Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Delhi

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Delhi|~~~~}} 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 Delhi. 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 India.

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

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Delhi/archive

watch

Articles for deletion

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

The result was Withdrawn. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Manmohan (judge)

Manmohan (judge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Similar rationale to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navin Chawla (judge), there's little coverage that would suggest that they pass WP:GNG other than routine coverage of their appointment and cases that they have judged. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, India, and Delhi. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep on a liberal reading of WP:JUDGE which recognizes that a state-wide or province-wide office raises a presumption of notability. Although Delhi is under federal jurisdiction it is the National Capital Territory which we can treat as equivalent to a state or province.
  In that way he is similar to Helen Murrell who is the former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Australian Capital Territory, also not a state but a federal territory. He is unlike Navin Chawla (judge) who is a permanent judge but not chief justice. I offer no opinion on Mr. Chawla's page. Oblivy (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - chief judge of a federal district (equivalent to the District of Columbia) is probably going to be notable. The current sourcing is not great, but is acceptable; finding reliable sources coming out of India is a fool’s errand. Bearian (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Mammohan is the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court not a mere judge like Navin Chawla. Added references below.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Pharaoh of the Wizards: WP:IBTIMES is not reliable but all others are ok. Thank you for sharing that helped me cast my vote. RangersRus (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

References

• Keep. Notable Chief Justice of Delhi High Court from the coverage in somewhat reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Vishal Singh (politician)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Vishal Singh (politician)
• Articles for deletion/Vishal Singh (politician) (2nd nomination)

Vishal Singh (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is about an insignificant politician who is not elected to any state level, national level and even local level body. He is merely an officeholder in a government organisation. It fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Adamantine123 (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Adamantine123 (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: not elected to any legislative body, fails WP:NPOL TheSlumPanda (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for WP:NPOLITICIAN, as the subject holds a national-wide office, serving as the Chairman of the National Cooperative Consumers Federation of India (NCCF), the apex body for consumer cooperatives in India. The notability for politicians are not limited to holding legislative positions. WP:NPOL clearly states, "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.” National-wide office applies to his role at NCCF. The subject has held a few roles in other cooperative and government bodies in India, some of which are major, including being elected as a Director of NAFED[ref]. The page can be kept. --Vikasudayrajsharma (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: The subject appears to lack notability, having held non-notable roles at organizations of limited prominence. Alternatively, consider a redirect, such as to the National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India. Please see article hist for more information TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India, of which he’s chairman. I’m not sure if anyone will be looking for him under the phrase (politician) in the sense that he’s a party leader, not an elected official, but it’s a good alternative to deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet. As far as I understand it, "officeholder" in POL means being elected or appointed to a government position, agency or legislative body, not having a position or "office" in a NGO or other organization.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to the organization: as suggested seems ok. I don't think this is a politician, more of a civil servant. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete and/or redirect. The "national office" criterion in NPOL is referring to legislative offices, like the national legislature, and not to leadership of organizations. Leaders of organizations are permitted articles if they can be sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, but are not at all "inherently" notable just for existing, and this article is depending far too strongly on primary sources to claim that he would pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Closing per WP:SNOW (and the only conceivable merge/redirect target is currently oversighted and blacklocked -- we are in some truly grim days of the WWW). jp×g🗯️ 14:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Navin Chawla (judge)

Navin Chawla (judge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No WP:SIGCOV for the subject. In this refbombed blp, leaving aside the primary sources [1],[2] all the rest are trivial mentions.

In the discussion with one of the user on the talk page of the article, they I argue that

1) Verbatim quotations reproduced without any independent commentary from the reliable source, does not qualify sigcov criteria.

2) They I also argue that the SNG WP:JUDGE which presumes notability is not a valid argument to make, when the guideline says meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Also, the presumption does not hold if challenged by other editor. The guideline says topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia

Imo, the only contention that needs resolving is whether verbatim quotations from the article's subject qualify as sigcov. If they do, we could have perhaps an

• Indiscriminate list of cases heard by Judge Navin Chawla in Delhi High Court or
• Indiscriminate list of various oral arguments made by Judge Navin Chawla in the various cases he heard in Delhi High Court,

both of which wouldn't qualify WP:NLIST. Judges in India usually maintain a low-profile and media attention that the article's subject has received (partly due to wikipedia's circular reporting in Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation) is not an attention-seeking behaviour as per WP:LPI. — hako9 (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Delhi. — hako9 (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete there is no coverage about the judge himself, only cases he has covered. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Bus driver drive busses. Judges judge cases. Without secondary coverage, neither is inherently notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If we had a large number of articles about a bus driver's driving they would be notable... We also seem to have secondary coverage (that is we have sources talking about what other sources said about the subject) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, I think we're over the WP:GNG line into notability... Extended coverage of their legal opinions are as much significant coverage as extended discussions of anyone elses opinions. They don't somehow not count because the subject is a judge, there is no negative part of that notability standard. I don't buy the WP:LPI argument, they don't appear to meet the criteria as laid out. I would also note that the article currently only incorporates english language sources, likely there is coverage in other languages which can still be presumed to exist. I would also note that OP's opening statement is more than a little unorthodox, "Imo, the only contention that needs resolving is whether verbatim quotations from the article's subject qualify as sigcov" is just plain misleading because thats just not an accurate description of the coverage we have and you can't misrepresent the views of others like that (I think I'm the user they're trying to call out, but I didn't argue either of those things they're red herring). Hako9 also chose not to notify the other users they mentioned in the OP of this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Extended coverage of their legal opinions are as much significant coverage as extended discussions of anyone elses opinions what does extended coverage mean for you? Verbatim reproduction of oral arguments made by a judge during a court proceeding is the job of a court stenographer. The secondary reliable sources that have reproduced the quotes have not published their articles with the judge in mind. They published those because they are following the case. And once again try to not make ridiculous arguments like Wikipedia:But there must be sources!, and waste other editors' time. You insert yourself in discussions about topics which are out of your depth, and you try to make a lazy argument that there are sources but I just can't find them. Doesn't work. And explain how I misrepresented your views. — hako9 (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  The sources go well beyond just verbatim reproduction of oral arguments made by a judge during a court proceeding, they also talk about the impact of the judge's rulings and have third parties who offer their opinion on the arguments and/or their impact. It misrepresents my arguments because I neither argue that verbatim quotations reproduced without any independent commentary from the reliable source, does qualify sigcov criteria or that the SNG WP:JUDGE which presumes notability is a valid argument to make Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  The sources go well beyond just verbatim reproduction of oral arguments made by a judge during a court proceeding, they also talk about the impact of the judge's rulings and have third parties who offer their opinion on the arguments and/or their impact They don't. — hako9 (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Greco, Albert (2024). "The Impact of Legal, Intellectual Property, and Copyright Infringement Issues: 2000–2022". The Strategic Marketing of Science, Technology, and Medical Journals. Palgrave Macmillan. (wplibrary) Blocking Sci-Hub
• "Delhi HC asks Google, X to remove posts against Om Birla's daughter". The Indian Express. July 24, 2024.
• "Shankaracharya sues Govindananda Saraswati for calling him 'fake baba'; Delhi HC responds". Hindustan Times. August 13, 2024.

fiveby(zero) 17:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Reproducing the relevant bit However, by 2021, international concerns about Sci-Hub’s illegal activities became more intense, including a major litigation against Sci Hub in India, initiated by ACS, Elsevier, and Wiley, which triggered Sci-Hub to stop illegal downloads onto the Sci-Hub website.52 While the U.S. lawsuits posed some threats to Sci-Hub’s reputation, no financial payments were ever made by Sci-Hub to any of the plaintiffs. However, the litigation in India posed an exceptionally serious threat to Sci-Hub; and, for the first time, Sci-Hub decided to mount a serious defense before the Delhi High Court’s Justice Navin Chawla. Sci-Hub was concerned that its services could be blocked in India.53 This prompted Elbakyan to submit a written appeal to the High Court. A number of prominent Indian scholars supported keeping Sci-Hub on line; and they insisted that the loss of Sci-Hub would pose a serious burden on academics and students since blocking Sci-Hub would have a dramatic impact on scholar ship and research.54 However, Justice Chawla pointed out that Elbakyan’s written appeal to the High Court indicated clearly that Sci-Hub had “unequivocally admitted” to copyright infringement; and the Court ruled against Sci-Hub and the other defendants. Therefore, access to Sci-Hub in India was blocked.

Is this significant coverage of Chawla, according to you? I don't think so. Quite noteworthy for an article on the Sci-Hub case though. — hako9 (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This is similar to the run of the mill coverage in the dozen other sources cited. — hako9 (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

With ATG right now, but looking. Your nomination is offensive. It's not an uncontrollable itch. fiveby(zero) 17:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Could be my shitty sense of humor. — hako9 (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this what can one learn about Judge Chawla from any of these articles, except a) He heard X case b) He made Y decision. — hako9 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That it? WP cant inform anyone with that article is probably true tho. fiveby(zero) 18:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It is trivia. Not significant coverage. — hako9 (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, the HT article syndicated from ANI, is another in the long list of sources for which the only use in the context of the article in discussion, is making a list of cases where the subject presided over. So its not sigcov. — hako9 (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Liked the quote, it's covered elsewhere. They are political cases and best leads i saw for finding something. Everyone understands the point you keep making. fiveby(zero) 15:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been mentioned in Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 8#The Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation situation. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete not SIGCOV; Wikipedia's purpose is for noegenesis, not for infantile attempts to pester people you may harbour a dislike towards. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• I understand the uncontrollable itch that one could have when they have shit stuck up in their ass and there's no toilet paper. Is there some reason you're so rude and crude in your nomination? Please reword. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think hako9 is annoyed because he thinks people are creating Wikipedia articles for the deliberate purpose of antagonizing the judge in the ongoing WMF vs ANI case, even when they aren't justified by sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Then he should AGF... It appears that if the judge is notable they became so as a result of the coverage around that case so its a bit of a chicken and egg situation... I would also note that we have hundreds of pages for Indian judges which are less well sourced than this one, Jyoti Singh (judge) for example has almost the exact same experience, rank, and education as Chawla. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  A user as experienced as you should know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument at AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  I did not say it was notable because of that, I noted the apparent state of consensus. Do you have any comment on AGF and the chicken and egg nature of the alledged notability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yea we have plenty of articles that need to be trashed. Fortunately, we have a place called afd. — hako9 (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for rewording. I appreciate it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Weak delete Per Traumnovelle and ATG. Horse Eye's Back point is persuasive, however coverage thus far were about the cases, not the judge as a person. I would however consider otherwise if there are sources that studied his rulings. – robertsky (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - It appears that India's mainstream media — to avoid facing contempt of Court or otherwise — is reluctant to profile Judges; there is nothing even on Judges who have been appointed to the Supreme Court of India. I am sympathetic to HEB's argument but feel that the existing coverage is singularly about the cases, not the Judge. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. The sources either mention him in passing or quote his rulings; neither qualifies as SIGCOV. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Mike Christie, what would you consider significant coverage for a judge? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Articles in reliable sources that focused either on the judge himself -- his biography, education, and so on -- or his rulings as a whole, characterizing his judgements in some way. Those would be treating him as the subject of the source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Saying that they need to be treated as the subject of the source seems to go beyond the guideline which says that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." although I respect that where that line actually falls is a matter of personal judgement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  You're right of course, and in fact I had a slightly longer post originally, with parentheticals "(or at least parts of sources)" to make the point that I don't think that standard is met. I trimmed it thinking I was being unnecessarily wordy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. This page is created on 15-10-2021 [3] appears to be a reaction to recent events that have angered judges and may be related to a pending legal case. The sources cited on the page are outdated, suggesting that the page may have been created earlier but only published now. This timing raises concerns about its potential impact on the legal proceedings and violates Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZandraBlaese (talk • contribs) 10:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC) — ZandraBlaese (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  15-10-2021, 2024 you meant? – robertsky (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per ATG and TrangaBellam. One would have thought there would be something here for this level tho. fiveby(zero) 15:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC) Keep, since i guess we're abandoning principles here. fiveby(zero) 05:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's easy to post anonymously (we hope) on the internet and praise freedom, but external events can have serious consequences for some and removing public information about contributors for a period is probably a wise procedure. The article and talk page have been deleted and all edits, edit summaries, and user names have been suppressed so even administrators are unable to view them. Whether or not we agree with that action, a keep vote based on it is not valid. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not invalid, it's irrelevant. Not the closer's or the communities anymore (which would have been the right one). So why do you care how i vote? fiveby(zero) 08:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Delhi High Court, where the subject is mentioned, per WP:ATD. I find this to be a close case, as WP:JUDGE would apply if this was a national or state-level high court, and the court is itself a constitutional body in its country. However, I think this is more akin to an intermediate appellate court due to the Supreme Court of India having appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by this court. BD2412 T 01:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hm, so it's not a state, it's a Union territory. Live and learn. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  SCI has appellate jurisdiction over all state-level High Courts in India. That's a nonsensical reason. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Reliable sources mention the judge in connection with legal cases. Even if a case satisfies WP:N, that is not inherited by the person who happens to be judging the case. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Current events may result in more significant coverage down the line, but it's not there yet. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Draftify: The role of a judge is inherently tied to the cases they preside over and the judgments they deliver. And the notability guideline on SIGCOV does not mention that the coverage must focus on personal life or background, so coverage of rulings and judgments should be equally valid. Per Rjjiii’s comment, I believe we will have more coverage once the case is over. With this in mind, would those supporting deletion consider switching to draftify instead? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  Pinging AndyTheGrump, Hemiauchenia, Traumnovelle, Hako9, Robertsky, TrangaBellam, Mike Christie, ZandraBlaese, BD2412, Johnuniq, Rjjiii, GrabUp. Kindly ignore the ping if you are not interested in changing your stance. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  Given the circumstances I think deletion is preferable. Undeletion can always be requested later, you could also make a copy of it in a text file too. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  • I have no objection to draftification, but the link should still be a redirect, as a valid redirect target clearly exists. BD2412 T 12:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: I was also considering writing this article a few days ago, but while searching for SIGCOV sources, I only found coverage related to cases that are not truly SIGCOV. I would have created it as a pass under WP:JUDGE if the subject were a Chief Justice of that court. However, the current sourcing does not establish notability; the subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. GrabUp - Talk 08:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Yoginder Sikand

Yoginder Sikand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, Several articles authored by the subject are frequently cited as references; however, they have yet to receive significant mainstream media coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Jannatulbaqi (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Authors. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete no independent sources to establish notability, mainly are self published, fails WP:GNG. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I find several reviews of the books [4][5][6][7], also [8] (but I'm not sure of the reliability of the last source). I think it's enough for WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Russ Woodroofe: Thank you for bringing to light some of these reviews. Now, each work or book should be the primary subject of multiple independent reviews and these 4 reviews are on different books. Can you find one more additional review for any of the book that you found the reviews for? Then I think, it will pass WP:NAUTHOR criteria. Please ping me if you find an additional review and I will reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not my reading of AUTHOR, but in any case Russ Woodroofe's reviews 1 & 3 above are both of The Origins and Development of the Tablighi-Jamaʿat (1920–2000). A Cross-county Comparative Study. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

NAUTHOR says that a collective body of work should have been the subject of multiple reviews. If it was mainly one work, then I would !vote for a redirect to that work, but I see one book with two reviews, and two other reviewed books. This is just about the minimum that I am looking for in NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I see 1 & 3 above reviews are on same book. I will change my vote to weak keep because if we remove the sources on the page that are dead and unreliable then these are the only 4 reviews that remain that can be attributed to the page. RangersRus (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Weak Keep. All sources on the page are unreliable, dead domains, page not found and non-secondary independent. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NBIO. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as writer is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC) but 4 reliable sources with reviews were found with one work having multiple reviews that makes the author pass WP:NAUTHOR. RangersRus (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Not sure why the rush to delete this. Several of the books look to have healthy citations in GS, and Russ Woodroofe has found multiple reviews. Merely having dead links on the article is not a deletion rationale. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  I always make sure to preserve articles and only consider deletion after thorough investigation. I would advise other editors to follow the same approach: take your time, conduct careful research, and then provide your comments. Avoid rushing the process. Thank you--- Jannatulbaqi (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to get additional opinions on the book reviews brought to this discussion and whether or not they satisfy WP:NAUTHOR.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I've evaluated the reviews brought by Russ Woodroofe and agree they are sufficient to meet AUTHOR. Agree it is unclear whether we can count #5. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Meets WP:NAUTHOR. I changed my vote above after reviews shared by Russ Woodroofe. These 4 reviews will be the only reliable sources if we remove all the unreliable and dead links on the page. More reliable sources will be needed to attribute to the BIO of the author and other areas on the page. This is the only reason I am weakly keeping it. RangersRus (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Withdraw: I am very impressed by the comments and sources provided by 'Professor Russ Woodroofe' and admin 'Espresso Addict'. Therefore, I am withdrawing my nomination. Thank you very much. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, Prof. @Russ Woodroofe and @Espresso Addict! Jannatulbaqi (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  You can just vote "Withdraw" as nominator of this AFD instead of voting keep. Closer will just close with withdraw conclusion. RangersRus (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Done, Thank you @RangersRus! Jannatulbaqi (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  But note that while TheSlumPanda's delete !vote stands, the AfD can't be closed as withdrawn. (A passing administrator might still close as a keep, as I think that a consensus may have emerged.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Tanieya Khanuja

Tanieya Khanuja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fail GNG. Article creator has been blocked! Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: only gossip mentions, no reliable source which discuss about the subject in depth, fails WP:GNG. TheSlumPanda (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Director's Kut Productions. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Rajan Shahi

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Rajan Shahi
• Articles for deletion/Rajan Shahi (2nd nomination)

Rajan Shahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Doesn't qualify for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Director's Kut Productions: mentioned there as founder. His credits include notable productions as director but with other directors; and the awards seem to be collective/to the work and not personal. But if other users think it's enough, not fiercely opposed to Keep. Not in favour of deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested. Most of his awards were as a producer of “Most Popular show” types, or for longtime productions. It’s unclear whether he just financed the films or had any creative involvement. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. "Keep" !votes are not based on policy or notability guidelines. ✗plicit 02:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Fitpass

Fitpass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Delete. Not notable. The 3rd party sources look like advertorials and press release based articles, not real coverage. MLTRock (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Delete: Did some checks but couldn't find any more sources. Non-notable. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --Ratekreel (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

KEEP the article subject is notable, i have seen multiple resources in media, and the app has more than one million downloads on playstore and appstore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.223.148.55 (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "KEEP"s carry zero P&G weight, but we don't have quorum to delete yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. We can't write an article purely from WP:ORGTRIV, and that's all there is as far as the eye can see. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

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