Reliable as a statement of the subject's view	~ About CPI(M)'s views; very limited coverage on Subject.	~ Partial
Bose, Mrityunjay (3 July 2023). "Daylight murder of democracy: CPI(M) slams BJP over Ajit Pawar's flip to Shinde camp". Deccan Herald.		~ Reliable as a statement of the subject's view		~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

B. K. Goenka

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

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Just a detailed resume WP:NORESUMES. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was an AfD discussion in the past Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balkrishan Goenka, which should be considered for this discussion. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 5 is a RS, briefly mentioning him in relation to the company. 8 is about his housing, 11 is about a lunch conversation with him, 15 is him giving his opinions... Some coverage about the Welspun company. I don't see notability for this individual with the sourcing used, nor can I find much else. The rest of the sourcing aren't in RS or don't help notability. Still not seeing enough to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Kejriwal

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

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the whole page resembles a detailed resume WP:NORESUMES. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just routine and trivial coverage that doesn't stand out. Procyon117 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pantnagar Seeds

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

Nothing to find WP:RS. No evidence of Notability. Fails WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Uttarakhand. Bakhtar40 (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The academic sources available in Google Books and Google Scholar suggest that there is a case for notability on the basis that Pantnagar Seeds played an important historical role in India's Green Revolution. These are a few of the better academic sources I found: [42] [43] [44] [45]. There are also a number of book length sources that seem potentially useful but that I can't access beyond snippets. I don't think there's an WP:NCORP pass based on more recent sources, but I'm undecided on whether the historical significance is enough to merit a separate article. I'm probably leaning keep, but I'm open to the argument that the topic is already covered adequately in G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology and that this should be redirected there. MCE89 (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am agree with you that this could be redirected to G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. Bakhtar40 (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindu empires and dynasties

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

The article contains significant inaccuracies. The term "Hinduism" is not applicable to the time periods of ancient era, as only Brahmanism was present. The article incorrectly categorizes several non-Hindu dynasties as Hindu, spreading misinformation and distorting historical facts. This misrepresentation goes against the core WP:NPOV and WP:V. The article fails to cite WP:RS, and promoting various hoax in terms of factual accuracy in listing. Mr.Hanes Talk 14:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Hinduism, Lists, Asia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, India, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, low quality is not the same as lack of notability. In this case, there is no doubt that there have been many dynasties in India (however that region is construed). Citations definitely can be found; most of the entries are clearly correct; the rest can certainly be remedied by normal editing, which is not an AfD matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Indian empires and dynasties as the most states on the list were actually Indian or situated in Indian subcontinent. In this sense renaming would be appropriate. Mehedi Abedin 23:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything in that list is in Indian subcontinent. Some are from southeast asia, such as Majapahit and Srivijaya. They are among the two biggest Hindu empire outside India. The only reason that it looks insignificant because the list is very poorly written, making them easy to miss. - Ivan530 (Talk) 19:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have many other lists, like List of princely states of British India (by region), separately List of princely states of British India (alphabetical), List of Rajput dynasties and states, List of dynasties and rulers of Rajasthan. To avoid even more duplication, I think that continuing the current scope (sticking to the Hindu kingships would be wise). Викидим (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree, the Hinduism is of later origin, whereas in place of modern Hinduism, Brahmanism was present in ancient India. The article inaccurately cites several non-Hindu dynasties as Hindu, which is historically incorrect and misleading. Nxcrypto Message 05:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along the lines of WP:TNT due to WP:OR. I have spent a significant amount of time trying to figure out the origins of dates and locations in this list, and can testify that the format of a list is uniquely unsuitable for looking at really deep layers of Indian history. Essentially (please note that I am not an expert and not even an amateur in this area, so please take this with a grain of salt), there is no written history that pre-dates the 1st millennium AD, and no chronicles for a long time even after that, the first definite royal dates apparently are from the times of Guptas. While this is generally not a problem for a researcher, putting a verifiable date of an early Indian history into a table is usually not possible. Note the cite requests I added to all the dates of the 2nd millennium BC, predictably, no sources were added. As a practical example, let's take the first entry in the list (it actually became the first after I have removed the earlier mythical empires with completely random dates to the bottom of the list), Kuru kingdom. This list states 1900BC (note the exactness), our own article says 1200 BC. The issue in reality is so much harder than our articles portrays, there are tons of texts written trying to date this (non-mythical!) kingdom. Quoting our Kuru kingdom: The main contemporary sources for understanding the Kuru kingdom are the Vedas. But ... practically all historians agree that Vedas were written down in the 1 millennium AD and thus cannot be "contemporary" if 1200 BC date is to be believed, and also contain very little in terms of dates in general, and definitely nothing so precise for the Kuru Kingdom. As an example of a professional's assessment of Kuru, one might want to look at Michael Witzel's work, The Realm of the Kuru: Origins and Development of the First State in India. He plainly states: our approach has primarily to be a textual one; there remains little else that can tell us something about this period ... yet after some 150 years of study, the Vedic period as a whole does not seem to have a history. He continues: the first fixed date in Indian history that is usually mentioned is that of the Buddha around 500 BCE. In an earlier work Early Sanskritization. Origins and development of the Kuru state Witzel states, The evolvement of the small tribal Bharata domination into that of a much larger Kuru realm is not recorded by our texts. The Kurus suddenly appear on the scene in the post-Rigvedic texts. Once again, there is nothing wrong with this material, but it cannot be neatly packed into a table. Therefore, the only way for us to write this list is to find a modern chronological source and base the list on it. Attempts to haphazardly create our own list based on disjoint sources will miserably fail as the purest WP:OR. Until such a source is found and agreed upon, this list will only sow confusion among our readers. Once the source is found, the list will have to be written from scratch anyhow. Personally, I would propose to start with [46] (please read the one-paragraph introduction!). --Викидим (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looking at the article, though not well written, i will go for keeping it. There is always scope for improvement in this area. Rahmatula786 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this a topic that is covered in this particular way by WP:Reliable sources? We can't really keep this if it isn't. TompaDompa (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that so-called topic Hindu empires and dynasties in this specific form is not covered by reliable sources. Most scholarly works discuss these kingdoms in terms of regional history, political evolution, or religious influences, but not as a consolidated list with a clear focus on "Hindu" identity. This leads to a reliance on synthesis and original research, violating WP:V and WP:NOR. The article perpetuates inaccuracies by including non-Hindu dynasties and presenting speculative timelines, which distorts history. Mr.Hanes Talk 04:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IN my search for sources, I have discovered few Hindu kingdom lists, but they were much shorter and quite focused on some aspect of the total set. Викидим (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's the definition for "Hindu empire / dynasties" here? Because from the list's lead and Kingship (Hinduism) I assume that it's Empire / dynasties that adopt Hinduism as it's religion. But from the way it's mentioned in this discussion multiple times, it might means something else. Am I missing something? - Ivan530 (Talk) 06:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to my modifications of the lead, it read The following list enumerates Hindu empires and dynasties in chronological order. Pinging @Fidolex: who wrote it back in 2018. My interpretation was simple: Hindu indicated adherence to Hinduism, not some particular geography of era, so I have added a link to the (newly created) Kingship (Hinduism) in 2024. Researchers routinely use terms like "Hindu kingdoms/dynasties" to denote the monarchies that were based on Hinduism principles, similar to other state religions, so this interpretation is not my WP:OR. See, for example, [47]. Викидим (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaavya Sha

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

From a WP:BEFORE, I am unable to find any independent sources with significant coverage. The only sources I could find with SIGCOV are interviews /wedding announcements, which are ineligible towards GNG. NACTOR is also not met here, as none of these roles are significant enough to warrant a separate article. No plausible ATDR either. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Maharashtra. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per references from The New Indian Express, The News Minute, The Times of India [48], [49] and her work in many notable movies as mentioned in the article. Behappyyar (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more references to it. And Despite this, it is incomprehensible to tag for AfD after a senior editor has already reviewed it. Behappyyar (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There certainly seems to be more than just passing coverage in the Times of India sources.--Ipigott (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WP:GNG, significant coverage from reliable for establishing the notability of a topic. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 08:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ipigott and S-Aura, would you mind mentioning the WP:THREE best sources or the sources you think help the subject pass GNG or NACTOR? It would be great to see a source analysis, as all I could find is routine coverage and nothing independent of the subject. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Loudspeaker (2018 film). Clearly the only named member of the cast and her only lead role [50]. DareshMohan (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: To Loudspeaker (2018 film), the better option. Claims notability in someway but lacks sufficient reliable sources to fully support this claim.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Shende

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

1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, & 6th sources are his orgs [51] [52] (second one is just homepage) [53] [54] [55], 3rd he is just quoted [56], 7th is a PDF of a powerpoint [57], 8 & 9 are some reports he edited [58] [59], 10th is an award which does not mention him (and is mis-atributed in the article to the US EPA instead of UN) [60], the 11th is about an EPA award that is only mentioned by a WP:NEWSORGINDIA [61], 12 is a link to a newspaper archive page [62], 13 is a conflict of interest form PDF? [63], 14 is a broken link, 15 is a duplicate of 11, 16 is a release by his university [64], 17 he is quoted in just one sentence [65], 18 is a link to the Wikipedia article on the Montreal Protocol, 19 & 20 are links to his website, 21 simply states he was at an event [66], and 22 is a dead link. 🄻 🄰 15:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and India. 🄻 🄰 15:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Only two sources give WP:SIGCOV and one of the two came from an organisation where he worked so that can't really be considered as WP:RS. Mekomo (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World-2023 ESN Publications and London Organisation of Skills Development Ltd

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

Gimmick mainly sourced to glorified press releases like this one. No lasting notability. Fram (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, India, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fram. While the sourcing of this topic could use improvement, I would like to argue that holding a Guinness Book of World Records title does, in fact, meet Wikipedia's lasting notability requirement. Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on my previous message, I have not found any rule for Wikipedia in reference to the sources I used being ineligible. Additionally, if you are implying that it's notability would be taken when the record is surpassed, I would like to inform you that the book will still have held the record for every year that it has earned the title. (e.g. World-2023 ESN Publications and London Organisation of Skills Development Ltd held the title for thickest unpublished book between 2023 and 20XX.) Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "glorified press releases": If your argument is that these sources fall under the Breaking News violation, I must point out that every news source that has been sourced in the article was written well after the book won the award, which occurred on July 6, 2023. Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing to do with "breaking news", just that they aren't independent, reliable sources, but WP:NEWSORGINDIA ones. As for being a Guinness record, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources has an entry for Guinness, "There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage." Fram (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing links to your claims. Overall, I think the argument that is being gathered is that the topic World-2023 appears to be surrounded by paid or sensationalist sources. Like I said in my second message, many of these articles were written long after the book's creation, and they all appear to provide consistent claims pertaining to the topic. None of these articles push any form of advertisement, whether it be for a product or an event. Regarding WP:NEWSORGINDIA—I must stress that it states that caution should be exercised when using sources such as these, rather than prohibiting it. And for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources, again, this says to be cautious rather than forbidding editors from using this method to prove an article's eligibility. The argument that the Guinness Book of World Records may include paid coverage does not apply here because again, nothing is being promoted. I understand that this may not be your argument, but furthermore, I must stress that both of these sources talk about caution rather than prohibition, and I do not think that being a grey area should be the determining factor when deciding to delete the article. Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Agree with nom. This is a gimmicky stunt more than a book. Covered in sources that are not reliable, and that have the tenor of announcements and public relations. No significant coverage. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there Steve! Respectfully, I'm disappointed to see that you have not responded to any of the claims that I made in my previous response and seem to have just regurgitated Fram's most recent message. In reference to "fails GNG," I would like to direct you here (I'm not citing this as policy notice, just something to keep in mind). As for your second claim, I am going to repeat myself for a third time because it would appear that both of you have only taken cursory glances at the sources. All of these sources discuss the ceremonies thrown for individual participants who won awards for participating in the book's conception, instead of promoting the book itself. They were all written at different points in time, and none were published around the time of the book's reveal, which does not support Fram's "Breaking News" argument. I must emphasize that both of your citations say to proceed with caution when approaching a topic rather than forbidding using these methods to prove notability. I must also lend credence to the point that this is the thickest book known to exist. You are both relying on "maybe, maybe not" arguments to support the need to delete this article, which is ridiculous. Wikipedia does not forbid using the Guinness Book of World Records as evidence for notability. There is no consensus. If you would like further evidence to support this claim, please click here. I appreciate the diligence that both of you have in regard to upholding Wikipedia's reputation, but your claims are not sound. Have a lovely rest of your evening, Steve. Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Guinness record entry on the list of reliable sources literally says there is consensus that it doesn´t count towards notability... Fram (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fram. Despite what the description says, it is tagged with "no consensus," which heavily implies that it is a case-to-case situation. Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus about the general reliability of it as a source, but there is, as explicitly noted, consensus that it should not be used for notability. Fram (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, I did read your "claims" before I responded, and on that note, that is exactly what they are - "claims." In other words, mostly opinion that does not carry the weight for notability on Wikipedia. So, please don' tell me what I did and did not do. And I did not regurgitate Fram's message. I came to my own conclusions. Also, to be honest, I don't care about any particular person being disappointed. I am not here to gain your approval. And being disappointed is not germane to notability criteria so it is a waste of space in an AfD.---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Steve. I would like to note that the argument that you are making towards me can be made right back at yourself, as again, you have not cited any out-right prohibitions, only maybes. You have not brought anything new to the conversation and you have not made any attempt at retorting my counterclaims. I will stand by what I said in my previous message, you sent the same message as Fram, just reworded, and that is does not add anything constructive to this debate. As for your not caring whether or not I am disappointed, I was being facetious. I apologize if that made you upset. Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The essay that was linked to entitled "Don't cite GNG" is irrelevant. I am citing that sources for this topic fail GNG, and SIGCOV based on the rationale I previously mentioned. And I do agree with Fram that these sources are promotional. I have been on Wikipedia for quite awhile and I can tell promotional and overblown wording and content from sources that have journalistic integrity. Hence, this topic also fails WP:NOTPROMO. Fran said nothing about Breaking News. The Guinness record entry literally does say that there is CONSENSUS "that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability." If you don't understand consensus that please see WP:CONSENSUS. And my general advice is - please stop WP:WIKILAWYERING ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Steve. "Don't cite GNG" is argument presented by another user in which they claim that using GNG is more of a "rule of thumb" rather than policy. While I understand that this is just an argument, it helps to support some of what I have been trying to explain over these past couple days. Again, for a fourth time now, I do not think that you have done any comprehensive research into the content of the articles, but instead took cursory glances at the names of the sources and then immediately came to your own conclusion. I understand that you most likely have many articles to review here on Wikipedia, and so I do not blame you for doing so. You are correct on the "Breaking News" claim, though, that was my mistake; Fram does not appear to have made any claim about this. Again, like I told Fram, while "that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability" is the message that appears next to the Guinness Book of World Records, it is still tagged with "no consensus." Finally, I want to end this latest reply by saying I am not on here to make enemies or to start arguments. But if someone is going to terminate something that I have invested my time in, I am going to do what I can to defeat it. I would also like to point out that you violate some of the points in the first couple of bullets in WP:WIKILAWYER as well. Have a lovely rest of your evening. Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding your incorrect reading of the Guinness entry doesn´t make it any truer. There is co sensus about the reliability of Guinness, but there is consensus that it doesn´t count towards notability. Fram (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I want to make this statement in reference to everything that has been said so far. Before I do, I apologize if I have made any of the users in this space upset with my words, it was not my intention to be aggressive, but it is apparent that I came off that way. While I understand that you are both citing technicalities as reasoning for the article's lack of notability, I must not that this is still the thick known physical book to have ever been bound. Regardless of sourcing, I would challenge anyone who does not believe this topic to be notable to provide me with evidence that anything thicker exists. It's existence is evident in the photo that I have provided. Thank you for your consideration. Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is much more than a rule of thumb. That along with SIGCOV are fundamental for presuming a given topic should have a stand-lone article. If these were merely a rule of thumb then Wikipedia editors would have no standards to go by. Also, regarding the Guinness entry — consensus is developing here that it should not be used to establish notability, in spite of the message that appears next to the Guinness entry. Tis is because, in this instance, this topic, along with Guinness World's Records itself, are promoting each other. Additionally, I don't see anyone who has been aggressive here, so please don't think that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bollajira Aiyappa

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

I removed a chunk of copyvio text from the article that had been copied from the first reference [67]. The remainder does not seem to establish notability under any criteria that might apply, e.g. WP:NACTOR, WP:NBUSINESS (as founder of a publishing house), WP:GNG. Although there are many references in the article as it stands, they are all passing mentions rather than WP:SIGCOV. There are no linked articles in other language Wikipedias, and my WP:BEFORE turned up no reliable sources with significant coverage. It is of course possible that there is sufficient coverage in local offline sources, in which case I would happily withdraw my nomination. SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and India. SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shukra (film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Some sources are simply the trailers, and nearly all of the cited reviews are listed as generally unreliable on WP:ICTFSOURCES (123telugu, IndiaGlitz, FilmiBeat), or don't provide enough coverage (Telangana Today). No idea about the reliability of the 10tv.in review, but the theprimetalks.com source looks more like a blog. It is entirely possible that I missed some coverage in Telugu, so please ping me if more sources are found. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arvind Krishna (actor): A film requires two full-length reviews to pass WP:NFILM. We have one from Filmibeat which although considered an unreliable source, was written by a seemingly reputable journalist, Rajababu A. There is another review from NTV which has a byline. The remaining reviews available online do not have bylines. I believe the film was released during COVID19, so there'll be less coverage compared to others. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @ARandomName123 This is Sazh, and I had the privilege of working with team of Shukra. As noted, the film was released during the COVID-19 period, which significantly impacted its promotional activities due to limitations faced by the PR and digital marketing teams, and my sincere thanks to @Jeraxmoira for identifying the review from NTV. Considering these unique circumstances and the challenges in sourcing comprehensive reviews for the film, I kindly request you to review the provided sources and issue the clearance! Thesazh (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not advisable to create articles in which you have a conflict of interest, nor is it advisable to reveal your identity. The promotional activities by PR and digital marketing teams will likely have no impact on a film's notability because the criteria for inclusion are very different. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira I understand the concerns regarding conflict of interest and the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's neutrality and notability guidelines. My intent in mentioning the promotional challenges was to provide context about the film's limited media coverage during its release period, not to justify its inclusion based on PR efforts. Thesazh (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ARandomName123 @Jeraxmoira Shukra -Film - Telugu Wikipedia Thesazh (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --Frogmaster 19:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shivkrupanand Swami

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated following deletion in 2020; sources continue not to support WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Sources are:

Sponsored content (Forbes "BrandConnect")
Unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA promo ([68], [69])
WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or non-mentions ([70], [71], [72])

More of the same is all that comes up in WP:BEFORE search: [73], [74], [75]. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Spirituality, and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above source analysis Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much PROMO, this is typical [76], rest of the sources are as explained aobve. I don't see enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Current article primarily relies on Indian media sources(WP:NEWSORGINDIA), many of which have questionable reliability. The Forbes India article explicitly mentions that it is a "Brand Post," meaning it is a paid article. Therefore, the article completely fails to meet WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines because the subject has been covered by multiple independent, reliable, While some may argue that the coverage is predominantly local, this claim does not fully reflect the range and scope of the sources cited. The Times of India and Forbes India. This article completely meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG with significant coverage If there is a promo content it can be removed. SATavr (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes is sponsored content, as above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one argues the coverage was local. We argued the coverage was unreliable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of any reliable sources. If anyone can find and add independent, secondary sources to the page, I am open to changing my mind. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found with passing WP:SIGCOV As he suggested comes with reliability [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], and [84]. Rais Mastin (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA items except for this one, which is a WP:USERGENERATED reader blog post on an Indian news site, and this one, which is an official bio and thus both a primary source and non-independent. This item is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Moreover, all of these are already discussed in the nomination statement. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- This article has enough sources to prove notabilty, The person is also Author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.58.131.52 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aishwarya Rutuparna Pradhan

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

I could not find significant coverage about this person. Fails WP:GNG. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and India. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. TheOilSpillExpert (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are sufficient sources available online, many of which are cited within the article, with WP:SIGCOV that meets WP:GNG. I suggest, before nomination, do conduct a thorough WP:BEFORE, as even a simple Google search reveals extensive coverage of the subject. Strong sources within the article include NDTV, IndiaTimes, TOI, and Better India. Additionally, outlets like Indian Express, The Hans India, The Hindu and SheThePeople provide enough depth to satisfy GNG. There are likely even more sources in Odisha-language media.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MimsMENTOR. The sources he found include significant coverage up to 2024, so it is also WP:NSUSTAINED. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of sources on the subject and most seem reliable (although I'm not very familiar with Indian news outlets). Tserton (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Minister's Cup 2024

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NEVENT, tried to move to draftspace for improvement but the creator reverted the action. I brought it to AFD to avoid move-warring. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, India, and Uttar Pradesh. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Editors may recommend for draftifying if necessary. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creator (me) reverted back by improving what reviewer told to improve

I added more sources

If needed more

I will add more

But aren't enough sources are given for a single exhibition match trophy cup? Sid Prayag (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improved the article.. Look again into it Sid Prayag (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect with Kolkata Derby – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A whole new cup? a whole new event organized by other.. How can i mix it. Shouldn't it have a separate article for itself Sid Prayag (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I have provided many sources of media house covering this cup. Isn't it significant coverage? Sid Prayag (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—No reason to merge. Clearly not notable. Anwegmann (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KDK Softwares

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

See previous deletions. Unable to meet WP:ORGCRITE. This is a promotional article as well. B-Factor (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, India, and Rajasthan. B-Factor (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi B-Factor,
I’ve made several updates to the KDK Softwares article to address the concerns you raised regarding notability and promotional content.
1. Notability: I’ve added independent sources, which provide coverage of the company’s history, partnerships, and industry role, which I believe satisfies the notability criteria for organizations (WP:ORGCRITE).
2. Neutrality: I’ve reworded sections that previously may have sounded promotional.
3. Citations: I’ve ensured that every single sentence in the article is now backed by a citation, and the references are from independent, reliable sources.
I believe these changes address the concerns and ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards. Please review the updated version and let me know if there are any further issues that need to be addressed. ShaliniTaknet (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: correct title for article appears to be KDK Software, which was speedy deleted as spam in 2011. I can't find SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources to show how this meets WP:CORP, just passing mentions like this, interviews and paid placement like this, and social media. Sources cited are press releases and run-of-the-mill coverage verifying that the company exists, but now how it's notable. Wikishovel (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susovan Roy

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor, doesn't passes WP:NACTOR. I got a mail from User:Xegma, they written, Hi Taabi, this is my article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susovan_Roy why you tag deletion for it. Please remove it. I'm that actor pls withdraw it. They also closed the discussion and drafted the page. It's a clear WP:COI. The closing admin can ask me for the proof of their mail, I'll be happy to share. Taabii (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and West Bengal. Taabii (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here as I did at ANI, Xegma is p-blocked from this discussion to avoid further disruption. They're welcome to contribute elsewhere. Star Mississippi 15:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per their roles in those two series "Anandamoyee Maa", "Korapakhi" and modeling works with several known brands. HeMahon (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Roles mentioned above are not significant roles. Notability is not inherited from notable brands he may have worked for. Sourcing is dodgy PR pieces pretending to be real articles. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naale (film)

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

Two unreleased films that fail to establish notability. The first film may have been unfinished, which is why it is listed here as a short film [85]. The first film was also incorrectly listed on the 2008 list of films, but the sources were emerging in mid-December 2008 and a release seemed unlikely [86].

In an attempt to salvage, the film article I added information about the second unreleased film, all passing mentions.

Additional sources assessment table

Source	Reliable?	Significant?	Notes
Indiaglitz [87]			See Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Guidelines on sources.
Filmibeat [88]

Although, I find this database site dubious [89] Kailash29792 assured me of its usefulness for Malayalam cinema. It lists all of the released films and some unreleased films. While it lists the 2017 version as unreleased (first with a pink U and then with [ പുറത്തിറങ്ങാത്ത ചിത്രം ] (transl. [Unreleased film]), it has no mention of the 2008 film, so without a doubt that film was never released. Without proper sourcing, redirect to Dileep filmography, the only page where it is mentioned. DareshMohan (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it for now. no indication of notability and yet unreleased. sources are only spreading buzz around whether it'll will release or not and other things. HeMahon (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Beniwal

AfDs for this article:

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

Here we are again, a year after the fourth deletion discussion was closed as Delete. Speedy was declined so we are here to decide yet once again if this meets notability guidelines. Nothing since the last AfD shows notability. Note that most of the press is from reliable sources, but it is all similar to this which is unreliable churnalism and falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2025 (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) 20:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging everyone from the last deletion discussion to see if they see anything I don't as far as notability that has taken place since this was closed in 2023. @Worldiswide:, @Mooonswimmer:, @Edwardx:, @Pharaoh of the Wizards:
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources 2 and 7 are RS, but trivial coverage, barely anything beyond a paragraph. This [90] is about what you find, celebrity shares photos. This [91] is barely longer than a paragraph. We don't have enough sourcing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR or WP:ENTERTAINER as Harsh has had played significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows. He has played an important role in the film Student of the Year 2, played the lead role in the film Checkmate.. He has also played the lead role in the series Who's Your Daddy?, Who Killed Jessica?, and Heartbeats, also played an important role in the TV series Campus Diaries. This is an in-depth coverage which is talking about his journey. 1, 2 are reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jitujadab90 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is unreliable per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The other two were already decided in the four previous AfD's to not be enough. Looking closer, they are churnalism based off the announcement of his roles. What press can you provide since the last AfD that would be considered in-depth?--CNMall41 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checked WP:NEWSORGINDIA; not a single word is saying News18 is unreliable. So we can say News18 is a reliable source. The other two are not churnalism, as the two articles are written by journalists; the 1st is reported by Archit Mehta on May 7, 2019, and the 2nd one is reported by Sana Farzeen on April 13, 2019. Jitujadab90 (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Just because NEWSORGINDIA doesn't explicitly mention News18 among the examples it gives of media outlets engaging in churnalism, doesn't mean that News18 doesn't do that; a variation on the theme of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". In any case, NEWSORGINDIA is making the general point that "even legitimate" outlets commonly do this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, respected or legitimate news outlets sometimes engage in churnalism. But does this mean News18 is an unreliable source? If so, then on what basis will you judge that News18 is an unreliable source? Can you point to any policy that backs up the statement that News18 is unreliable? Jitujadab90 (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means that News18 shouldn't likely be used if you have better sources. Churnalism is the issue, not any news source in particular. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of these sources? 1 2 Jitujadab90 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one said the publication is not reliable. The source itself is unreliable per NEWSORGINDIA. There is no byline, it is marked as being created by "buzz staff" or "trending desk" which is a clear sign of churnalism. So, it is not that News18 isn't reliable...it is that particular reference in News18 that is unreliable. As far as the two you just posted above, they are not in-depth and the second one (the publication itself) is unreliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will stick to my vote to keep, as Harsh has more than 16 million subscribers on YouTube (according to WP:NYOUTUBE, Subscriber count helps meet the second criteria of WP:ENT). Also, he has had significant roles in multiple notable television shows such as Campus Diaries, Who's Your Daddy?, Who Killed Jessica?, and Heartbeats, thus satisfying WP:ENT. Jitujadab90 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That essay is a great guide, but there is no subject-specific criteria for notability on YouTubers. I do respect your contention and the right to vote !Keep however. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added more news reference which are reliableThe Pioneer, The Quint, Rediff (RS for subscribe count), The Statesman, News18 Interview Jitujadab90 (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is this article (or some version of it) fifth visit to AFD. It would help to get more of a consensus here and if recently identified sources were fairly assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per request when the discussion was extended, here is an evaluation of the sources just presented by page creator. Note that the last discussion was closed in October 2023 and some of these sources were from before that time. So, they were available to the nominator and four delete votes of that discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Daily Pioneer, from 2020 so not a new source. This is an interview and not independent.

2. The Quint, from 2019 so also not a new source. Blog which has no editorial oversight which by its own account "is not responsible for the accuracy and completeness of Blogger/Contributor content."

3. Rediff, from this year (six days prior to page creation). It is a listicle article where he is one of thirteen people listed and dedicates a whopping three sentence to him.

4. The Statesman, also available prior to the last AfD in 2023 and clearly NEWSORGINDIA (no byline promotional article).

5. News 18, also available prior to last AfD and its an interview so not independent.

1. The Daily Pioneer is a well-established newspaper with editorial oversight. Although the article is an interview, it still follows journalistic standards, making it an independent source of information.

2. The Quint, while it has a disclaimer for user-generated content, has professional journalists and editorial staff who ensure its articles meet journalistic standards. Its news content is independent and reliable. How can you say that The Quint article is a blog when it is clearly written and edited by professional journalists under editorial oversight? Can you tell why you are saying that the journalist is an individual contributor, not a journalist for Quint Media?

3- News18, a mainstream network, follows editorial oversight for all content, including interviews. Despite focusing on one perspective, interviews are a valid form of independent journalism. Jitujadab90 (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the interview is about Harsh Beniwal’s experiences and involvement in notable films and TV Series( SOTY 2, Campus Diaries) . It adds details about his career which is fulfilling the requirement of "significant coverage" under the GNG. Jitujadab90 (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not independent as it relates to showing notability in Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per the significant roles in notable productions that have him meet WP:NACTOR (after 2019, ie after the first AfDs). -Mushy Yank. 23:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still requires significant coverage to show this as the guideline only says "may" be notable. Can you provide links to that significant coverage?--CNMall41 (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Iqubal

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

Not a notable entrepreneur. Possible WP:BLP1E (Participation in Shark Tank India). ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: from what I understand he's joined Shark Tank as one of the Sharks, which isn't One Event - and he appeared in a Forbes 30/30 list years before then - so the coverage is WP:SUSTAINED. I would suggest that this individual is more wikinotable than the company he founded. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC. The coverage is only about being appointed as Shark Tank judge and nothing of that announcement present him as a notable entrepreneur. In fact, all sources related to the Shark Tank have same format starting from the headline or title of those pieces through the body of those articles. The other few sources are just passing mention. The Forbes article is not significant enough to demonstrate his notability. Mekomo (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is not notable, We came to know about him, only through sharktank. - Herodyswaroop (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that doesn't sound like a reason someone wouldn't be notable -- D'n'B-📞 -- 16:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Premier League awards

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

All this stuff can be and should be included within List of Indian Premier League records and statistics - similar to every other cricket leagues. Also, this page is just WP:NOTSTATS. Vestrian24Bio 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unusual that I simply say, per nom, but in this case that applies. A redirect might be possible and might just stop this article getting re-created Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because the IPL takes every stat is can think of an then sells someone sponsorship for an "award" for it, that doesn't mean we need this awards article. All sufficiently covered in the stats article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The closest analog is Women's Big Bash League, the longest-standing women's T20 franchise league. Women's Big Bash League#Season summaries has a table listing the recipients of the "Most runs", "Most wickets", "Player of the Tournament", and "Young Gun" awards for each season, essentially the same as IPL's "Orange Cap", "Purple Cap", "Most Valuable Player", and "Emerging Player" awards covered in this article. IPL's Orange and Purple Caps have also received significant independent coverage in major cricket news websites, such as ESPNcricinfo. The merge target proposed by @Vestrian24Bio, List of Indian Premier League records and statistics has a different scope, focusing on all-time records, analogous to Women's Big Bash League#Statistics and records. Finally, merging to Indian Premier League#Awards is not an option here as the main IPL article is 173,624 bytes (almost twice the size of the corresponding WBBL article). I would support the removal of sections covering sponsored awards of negligible importance — I would be surprised if the Visit Saudi beyond the boundary longest six award has received much independent coverage — but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Preimage (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Preimage: Not sure how this is relevant to WBBL, but even WBBL doesn't have separate articles for this... And also ESPNcricinfo isn't a news website but a WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 12:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio, you stated similar to every other cricket [league] — which is manifestly not the case. ESPNcricinfo (together with The Cricket Monthly, its longform magazine) is widely considered to be one of the top non-paywalled websites covering cricket. Even Wisden's weighted in here — admittedly, the first hit I found was an article on how cricket's long-standing focus on aggregate runs is statistically illiterate and should be replaced with Moneyball-style advanced metrics — but the point is that these awards are considered to be conventionally important. I'd support a merge into Indian Premier League if we could combine the 4/5 most important awards into a single table as the WBBL article manages to do. Merging into the records and statistics article isn't really an option though, its scope is just too different. Preimage (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Awards like Orange Cap, Purple Cap and MVP are all noteworthy and covered widely not only in India but outside India too: [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98]. In India, any changes to the holders of these caps and leaderboards receive extensive coverage throughout the season: [99] [100] [101] [102]. In fact, the caps are physically worn on the field by their current holders over the course of the tournament, so these are actual awards with significance and not just stats. As such, merging this article with the proposed target would not be appropriate. A like-for-like comparison would be the FIFA World Cup awards article which covers awards such as Golden Ball, Golden Boot and Golden Glove. The delete voters sound a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Yuvaank (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, my vote is based on this being a WP:CFORK of the stats article. I know what all these "awards" are. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except it isn't a WP:CFORK of the stats article and are actual notable awards as can be seen with the sources I presented. Your usage of double quotes for the word awards just goes to illustrate WP:IDONTKNOWIT unfortunately. Yuvaank (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FIFA World Cup awards won't even be a proper comparison as it's an international competition as opposed to IPL which is a domestic competition. Vestrian24Bio 03:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a domestic competition or international is besides the point. The basic premise of your nomination is that these awards are not notable and are merely stats. I presented sources from 6 different countries that prove that these are indeed awards–notable ones at that–which have received sustained coverage globally over the years. FWIW, here are some awards from domestic competitions: La Liga Awards, Premier League Golden Boot, Premier League Golden Glove, Bundesliga Awards. You also invoked WP:CONSISTENT in your nomination statement, which is a policy on article titles. Yuvaank (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERIT, individual coverage of Orange Cap and Purple Cap wouldn't make the list notable. Vestrian24Bio 01:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay and not a guideline/policy set in stone. The notability of the list itself is established by articles such as Scroll.in, The Indian Express, India Today, News18 and Wisden. It is seems individual articles on Indian Premier League Orange Cap and Indian Premier League Purple Cap, which were created by @Magentic Manifestations back in 2015, were merged into this list by @Vin09. I can see the reasoning behind the merge, although these two awards are likely to be notable in their own right. Yuvaank (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - People arguing for this topic being notable are arguing on the basis of individual items listed in it being notable, but notability is not inherited. Neither can an sub-topic inherit the notability of an over-arching topic, nor can an over-arching topic inherit the notability of sub-topics within it. Fails WP:LISTN. FOARP (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. IPL's yearly awards are presented as part of the post-match ceremony at the end of each IPL final. They are covered as a group each year in regular news coverage of the final (e.g. [103]), as well as in post-season articles like [104] (comparing ESPNcricinfo's own set of awards to the official IPL 2023 Orange Cap, Purple Cap, Player of the Final, and Player of the Tournament awards). Preimage (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I'd appreciate it if you could also comment on the merge suggestions: the original nominator's comment All this stuff can be and should be included within List of Indian Premier League records and statistics sounds like a proposed merge (to be posted at WP:PM) rather than an AfD nomination to me. If you do consider a merge appropriate, I'd argue that Indian Premier League#Awards would be the best target (as this list was a WP:SUBARTICLE split off for reasons of length), but I'm open to other suggestions: you clearly have more policy expertise in this space than I do. Preimage (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with a redirect/merge - it's verifiable content. Not sure about those sources: the first seems to be about the ceremony, the second about Cricinfo's stats. FOARP (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: sourcing, I'm working off WP:SIGCOV, which states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, ... [it] is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The topic of the article we are looking at is 'who won the IPL awards each season?'

The first source is titled IPL 2024 final awards and prize money: Complete list of winners including Orange Cap, Purple Cap and more. It's a beat report to inform readers 'who won stuff last night?', which starts by covering the events of the final, before switching to the award winners. It has a paragraph covering (what it presumably considers to be) the three most important awards, the Orange Cap, Purple Cap, and Emerging Player of the Season, then provides a full list of winners. While the article doesn't go into a huge amount of detail on each award besides listing its monetary value, the list of award winners shares primary-topic status with the winners of the final.

The second source is an ESPNCricinfo post-season analytics article discussing who they consider to be the most impactful players from the 2023 season. It closely references the major IPL award-winners, starting with its opening phrase: Faf du Plessis, and not Shubman Gill, is the most valuable player of the IPL 2023. It reminds readers that Shubman Gill won the MVP and Orange Cap awards two paragraphs later: The Player-of-the-Tournament and the Orange Cap winner Gill was part of a team that had more batters who took up the slack, before noting the Emerging Player of the Season, Yashasvi Jaiswal, was 3rd in their ranking. After more batting discussion, it switches to the bowlers: Mohammed Shami - the Purple Cap winner - came second to Siraj in terms of Bowling Impact per match. While the IPL awards are only a secondary topic of this article, it discusses the four most important/prestigious season-length player award-winners in detail, alongside comparisons to the players their analytics suggest were statistically the best. Preimage (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ESPNcricinfo sources fall under WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 03:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ESPNcricinfo article we've been discussing here is clearly an in-depth news/analytics article (WP:INDEPTH), rather than WP:ROUTINE event coverage. To quote @Black Kite from the latest (2023) WP:RSN discussion in which Cricinfo/ESPNcricinfo is mentioned, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 417#Reliability of cricket databases:
You're assuming that both sites are purely databases. They aren't. They're actually some of the highest quality sources for cricket, regardless of the fact that their websites also include databases.

Preimage (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay though, not a policy or guideline. The list's notability can be established by articles such as Scroll.in, The Indian Express, India Today, News18 and Wisden. Yuvaank (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the discussion on what should happen with this article continues up to today. There doesn't seem to be much debate about sourcing but about whether or not this article is a FORK and whether the content are just stats or notable subjects in their own right. And in the past day, participants have brought up the possibility of a Merge which I think is due more consideration. But if participants could just refer to policies, not essays, and give fuller arguments than just a Keep or Delete and consider other options, it will make closing this discussion in a few days easier.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jayant Kashyap

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

Non-notable individual. A lot of the sources are unreliable or primary. Doesn't meet WP:NBASIC and the creator of the article appears to have a COI. Frost 00:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and India. Shellwood (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Do credible peer-reviewed sources (or those managed by editors) over a period of time (at least since 2017) like The Poetry Society (UK), The Bombay Literary Magazine, Poetry Magazine, etc. count? As it is, one of his poems has been handed out in schools in the UK as part of a UK Dept for Education project. The same poem was presented at COP26, the United Nations Climate Conference, in 2021. His work is also known in the UK, with his forthcoming pamphlet having created somewhat of a buzz. Through The Poetry Society's partnership with the University of Hertfordshire to support their MA Animation students in producing animated films, one of Kashyap's poems was made into a short film. Several other videos of his poetry readings have also appeared on YouTube through different organisations. I'm curious—would any of this not count?

Jayant KA$HYAP (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! To clarify, things like "created a buzz" can't really be measured objectively – while it is a bi counter-intuitive, what we call "notability" is closer to "whether there is enough independent material to write an article" than to "how famous the person is". However, peer-reviewed sources commenting on him or his body of work would definitely count for notability. I haven't looked at them individually, but that is indeed very promising. The poetry readings aren't necessarily useful, as they would still be primary sources and wouldn't give more information than "X read this person's poem", except if there is significant commentary/analysis on the poems. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As mentioned before, I've made sure to use statements from different websites, such as where work is reviewed and not just published, with comments from editors of journals, or people who review his work. I suppose this will increase once Kashyap's new pamphlet is out (probably around May) but until then, there are a considerable amount of sources, including news articles and press releases, that have made a mention.

Also, since it is not an autobiography, nor am I connected to the subject of the article, I'm removing the autobiography tag from the top of the page. I removed one other tag, which mentioned a lack of backlinks(?) to this page –- this I did after finding links (for this page) to several other pages. Please do let me know if there's been an issue! Also, I intend to add more discussion about the subject from a few more sources I've found. Could you please review in, say 24 hours, with the point in mind that there'll still be some material to add? Thank you!

GreenBlast4 (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see notability yet. Two pamphlets and a zine, published by small non-notable presses, that's not enough for notability. In addition, much of the content (as the nominator and others saw) lacks proper sourcing. Like, this is supposed to verify that one of the subject's poems was nominated for an award--but this is a website that publishes one of the subject's poems, and the note about the nomination no doubt came from the author, before we even get to the notability of the award, "Sundress Publication’s Best of the Net", there's the question of a. why isn't there better sourcing and b. is a nomination for this worth mentioning in the first place. And that can be repeated for many of the factoids and instances of namedropping in the article. So, "His third pamphlet, Notes on Burials, won the Poetry Business New Poets Prize in 2024, judged by the poet Holly Hopkins"--yes, but who is Holly Hopkins, and how is that Poetry Business Award (the author's writing of the article notwithstanding) a notable award contributing to notability? Drmies (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, being nominated for both the Pushcart Prize and the Best of the Net is something big in the poetry world. People like Amitav Ghosh have won Pushcart Prizes, and there are more than a few famous poets I've read (and could name) who've been included in the BotN anthology. I remember seeing a blog post mentioning the same, and tried retrieving it best as I could – however, since you mentioned, here's a twitter/x link (from a different journal) nominated Kashyap's name: https://x.com/AtlasAndAlice/status/1707414323545493536. And oh, the magazine you noted: https://x.com/Briefly_Zine/status/1576968035248009217. As for the Poetry Business award, here's the Poetry Business article you could take a look at – I understand they're a big name in the UK, and the current UK Poet Laureate and the previous one were both first published by the said press. Friend, I understand you're making efforts to keep Wikipedia as reliable as one can, and I thank you for asking the right questions, and I understand the bit about notability. I'm still curious though that while many pages/articles with much less information are kept up, how is this one not good enough compared to those? Thanks again! GreenBlast4 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of Wp:SIGCOV in Wp:RS. And the creator’s username indicates possible COI. Zuck28 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above reasoning. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I've already made efforts to explain that there is no COI, and I'd request you to believe that. This may be supported by the fact that I tend to add to pages in this area extensively. While I do not imply that I cannot be wrong at any point since the creation of the page, and during the editing process (following which edits have been made – truth is this was my first article for Wikipedia that I've written from scratch, and it took me a while learning) I do wish to assure you that I've taken steps to add details extensively and without bias. I've written about other people whose focus is the same topic as Kashyap's, and I've done my best to be as objective as possible there too. In all of the cases, I rely heavily on extensively published sources, and cross-check all of my added data to ensure a lack of errors. For example, very recently, he's been shortlisted for the TFA Awards CWE which is a competition of repute in India, with coverage by The Hindu, etc. and I've checked all links available to add the same. After the final list is released, I'll be updating the same with improved/correct citations. GreenBlast4 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contus Tech

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

Can't see any improvement on significant coverage since its creation. Hardly to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, India, and Tamil Nadu. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups

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

Fails WP:NFILM. After multiple draftifications of the name variations this has been created under, an attempt at a redirect, now here we are. Nothing notable about the production and film still has no release date. Was scheduled for April and now nothing is confirmed. Would suggest a redirect or draftify but again, those WP:ATD have been explored. CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Previous deletion discussion here under one of the alternative names. Also see Draft:Toxic (2025 Film) (declined in November), Toxic (Indian film), Draft:Toxic (film) and Draft:Toxic (2025 Indian film). Other drafts have been merged or deleted under other names and I cannot find the history of those at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the main difference from the past AfD is that the film has commenced and completed filming. The big question though is if the coverage is in-depth enough to pass NFF. Unfortunately a lot of pre-release coverage (unless it's some majorly huge blockbuster) tends to be based on a couple of press releases. India related films seem to be particularly prone to this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I will say in this version's defense, this is better sourced than the one declined at AfC and the one that was previously deleted at AfD. It's all going to depend on whether the sourcing gives a good depth of coverage. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100% better referenced. The issue, which you talked about, is the quality of the press. A lot of this is churnalism, pre-release promotion, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I don't see significant coverage about the production and since it has not yet been released (and as of now we don't know if it will - the best clue is "possibly" December 2025) so there isn't even a review for it. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously an upcoming film from any industry won't have reviews and production details will be limited to avoid spoilers. Release date changes are common, even for Hollywood films such as Mickey 17, which had it's release date changed thrice (no "significant" production details are available for that film as well, and yet, that article has existed since principal photography began 3 years ago in 2022). Coming to Toxic, it has similar coverage beyond press-releases, including in the American media such as Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, to name a few. Not that Indian cinema needs validation from the West, but that sadly seems to be the case with Wikipedia. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Indian cinema shouldn't need validation from the West. However, it must still have significant coverage that shows how it is notable. Mickey 17 is an WP:OSE argument. Looking at the press for this film which you cited above, they are all based on press releases and are simple churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing even the American media houses like Variety, Deadline Hollywood, and The Hollywood Reporter of paid "churnalism" when it comes to reporting on Indian cinema? Also, OSE is an essay and not a policy, and as valid as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am making that accusation. But, keep in mind that churnalism doesn't need to be "paid." I think you are making an accusation that I am pulling things out of my rear with the IDONTLIKEIT comment. If so, please remember WP:CIVIL. If I read that wrong, then my apologies in advance. As far as OSE, one cannot dismiss it just for being an essay. It is widely cited and applies regularly in deletion discussions.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IDONTLIKEIT is as "widely cited" as OSE and is not a CIVIL violation. Even so, my statement was "OSE is an essay and not a policy, and as valid as IDONTLIKEIT", which in no way was directed *at* you. I have been perfectly civil with you, so please do not accuse me of doing things that I'm not doing. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misinterpret what I said. I never accused you of being uncivil. I merely explained how I interpreted what you said and actually apologized in advance if I read it wrong (written words are hard to interpret at times). --CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've taken a look at the sourcing and offhand, I have to say that I'm going to say that I'm kind of undecided on whether or not this passes NFF. The basic question we need to answer here is this: if the film were to never release, is the current sourcing enough to pass NFF?

The film industry in India is particularly prone to churnalism. That's kind of a fact of life, so when it comes to sourcing we can't just look at the quantity and publications - we have to look at the content as well. Offhand, I can't help but notice that the coverage is predominantly pre-filming. There's a decent variety of coverage here, as it's not too overly repetitive (ie, not all based on the same handful of press releases). However I'd like to see more coverage of the filming process, as it's not really resolving that basic question/concern. The Variety source is OK, however coverage of trailers tends to be seen as routine unless we have some sort of reaction to the trailer - like a review of sorts. That's missing in this Variety source, however I will note that I found it in this Collider source.

Offhand I'd like to look for more here. It's heartening to see that coverage for this is still rolling in, even with the absence of a set release date. It's not a situation where filming ended and there's just almost complete silence - the current coverage does give off the impression that it will release eventually. The question here is whether or not any of that coverage contains sourcing that could help show this passes NFF. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This film clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for films (NFF), thanks to the wide range of independent and credible sources covering it. Outlets like Variety and Collider are reputable and provide detailed information about the film's production and promotion. Yes, a lot of the coverage so far focuses on pre-filming, but that's completely normal for any film, especially one that's building buzz. Early coverage is part of how films establish their presence in the public eye. And here's the thing, as mentioned by ReaderofthePack, the coverage is still coming in, even without a set release date. There are no signs or credible reports indicating that the film won't release, so assuming otherwise would be speculative and just assumptions. On the contrary, the ongoing and consistent media attention suggests strong interest and momentum behind the project. The argument about 'churnalism' in the Indian film industry also feels overly broad. Sure, some media outlets might lean promotional, but you can't paint all coverage with the same brush. Notable global names like Variety, Deadline, Hollywood Reporter and Collider have written about this film. Finally, Wikipedia shouldn't focus on predicting the future and focus documenting what's notable right now. And based on the sourcing and interest this film has already generated, it's clearly notable. Shecose (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all coverage is painted with the same brush. However, it is not an overly broad assertion since the community has come to a consensus and created an information section about it called WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It is also concerning that you have bludgeoned the process in order to help promote the film. Wikipedia is not here as a promotional tool for film studios. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We both edit warred to maintain our views regarding this article. Repeatedly re-draftifying the article after objections from others and redirecting it thrice despite being edited by multiple editors without any discussion, is also a significant concern, also shared by others in the 3RR. You have also acted in a hostile manner towards me by reporting me in various places for questioning your actions while preaching cooperation and civility to others (as above). Now that we are here, let's focus on discussing the article and its notability. The article clearly meets the notability criteria based on the provided references. Also, I'm not sure how much you understand about films and fandom culture in India. Fans often get excited about their stars and their films, leading them to search and edit in this space. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they are promoting the film. Shecose (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't wish to write a wall of text to explain how WP:CIR. I understand where you are coming from as with only 77 edits it is hard to understand all of the guidelines that relate to notability and AfD discussions. I will just say if you feel I have acted in a hostile manner, take the issue to WP:ANI where it can be handled properly. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The two Keep !votes may not have taken into account the following restrictive sentence in the film notability guideline:
Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.
. The sources establish that there is significant coverage that the film is upcoming. They don't talk about the production itself, of a film that appears to be in post-production limbo. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

De De Pyaar De 2

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Not scheduled for release until November and nothing notable about the production. References are announcements or other churnalism. Attempted redirect but that was disputed. CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the PROD initiating editor to redirect instead of deleting. But since that was disputed, I don't think it should be deleted. It's a continuing sequel of an already existing article on wikipedia. The page should be redirected until release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameremote (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which was the original intention but now here we are unfortunately. I still think a redirect would be an appropriate WP:ATD but would need to protect the title so we don't wind up here yet again. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is vote by me. this film was supposed to release in May 2025, but due to certain unavoidable reasons, the release has been deferred to November 2025. Now the editor who has nominated the film wiki page for deletion says the film is too early and nothing substantial, and I also get to see a comment that says redirected. For both my request is please look into the below wiki links of Hollywood films set to release in 2025 & 2026, as well as Bollywood films set to release in 2025.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_films_of_2025
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_films_of_2026
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindi_films_of_2025

As you can see Hollywood films like Avatar: Fire and Ash OR Avatar 3 is releasing in Dec 2025, Now You See Me 3 is releasing in Nov 2025, Mortal Kombat 5 is releasing in Oct 2025, Even untitled films have well-established wiki pages even a Shrek 5 releasing late 2026 has a well established wiki page. As for Bollywood films is Jolly LLB 3 set to release in July 2025, Baaghi 4 releasing late 2025 has a well established wiki page. All these films have well established wiki pages, now if delay in release is the reason for deleting this wiki page, what is the 'guarantee' the above films will be released on said dates. Or if 'too early' is reason to delete this wiki page, same logic needs to apply to wiki pages of above movies mentioned. As for 'redirect', I find no reason for it as the film was delayed due to reasons beyond the makers control, so this film was delayed, otherwise the fim would have released on earlier mentioned dates. Will those voting to redirect or delete apply the same logic to above films. think about it. As for material as b when it comes that can be added. I hereby rest my case. Bonadart (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to be based on WP:OSE. Can you show how this meets notability under WP:NFILM?--CNMall41 (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this film is a direct sequal to a superhit movie with almost the entire crew taking part once again, is that reason not enough for notability. you call it argument unfortunately today people when have no answer to reason they call it argument, sigh. Bonadart (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term argument in that context does not mean anything negative. It means your "contention," "point," or "reasoning." Please don't go down that road. Now, as far as notability, I am unaware of anything in WP:NFILM that says direct sequals of a superhit movie are inherently notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete. Too early to pass WP:NFILM that has not even reached post production. Better to keep it in draft or recreate the article once significant coverage is available after post production or close to release date. RangersRus (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'that has not even reached post production.' how do you know? can you show anything that says so. makers have not specified any reason for delay as for shooting afaik mumbai, punjab and london schedules are already done, so invariably the film is in post production, must be there are some delays here. how i know!! well remember 'singham again' where ranveer singh made the famous dialogue 'parivar bhi badne wala hai' and deepika delivered her baby before filmn released. 😀😀 this clearly meams shooting was clearly over when she took maternity leave. normally bollywood films complete shooting within 6-8 month. so filmn is obviously in post production. so draft or delete dont stand. if you insist check Baaghi 4 Jolly LLB 3, Avatar 3 Now You See Me 3 or Mortal Kombat 5, and do share opinion on them. ciao Bonadart (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Production is the stage after production when the filming is wrapped and the editing of the visual and audio materials begins. Please do not bring other pages for discussion in this AFD. RangersRus (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you still havent answered my questions

1.'that has not even reached post production.' how do you know?

2. check Baaghi 4, Jolly LLB 3, Avatar 3 Now You See Me 3 or Mortal Kombat 5 based your assertion about this film, shouldnt these pages be removed as well

😀 i get it you got no andswer, period!!😀, or is it that if you try to delete these pages bigger players may come after you.

i say again, just bcoz this film has been delayed doesnt call for deletion or draft or redirect, you cant raise notability flag everytime without reason.

06:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Bonadart (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are attempting WP:BLUDGEONING and crossing WP:UNCIVIL behavior. You are also attempting WP:CANVASSING by asking other editor to vote in your favor. I answered your question already but you do not understand and gave you a definition of what Post production is. Source on the page shows the film is in the making and no other sufficient coverage to show otherwise and if you have concerns about any other pages on the films, you can file an AFD for them. RangersRus (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer. Bonadart attempted WP:CANVASSING requesting other editor to vote in his favor and bringing more votes to do so. RangersRus (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
chill i didnt know requesting for help is considered canvassing here, as soon as i was made aware of such i removed the help request, btw i have no interest in requesting for other page deletion/afd. i have problem with the way the editor CNMall41 behaved, the editor simply removed the entire page saying 'too soon' in edit note, when the makers changed the release date without giving any reason from 1/5/25 to 14/11/25. when i reinstated it the editor becoming aware of it, immmidiately went for deletion request saying notability issue. how come too soon becomes notability in a jiffy? it is for this reason i thought seeking help from anyone will help stop such disruptive editing n nomination. btw i am involved in film industry so i know a bollywood film takes 6-8 month to finish shooting and around same time to post production. as such in all sense n purpose this film is in post production even if details arent there. i hope i make myself clear. ciao Bonadart (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Curious, how were you made aware of WP:CANVASSING? Off-wiki communication? RangersRus (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually notified them with a warning for such on their talk page but they removed it. It's heading towards ANI unfortunately. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

V. Irai Anbu

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

Promotional article about a chief secretary in a state government. Not important enough for an article. 🄻 🄰 20:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Tamil Nadu. 🄻 🄰 20:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep This person is obviously notable. Adeline2018 (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a promotional article. He has been a popular figure in Tamilnadu among youngsters, as a motivational speaker and also has been a key bureaucrat in Tamilnadu for years so nothing wrong in having a page for him. Maybe we can reduce the contents in the page but not a promotional page for sure. Vishwa Sundar (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the page has been getting more than thousand views per month which shows people look this article to know more about him. So we need a reliable source for people who want to know about him Vishwa Sundar (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly not a valid reason for keeping the article. Badbluebus (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, but the article is promotional and needs cleanup. - The9Man ^Talk 07:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the list at Chief secretary (India), most of them do not have an article. Why is this one different? 🄻 🄰 11:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't arrange notability by subtraction. If you are concerned you are welcome to add articles for these people. Adeline2018 (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Adeline2018 (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

— Duplicate !vote: Adeline2018 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - when the work has been done to fix the issues identified, then we can consider WP:HEY. As is my usual practice at AfD, I won't !vote until the rescue is done. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~: I've gone ahead and removed most of the article as promotional and unsalvageable. There's enough material in Google News that the subject seems to me to pass WP:GNG. --Richard Yin (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the coverage in Google, most of it seems to be only mentioning him in the context of being chief secretary and the rest seem to be WP:NEWSORGINDIA. What are you seeing? 🄻 🄰 14:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upon a closer look at the news sources I think you're right. I don't like the idea of disregarding a large country's news media, but it does seem like most of the articles that cover the subject in any detail are either puff pieces or summaries of press releases. I'll strike my vote and switch to delete. --Richard Yin (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as editors arguing for a Keep are not basing their statements on policy or sourcing. Few people are "obviously notable" and this one isn't or the article wouldn't be nominated for deletion consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to be an author now, [105], although that's more of an interview. This [106], Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the cruft has been removed, but I still don't see significant coverage after I asked for it to be place in the article. I'm persuaded by the deletes. Bearian (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamluk Royal Family

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

Fails WP:GNG. See Draft:Tamluk Royal Family; draft was repeatedly declined and then finally rejected for notability reasons before being recreated in article space regardless. As far as I can tell -- and I used Google Translate to search the cited Bengali sources for mentions of the word Tamluk in addition to checking Google Books for English sources -- none of the available secondary sources pass WP:SIGCOV. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, India, and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sir check "Mahisya" word too..and it will pass..I have checked..I think we need bengali editors for it... KhasEkadashTili (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/History_Culture_and_Antiquities_of_T%C4%81mr/TCFuAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=tamluk%20royal%20family%20mahishya KhasEkadashTili (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Richard Yin (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KhasEkadashTili: Please read WP:Notability, especially the section on significant coverage. It is not enough if a source only mentions the subject. The source needs to spend significant page space talking about the subject in detail, and as far as I can tell all of the books on Google Books only mention the Tamluk royal family once or twice. If you can show a chapter of a book that is about the Tamluk royal family or a news article written about their history or something they have done, that might show that the subject is notable and should have a Wikipedia article. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I shall show 117.194.225.93 (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Gupta_Empire/uYXDB2gIYbwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=tamluk+royal+family&pg=PA139&printsec=frontcover from 139 117.194.225.93 (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=RmIOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA64&dq=tamluk%20royal%20family&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwjHrrmGw-aKAxV1VmwGHVrxCogQ6AF6BAgGEAM&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR13h8c4kgWqat_gafWeAFXhuey6d55hz8jVOeo_8yNe4pl546FZaDrW9ls_aem_DBnlnbChSJtaPQ9v0D0VAw#v=onepage&q=tamluk%20royal%20family&f=false KhasEkadashTili (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this Book there is a whole chapter for this royal family..it is in bengali + there is mention of tamluk royal family throughout the book :-- https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.303693/page/n9/mode/2up KhasEkadashTili (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Richard Yin (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://purbamedinipur.gov.in/history/ government document

https://www.news18.com/news/india/ahead-of-bengal-municipal-polls-royal-descendant-dipendra-narayan-roy-visits-voters-4771787.html 117.194.225.93 (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/A_Statistical_Account_of_Bengal/HNgMAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 page 62 https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/History_Culture_and_Antiquities_of_T%C4%81mr/TCFuAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=tamluk%20royal%20family this book is about tamluk and it has mentioned tamluk royal family multiple times 117.194.225.93 (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~https://amritmahotsav.nic.in/district-reopsitory-detail.htm?26147 KhasEkadashTili (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Sir I have added sources...check it!! KhasEkadashTili (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~https://www.telegraphindia.com/amp/my-kolkata/places/tamluk-a-port-city-as-old-as-the-mahabharata-yet-lost-in-history/cid/2028906 KhasEkadashTili (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Richard Yin (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

here is a source

[107]https://purbamedinipur.gov.in/history/?fbclid=IwY2xjawHrhzZleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHViXs5fyoJfVjCNxj4Czqq84XtauVUIKkwIVAQO5bDaMbxNzzoShG0o-iA_aem_325afzFF-Rf6zefgYRUqrQ Hamir samanta (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir here another source page 213

[108]https://books.google.co.in/books?id=DT-i9HWMeNYC&q=tamluk+raja+mahishya&dq=tamluk+raja+mahishya&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju9vuuyeaKAxXfUGwGHWZeJSg4FBDoAXoECAsQAw&fbclid=IwY2xjawHri8tleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHfwn9WHh0I78VyYVxEq0xu0XwuobnW2CkYMQ8_IGFsjzvMnAZyYDb2GLXw_aem_NpwPv57BqK4RYFDVwYaoHw#tamluk%20raja%20mahishya Hamir samanta (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamir samanta @KhasEkadashTili: The sources you've listed here go into detail on Tamluk the town, but none of them (that I can read) have more than one sentence about the royal family. I'll see if someone else can check the Bengali sources, but please try to look for sources that provide significant detail about the royal family, not just about the town or the ruined palace. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion here. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Reposted discussion thread here. --Richard Yin (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of evidence of sigcov. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CU Note I've blocked the article's author, KhasEkadashTili, as a sock of SWAPAN.CHAKROBARTY011112. Please disregard their comments in the above discussion. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – This topic is very interesting and has potential, but the article needs very immediate improvements and reliable sources. Otherwise, retaining the page in its current state would be difficult. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This topic has sufficient coverages in news medias -[109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117]. I agree with Jaozinhoanaozinho, this article has scope of improvements.Chanchaldm2 (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources listed here I don't think any actually provide WP:SIGCOV for the Tamluk royal family itself, but I do see significant coverage for some other topics. It might be appropriate to move (with substantial rewriting) to Surendra Narayan Roy or Tamluk Rajpari; alternatively the article could be merged into Tamralipta with a section about the legacy of its royal family. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(To clarify to closing admin: this is me offering a potential compromise for anyone interested in preserving the article's content. My preferred outcome is still delete, since of the many sources listed in this discussion I've yet to read one that appears to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, and I've read every one I'm capable of reading, either natively or through Google Translate) --Richard Yin (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of these sources is a WP:HISTRS. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to a merge either. If the article isn't improved from the current state, relevant contents should be moved to Tamralipta. Chanchaldm2 (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Richard Yin, not opposed to a merge. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is very far from a consensus right now and that hasn't been helped by sockpuppetry and iffy sources offered. So, I'm relisting this to get more feedback and, if editors are considering a Merge or Redirection, please offer ONE target article. If you want to rename this article, you'll need to argue to Keep it and then a rename can be considered. AFDs do not close as a rename as that's an editing decision, not a deletion decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. After evaluating the sources I did not find any significant coverage on the Tamluk Royal Family. Clearly fails to meet WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --Frogmaster 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P. Shanmugam (CPIM)

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

Becoming the president of a political party’s state or national unit does not inherently confer notability. The subject fails WP:GNG as no significant coverage has been found beyond the news of their appointment as the state unit president, making it a case of WP:BIO1E. Additionally, the subject fails WP:NPOL as they are not an MLA or MP. GrabUp - Talk 18:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Multiple reliable sources have covered P. Shanmugam. Hence this article definitely meets notability criteria. It meets WP:GNG and hence it can be added by WP:NPOL as Wikipedia writes : "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides P. Shanmugam is the secretary of the Tamil Nadu Unit and member of Central Committee of CPIM which is one of the only six national parties of India (which can soon be one of the only six as BSP can soon lose the status). XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides this article includes citations on his student activism, farmers's movement leadership including the historic 2020-21 Farmers protest in India, struggles for upliftment of Dalits and tribals and the event of getting Ambedkar Award. This article also includes citation on formation of a panel including him. He is often called the hero for the justice for the victims of Vachathi case. XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Secretary of a political party is not covered by NPOL. The only reliable coverage is the first source, that's not enough for our purposes to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, secretary in this case is the highest level of the state-level party hierarchy. Without resorting to WP:OTHERSTUFF, I think it's worth noting the amount of blue-links at Template:Democratic_State_Chairs, even though state party chairs are generally less important that state-level heads of parties in India. And independently of whether secretaryship carries inherent notability or not, P. Shanmugan is covered across multiple sources in his role of leading popular protest movements. --Soman (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Josh Brar

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

Unable to satisfy WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage. B-Factor (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and India. B-Factor (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable singer, going viral isn't the level of notability we need. [118] is an interview. Source 3 in the article is a list of many people, not mostly about this person. I don't see enough for notability at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
going viral is a context, hitting the charts across multiple countries is notability as defined by the notability guidenlines for Wikipedia Music pages. Wikpedia Music Guidelines notability also defines the release by a major record label as the current case is. There are more sources added by other users as well. G4gurpreet (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't guarantee notability, it's a sign the person could be notable. The Spotify charts aren't ones we use for notability and there is no other sourcing for any sort of charting... We can't use any of these. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a source from The Times of India, but I'm not sure if it helps. Aona1212 (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Machine Works

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Tamil Nadu. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One source and that is poor with no significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Annu Patel (via WP:PROD on 6 November 2024)
Medha Sharma (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Redirects for deletion

MFD discussion debates

Other deletion discussions

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