Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:34, 18 December 2016

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.

India

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthi Venkatesh

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

Case of WP:TOOSOON. Please discuss. Jean Stair (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the CSD should not have been declined by a non-admin. David.moreno72 08:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverfox

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

No notable company as per Wikipedia policy and borders on advertisement. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 06:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Week Detele Seems notable as per media. Got funded and possible new in Fintech domian. Might be kept for future. else delete is not a bad option for now. Writing of this article is definitely promotional and reads like an advertising or press. might be written by close associates. just a thought! Light2021 (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Article does not cite any notable references from authoritative sources. Most of the links are for routine news articles from Economic Times/Indiatimes which are re-dressed press releases. Not a single article tells about the company and what it does and how it has impacted the industry it is in. This raises serious questions on The company's Notability.C. Harris (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Keep Notability shouldn't be a matter of question here. Ample stories were found online - both about the company and about the company associates. I agree with Light2021, 'it is a possible new in the fintech domain and could be kept for future'. I actually found several more in the Fintech space - Bankbazaar and Policybazaar have been around for quite sometime. I must say, a lot can be done about their pages too. I'm honestly very excited to be a part of Wikipedia fraternity and make my contributions. I can help improve the writing for this one. The Recent activities section is a little promotional. I'm concerned how one could talk about this company's impact in the industry at a platform like Wikipedia. Such information is mostly editorial based and should be avoided as per Wikipedia writing guidelines. Correct me if I'm wrong anywhere.NidhiRana (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; the content is strictly advertorial with typical sections such as "Accolades and Mentions", "Recent Activities" etc. This content belongs on a company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is promotional in content (and only subtly hidden at that). Fails WP:NOTPROMO. Everyone on this AfD agrees that the content is currently promotional. If it is a notable topic, another editor should be able to recreate it again without the promotional content. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 02:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magneto The Mall

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

Contested PROD at 5 days. Promotional unsourced article ripe with copyvio images from blocked creator. -- DQ mobile (ʞlɐʇ) 02:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage and article breaches WP:NOTPROMO. Ajf773 (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This Article Cites no references whatsoever, suggesting that it doesnot satisfy WP:ORG as it is not a notable company. Also The article is not written from a Neutral point of view, and is clearly written by an insider of the company. The content features blatant Promotion of the company Violating WP:NOTPROMO and also WP:NPOV. It generally goes against everything Wikipedia is Not, violating WP:NOT. This article does not belong on Wikipedia.C. Harris (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advertisement. Borderline G11 material that I wouldn't object to someone speedying, but also don't mind the AfD running its course. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 06:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Dominion

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

Does not appear to be a notable platform/organization. It appears that their website is a WordPress page, and the awards they give are not notable either. A search for sources resulted mostly in false positives. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - The claim of significant pertains to the Indian Diaspora, not the month old website. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPROMO.- Mr X 13:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Purely promotional.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable; see WP:ORGDEPTH Spiderone 19:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Club Mahindra Holidays

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

Fails WP:NCORP and has a history of continuous addition of promotional content. WP:PROD removed without citing a reason (by a MACid) Ajf773 (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improve Club Mahindra is a notable company and brand. The article in its current state cannot be on wikipedia. However if it is improved and relevent citations are added to correctly present various useful information about this company, It would be a good value addition.C. Harris (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC) Striking comment by TheLastMonk. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashwing.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; this is strictly advertorial content and belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improve Club Mahindra is indeed a notable entity in India under WP:NCORP. I think we can improve this article beyond its current state. I say we keep it and improve it. FlyingBlueDream (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although the article contained unnecessary promotional stuff and is possibly being monitored by "sympathizers", I don't think there is any ground for deletion. It definitely satisfies WP:CORP with multiple non-PR reliable, WP:independent sources in publications like Travel Daily News, Business Standard, NDTV, The Hindu, more, and more, and some more (print media). These are wide coverages about the company acquiring other companies, its revenues, its business models, takeovers, and other relevant stuff that is of interest to the public at large. The fact that none of these are in the article also cannot be an excuse to consider deletion. Although being listed does not make a company notable, but WP:LISTED can be very well cited here. I have improved the article and removed promotional stuff, so WP:PROMO is out I think. Finally, per WP:PRESERVE, I think the article should be retained. We are building an encyclopedia here, and try to fix the problem. 1.186.37.86 (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, what you've listed is not escaping the clear PR as (1) we've established these publications have blatantly published company advertising and (2) there's nothing to suggest a confident independent coverage without the company itself either paying or influencing it. WP:NOT is the highest policy we have for companies and it explicitly allows removal of anything questionable. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I've been watching and I'll comment now about what's listed above: It's simply business announcements, mentions and other triviality, it's not lending actual substance for notability and it's clear this itself only exists for said PR. The links above even all have the same consistency of publishing the same PR and same formatting of them thus showing the company itself was the sole author, not the publisher itself. That alone is enough to suggest deletion since there's no actual substance to begin with. "Fix the problem", as the comment above, is by actually deleting advertising when we see it, and that itself "improves the encyclopedia" (also quoted above). With this said, the fact it's part of another company and then what's here is not substantial, says alone there's nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The company seems to pass WP:NCORP to me with coverage in sources via a quick search, but the article is a little thin. Needs improvement and content to stay relevant. If consensus is to delete, I'd suggest merge to the parent article Mahindra Group -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rawat Rajputs

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

I couldn't verify that it is notable Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources provided and I couldn't find any myself; the article appears to be original research Spiderone 14:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't prove it, but based on the formatting, and from my six years' experience as an admin, this appears to be a cut and paste job, and possibly is a copyright violation. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siliconn City

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:NOTFILM. Also the creater of the page is closely associated with the film. Their username (Vsavanur) matches the "line producer" (Vijay Savanur) that they added to the infobox. It doesn't show up unless you edit the page because line producer isn't a supported param. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there are a few articles about this film. I'd stub it and say it needs references.Timtempleton (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. -- Dane ^talk 02:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 02:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some regional films do not make a lot of promotion but it shows traces of notability --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 08:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garg Brahmin

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

Contested PROD by IP editor, although no reason given. No sources are provided on this page. I was unable to turn up any further reliable sources. The Brahmin page does not discuss this caste. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article totally lacking sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:VERIFY. A quick search for potential sources doesn't reveal anything particularly promising. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG as well as issues already mentioned Spiderone 14:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unitus Seed Fund

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

Clear advertising in which both WP:NOT applies and the fact we make no compromises at all with such blatant consistency of advertising and company involvements especially when everything here is simply formatted as their own company guide, with their own published and republished advertising, and the history blatantly shows it especially since everything that exists in publications is simply their own advertising yet again. SwisterTwister talk 17:00, 12 December 2016 (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/2016 December 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (though certainly needs work). I agree that this article is self-promotional, but this organization seems notable: there's a New York Times article (cited already) that talks extensively about this company, and some cursory additional searches reveal a Forbes article about its founders and the fact that Bill Gates is an investor. That's just for starters. It'd take no more than 20 minutes to bring this article to a happier, more NPOV place. I'd be happy to help with that going forward, but it seems needless and counterproductive to delete. --Vivisel (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First the Forbes is clearly hosted one of their "independent journalist and freelancing" websites, and there's also no inherited notability from Bill Gates investing, or else we would have an article for every single company a major person invested in, which is unbelievable high considering that what their jobs involve. The NYT is still too close of a business listing interview and that says something since it attempts to covertly list its own financials and business specifics. The main concerns here are WP:NOT which is a policy. SwisterTwister talk 18:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see that re: the Forbes article? The author is a Forbes staff writer and per TFA, it appeared in the print edition. Maybe I'm just missing it... Vivisel (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Lauren Gensler is staff, not a freelancer. I don't know how SwisterTwister could get that so wrong? Stickee (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:ORG with significant (full article) coverage by Forbes (linked above) and the New York Times (in article). Stickee (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see the Forbes "staff" listed now, but still, we've established as it is that Forbes is, with time goes, becoming heavier and heavier with company-controlled PR known as churnalism; then, there's still the fact this company is still best known for being involved with Bill himself; thus that's not automatic inherited notability. WP:NOT takes importance here, which is policy. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources, such as [1], [2], [3], [4]. Also, the Forbes article is written by a staff writer, and is a reliable source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least ,the article needs to be trimmed of each of their list of relatively minor projects. That sort of information belongs on their web site. But the purpose of GNG is being subverted here, because when used for this sort of article, it simply turns us into an amplifier of their own publicity campaign. The art of PR is to get journalist to write about you. Then WP follows, and repeats the same PR. GNG is built on the naive assumption that journalists report the things that are important. I don't think it was every true, really, and its time we outgrew it. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Balak Mishra

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

Non-notable professional, fails WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deepsheel Bharat

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

PRODed as "Claims no notability. Fails WP:GNG." was dePRODed without giving any reason. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a daily newspaper with 20,000 copies circulation is notable. --Soman (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 19:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense? I found several RNI hits online. --Soman (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And would you mind showing some of those RNI or whatever to the community? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Fails notability test.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 16:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still not significant enough and this is simply a mere listing, absolutely nothing of genuine substance. SwisterTwister talk 18:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Siby K Joseph

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

A dean at a university. Like the majority of academics out there in the world, does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. I haven't made a thorough search though, but the google scholar stats don't really look promising at this stage. – Uanfala (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No possibility of passing WP:Prof [5]. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as nothing here for WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TolMol

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

I agree with the nomination for speedy deletion under the WP:A7 criteria, in particular noting the WP:WEB guidelines. This article has been in "article space" since April 2008. I think that only indicates its longevity as a Wikipedia article. That "longevity as a Wikipedia article" is not relevant to the notability of its subject. All that said: I think an WP:AfD discussion is a better place to address the issues about this article. Shirt58 (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 09:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Harish Kapadia. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nawang Kapadia

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

Subject does not satisfy the notability criteria of WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER— Wikipedia is not a memorial. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 12:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sources ran a quick search at Times of India, found, [6], [7]. I think we need to check some news archives on this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone familiar with the Kargil War would be useful to this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory— Kargil war was fought in 1999 between India and Pakistan whilst Nawang Kapadia died while battling militants during Counter-terrorist operations in Kupwara area on November 2000. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 12:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MBlazeLightening. Did you have a chance to run a news archive search, to see what coverage he or the action he was killed in may have gotten back then?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have found a few passing mentions of the subject, but nothing that really amounts to significant coverage. Given that the subject's father (Harish Kapadia) has an article (albeit largely unsourced), and the main information of note from this article is also included there, potentially a redirect could be considered if the notability of the father's article is accepted. Otherwise I don't believe that the subject is notable enough for a stand alone article. I note that both this article, and the one relating to the father, appear to have been written by Sonam Kapadia who appears to be the brother of Nawang. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I could live with a redirect, per the below. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Harish Kapadia. I took a moment to run Proquest news archive searches; the father is clearly notable;his article could be better written, but RS exist. The son has been memorialized by his grieving parents, and this has received coverge, but searches on his name did not readily bring up sources on him aside from the parents activities in his memory. Better keywords; familiarity with the military action in which he died, or Hindi might do so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior officer with no significant decorations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandigarh to Shimla Trains

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

Pointless page with train timetables between two locations. WP:NTT applies. No trains exist that go directly between the locations in the article title. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mumbai to Goa Trains for a discussion on a similar article by the same editor. noq (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Ajf773 (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Kollam

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

WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Not a notable list topic as none of the entries are notable in their own right. WP:PROD contested by creator citing a poor reason. Has done nothing in ten months to improve the page to make it even the least bit encyclopedic Ajf773 (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk)

Delete per nominator's rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; can't put it better myself. It's worth noting that one of the hotels is notable but none of the others appear to be. It doesn't meet the criteria for a stand-alone list. Spiderone 21:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR.Charles (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhu Bhutum

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

This not-yet-released film is not notable that I can find. I see evidence that principle photography has begun per WP:NFF but do not believe it is notable. Please see the dialog on the author's talk page as well as the article talk page. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is the third article created by this user for this film. I do not wish to appear as WP:TE so submitted as AfD to get consensus either way. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. So far it just looks like hype and celebrity following. As the guideline says "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 guideline." After it comes out if it has popular or criticl acclaim it might achieve notability, but not now. See WP:NOT YET (films). --Bejnar (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added IMDB Page in external sources Starlight 00:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpadma (talk • contribs)

Note WP:CITINGIMDB I don't think this has any net effect on the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCrazedBeast (talk • contribs) 01:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the beginning of principle photography is a threshold which a film usually has to pass in order to be considered eligible for an article (there are rare films which are so anticipated, that they would pass WP:GNG). But it is just a threshold, as Benjar points out. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh - Hindi films actor

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

Non-notable Bollywood actor from the 50s. Fails WP:GNG. He has appeared in many films, but they don't appear to be independently notable either to meet WP:NACTOR. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of colleges in Ratnagiri

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

It's a "list of colleges" in a specific city in India. However, only one of the three colleges on this list has an article. This list does not seem appropriate as a stand-alone list. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Education in Ratnagiri. We don't need a list of colleges in a city, categories are fine for that, but an education in city article would be fine. Might as well start it with this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Article serves absolutely no purpose at all. Redirect to Ratnagiri if necessary. Ajf773 (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doubtful that anyone searching would be searching for this term. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, this does not meet the criteria for lists. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have put in many efforts in cleaning out List of education institutes in XYZ, be it schools, high schools, colleges, universities from a town, city, district or state of India and unfortunately have not come up with any fixed suits-all system. But I am fine with Education in Ratnagiri district, similar to what @Piotrus: suggests. The Category:Ratnagiri district does have some educational institutes which could be mentioned in prose format than just useless list of blue-links. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:LISTN, WP:GNG etc. It is also not a plausible search term so no need for a redirect. Spiderone 19:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Poduval

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

Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pakalurakkam

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

Non notable film with unheard of actors. Fails WP:GNG. Even the source is broken PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM; no evidence that the film has had any impact Spiderone 14:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ardhanareeswaran

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

Non notable film. Article was created before principal photography commenced. Therefore fails WP:FILM. A Malayalam movie with a similar (not same) title and an entirely different cast and crew was made later. Most of the references are bogus as well. Nothing has been heard of this movie since 2011. PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient coverage to indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM; no evidence that the film will ever be released or be notable Spiderone 14:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 08:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chillx

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

Non notable mobile app. Recently launched and sourced to what reads like the same press release. Google searches not finding anything that would establish notability. noq (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The "references" appear to be duplicates of several press releases. Nothing suggests any ongoing traction.--Rpclod (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more than just press releases are required to establish notability Spiderone 14:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saharan clan

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

I couldn't verify that this is notable. Boleyn (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of being able to pass WP:GNG Spiderone 14:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references given, let alone any authoritative references, to demonstrate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not the strongest arguments for retaining the article but clearly no consensus for deletion after many weeks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dharti Kahe Pukar Ke

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

Unsourced article on a film of no evident significance. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:@JzG: I have personally added some sources to the articles if any wrong do correct it. The article has significant but needs clean up --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 08:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does need significant clean-up. Ajay Devgn is a huge Bollywood actor and the film is probably his only Bhojpuri appearance, giving it a lot of trivia significance. Probably [8] will suggest why Bhojpuri movies did not attract much attention earlier. Jupitus Smart 09:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film stars two notable actors Ajay Devgn and Manoj Tiwari. As Bhojpuri films are a small industry, most of the coverage it received would also be in Bhojpuri. Elia Soaten (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 06:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Siliconithub

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

Does not meet WP:Notability, no sources (and no sources to support notability that I can find.) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 13:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Himansu Gupta

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

Non-notable person due to lack of indepth coverage. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although in definite need of a rewrite, there are sources that demonstrate independent notability under WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Sharma (TV actress)

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

This article in not looking like a article in wikipedia it's looking like a article instead it's look like a praise letter. She had never done any successfull TV series as a protogonist. She has done only one popular serial that is Diya aur Baati hum but in this show her role as antagonist was only for few days. This atticle repeatedly violates WP:NPOV and does not meet even WP:BIO. So I think this article should be deleted. Ishi2345 (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with the nominator about violating Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Notability (people) . I read the whole article and its seriously looking like a compliment letter to boss but when I try to find out about the actress's life I don't find any notable work in internet. The article try to portray her as a epic heroine like Helen in Troy. But in reality she didn't done any single notable work. So I think this article should be deleted. Ominictionary (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The actress is completely non-notable. She had done only one series as protogonist which was stoped because of law trp rating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vividha23 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As a main contributor of this article I am trying to address the issues relating to WP:NPOV and WP:BIO raised by above editors. To make the article more 'neutral' and fit for Wikipedia it is rectified and improved. Further the editors are requested to edit if necessary. Regarding 'notability' of the article subject, I want to inform the editors that she had done - Ruk Jaana Nahin - run successfully for about 1 year (19 December 2011 - 23 November 2012) and Tu Mera Hero - run successfully for about 1 year (22 December 2014 - 14 November 2015). Her performances as 'main female protagonist' in Ruk Jaana Nahin and as 'main female antagonist' in Tu Mera Hero were liked very much by the people. She also acted for the difficult role of a weird character in Diya Aur Baati Hum successfully although the role is short and of some days. Over and above these she had done 'lead role' in 12 episodics (Short film like TV show of about 45-50 minutes) for different TV channels. She is very versatile actress and has been entertaining TV audience since 2010 till date. Many reliable and independent Indian Newspapers like 'The Times of India', 'The Hindu', 'Indian Express', 'Tribune India', 'Zee News', 'ABP Live', etc. and TV Magazines like 'Tellychakkar', etc. made coverage of the events relating to her. The editors are requested to refer to the inline citations and references given for the article. Based on the above clarifications, I would like to request the editors to reconsider their decision and withdraw the nomination of the article for deletion.--Teampoojasharma (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Her serial Ruk Jaana Nahin was never successfull the serial was stopped because of law trp for more information check this link :-http://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/tv-news/ruk-jaana-nahin-go-air-khamoshiyaan-get-early-evening-slot. The serial never did well. Tu Mera Hero was also not a successfull serial at the first place it was doing good but after that it also failed to impress audiance. By the way we are not for to discuss which serial was hit or flop we are here discussing about the actress's notablity. Whatever Teampoojasharma (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC) gives as reference that all are gossip column nothing reliable source. Ishi2345 (talk)[reply]

@ Everything once started is to end but it matters how long it stays. TRP of the show mentioned in the above referred link is what happened after running about 1 year. 1 year is a long period. TRP of a show depends on many factors. Here we are discussing about the actor not the show. Basic Criteria of Notability (People) of Wikipedia says - 'People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.'. The coverage given on the actress by the reliable and independent sources as cited in the article itself (some of the sources are mentioned above in my previous comment) may be considered. I think reliable source means the Newspapers or Magazines, not the column and every content is a part of these sources. --Teampoojasharma (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:- Probably non notable because I don't find any information about her in google if I search about her name always showing up some other actress called Pooja Sharma not any information about this one. In this view I can take her as non-notable so delete it.Tupur16 (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Even if we do not find a targeted person on internet in the first search giving name only, the person may be found when searching by adding more query items relevant to the person. (e.g. in this case Pooja Sharma with Ruk Jaana Nahin, Tu Mera Hero, etc.) The conclusion of only the person found on internet in the first search giving name only is notable, but the other persons of the same name are not notable may not be right. As mentioned in my previous comment, Wikipedia has its own Criteria of Notability (People). Wikipedia solves such conflict through Disambiguation Pages as different persons of same name may be notable to include in Wikipedia. --Teampoojasharma (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log page. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Ishi2345: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 00:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 01:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 01:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 01:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. unsuccessful actor, and that's about it. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see the first few sources of the article addressed, as they are major newspapers and definite reliable source coverage (though the trash blog refs near the end should be removed)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete:- completely unsuccessful actor without notability, people know her very rarely, don't deserve a article in wikipedia.ABCDE22 (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is purely promotional and subject is not notable; fails WP:NACTOR. Please note the article creator's name. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sources pointed out by Czar still have not been analyzed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the sources listed in the article seem to suggest that the actress was likely to be the "next big thing" of Indian TV, but this does not seem to have come true. So WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with WP:NPOV raised by the editors above. The subjects also fails WP:GNG. No reliable coverage outside gossip columns about the subject itself that are not promotional in nature. Most are passing mentions. Another issue to be flagged is that there seems to be a direct WP:COI as the name of the account suggests. The author seems to be WP:SPA. All the edits are about Pooja Sharma and her one or two ongoing daily soaps. Most probably the account is held by a promotion company on hire. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the first few references, 3 are interviews and hence primary references. Others seem to be channel pushed coverage of its serials hence promotional in nature. Only reference that seems to be a neutral coverage is the demise of the father of the person in an accident. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. A. I Abdul Majeed Swalahi

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

In all three references given, subject is quoted— none of these articles is about him specifically, and being able to issue a fatwah does not necessarily make one notable. Article needs multiple references to significant coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources in order to be retained. KDS4444 (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable academic, does not meet inclusion criteria for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing here for WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF or anything close it. SwisterTwister talk 16:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable author and professor. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 20:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable autor and professor. Fails WP:PEOPLE

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. MER-C 05:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GIBSS

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

Clear advertising in which policy WP:NOT applies since everything is literally PR advertising and it's clear in the blatant consistency shown here, and what searches found were naturally only PR advertising since we've established these publications so notoriously publish company advertising, we cannot begin to conceivably accept it as such. Another concerning sign is that this was actually accepted a year ago and yet there was then, as is now, the sheer blatancy of company-involved advertising hence this is deletion. SwisterTwister talk 17:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is borderline promotional. No sources I could find online to substantiate notability of the subject. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 10:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see any evidence of notability Spiderone 18:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Verma (journalist)

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

Previously PRODed and deleted as WP:ONEEVENT, the excessive unnecessary bloating in the article about the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots doesn't really bring him any notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Crtew (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is a totally different article than the one deleted. The draft had been in development before that was deleted and was intended to be an improvement.Crtew (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. The nominator makes a classic misinterpretation of WP:ONEEVENT. One Event is about a choice we make in handling a topic not disqualifying subjects. When you look at killed journalists around the world, 9 out of 10 killed are native journalists who are not known outside of their own area. The misinterpretation of this policy is dangerous because it would lead to foreign journalists or only journalists who are famous as being the only ones who could have articles, which would lead to a serious hole in our knowledge about this phenomenon. You need to look at the List of journalists killed in India and it's important to build content for that list that informs readers about this subject. The policy though simply doesn't say what most interpreters think. Most people believe wrongfully that one event disqualifies an article. (See below for more) Crtew (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEVENT is simply about a decision of whether to emphasize the event or the person or both. The policy says: ... "it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." Crtew (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. There was significant coverage. The article about the riot is justified because it builds on our knowledge of civil discontent in India. The article about Verma is justified because it builds on our knowledge about the safety and security of journalists and the ability of a society to get the information it needs (See: List of journalists killed in India). These are two distinct threads that you will find in Wikipedia. I've seen other people in the past try to delete these lists and fail. The subject needs these articles to truly know about the phenomenon. Crtew (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination needs to be relisted under journalism and not just by area.Crtew (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WALL and more importantly WP:AGENDA. Listed in Journalism-related list too. And Delhi is not in MP. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Read them. The articles are clearly linked to the separate phenomena. Readers will follow their own interests. I can also assure you that there is no promotion or conflict here. Some edit articles about old 45 top ten hits and others edit about journalists and still others write about India. Thank you for you feedback, Crtew (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to edit topics of your choice. But what we see here is people-should-known-about-struggles-of-journalists, oh-my-god-so-many-journalists-killed, so-much-violence-in-india-on-journalism and such type of argument. Also, being employee of Network 18, their publications should not be used to count in " significant coverage" and works of Committee to Protect Journalists should be excluded likewise. The article is also bloated with irrelevant info, though sourced, just to make the guy look notable! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion, and it is that, just your opinion. Crtew (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, you are making factual errors that I can not let stand. The article does not build notability on either of the sources you mentioned. That's wrong. Check the sources for yourself. Crtew (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article mostly covers his death in riots and other info related to his death. I think there is no need of separate article. His inclusion in List of journalists killed in India is enough as it lacks enough info to be retained as standalone article.--Nizil (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename After further editing, the article should be renamed the "Killing of Rajesh Verma and Salim Israr" as the article has become less about Verma and more about the media workers killed during riots.Crtew (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per extensive sourcing, per information only provided in this individual article. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots This is a WP:ONEEVENT and it should be covered in the larger article where the context is present. The amount of coverage is not so much that a standalone article is required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect if needed as all that's currently here to say is the event itself and, at that, there's nothing else but said event, no other notability claims. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots as per ONEEVENT. I disagree with a redirect. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. or redirect, but there's not really enough info to be worth a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of sources, national coverage, police assertions that he was targeted as a journalists (not a stray bullet source #1), and attention paid to the death after the incident.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shankar Shesh

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

No sources show that he had written as the count shows in the article. Not much in the searches. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. First, the nom does not make any argument for deletion, just that the factual content of the article may be a problem - and while I cannot verify the 10 novels, the cited source does confirm 22 plays. Second, subject seems notable (in-depth coverage, won some awards). At most, I can see this tagged with {{verification failed}}, but deletion discussion is the wrong venue. I recommend speedy keep since the nominator did not make any valid arguments for deletion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Just because the nominator does not know the writer in question, does not mean the article is deleteworthy. Nominator must come up with a proof that the writer is not a known figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourabhpaul1986 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the policy-based reasons advanced for deletion. Sandstein 15:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R. K. Mudgil

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

Raised at WP:BLPN and also tagged with notability concerns, bringing here for further assessment. Sagecandor (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No notability found. He is president of just an association engaged in physiotherapy related activity. Can be considered for speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expl66 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep. Presidents of national associations in major fields are normally considered notable. The article however needs considerable expansion and better sourcing.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The national physiotherapy association of India seems to be IAP and not this association. Haryana is a state of India. Input by any Indian physiotherapists may be required to crosscheck notability but it looks like self promotion. WP:SPEEDY {{Db-g11}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expl66 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article is relating to a person who is notable because he is voice of thousands of Physiothearapists. He is striving for the Physiothearapist Council in haryana State. His contribution is noteworthy and notable in the History of Haryana in Physiothearapist History, He is the President of a Association of Physiothearapists in Haryana and torch bearer for new generation in Haryana State.117.252.4.106 (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete hopeless promotional and being made worse with yet more unsourced promotional content even as this AfD proceeds diff. Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep hopeless promotion has been made by a different user.2405:205:3208:8839:F5FD:3843:8948:11F4 (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC) 2405:205:3208:8839:F5FD:3843:8948:11F4 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Drm310 (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Hopeless promotion is made by someone who doesn't have wiki account. The language shows that person might be he himself or any close relative/ friend. I dint find any notable information on Google news or Google scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expl66 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This person has treated thousands by himself and is a torchbearer for the rights of this industry, His article should be kept on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.90.107 (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dr. Mudgil is an eminent person in India. The page may be kept, as he is a notable person.Yogitadagar (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Yogitadagar (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Drm310 (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – self promotion, contrary to our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Keep votes come from single-purpose accounts intended to stack this discussion. Citobun (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is purely promotional and has no encyclopedia value. Note to closing admin, please see that the keep votes have been made by new / un-registered users and user Drm310 has also pointed the same out. Possible COI in voting. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Day (2005 film)

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. All the sources mentioned are websites considered as blogs by WP:ICTF. Searching also does not offer any better sources Jupitus Smart 03:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the movie is clearly non-notable. I could only find two reliable sources – 1 & 2 – both of which give a passing mention of it. In fact, both of these sources are focussing on this movie's actress - Disha Dinakar. Her article is also up for deletion. We cannot redirect it anywhere, as it's a wrong title. It should have been titled as One Day (2015 film). BTW, this movie's article has been proded before. - NitinMlk (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's hard to find sources because of the other films that exist with the same title; that being said, the onus is on proving notability and no evidence of this can be found Spiderone 09:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After being relisted 3 times, participants of the discussion have not reached a consensus (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhar

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

Doesn'r meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In case the Sandhar clan fails notability, Sandhar should be kept as a disambiguation page because it clearly meets disambiguation criteria, as can be seen in this revision of Sandhar. If the clan fails notability, there won't be any primary topic left here. So, there won't be any need to add the tag "(disambiguation)", as per WP:DABNAME. In short, the revision cited by me will be a valid page in itself.

PS: WP:DISCUSSAFD states that alternatives to deletion should be considered. If you think the article should be a disambiguation page, a redirect or merger to another article, then recommend "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge". Do not recommend deletion in such cases. - NitinMlk (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation as per comments from Nitin above Spiderone 18:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manda clan

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 22:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. I can find virtually nothing for reverence. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also found nothing. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Achleshwar Baba Temple

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

No evidence of notability. Created by sock puppet and edited by another one. Deprodded without comment by an IP. No content apart from Infobox. PamD 06:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sri Guruji Maharshi

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

The article lacks the importance to be encyclopedic. When I search google for the name I can only found the results for Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader). JackTracker (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep duhan

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

Fails WP:NACTOR: The actor has played supporting role in an Indian television show and I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet. GSS (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 11:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Domdeparis (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Institute for Administrative Services

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH for lack of coverage in reliable sources. - Mr X 16:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:N at this time. Source searches are only providing passing mentions (e.g. [9]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanaga Subburathinam

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

Fails WP:BASIC; cannot find any external English-language references to the subject or any mainstream media coverage of his life. Specto73 (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as absolutely nothing here at all for any conceivable notability, literally. SwisterTwister talk 19:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG (and WP:PROF). I guess the claim of being "the only Tamil Avathani" (whatever that is) is enough to save this from A7 speedy, but there really isn't much here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Being a "famous actress" on its own is not enough to establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disha Dinakar

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

WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG: The actress has only appeared in one film so far and the notability of the film is also questionable. I failed to find decent coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet. GSS (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the role is huge, one film is just not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I know about her. She is a Famous actress. She acted in one film but she is the heroine. The film got good response and so many medias talked about Disha's performance (137.97.121.33 (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Non-notable actress. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She is a notable actress (137.97.57.203 (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - Agree, she fails WP:NACTOR and this is WP:TOOSOON. -- Dane ^talk 00:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kottakkal Nandakumaran Nair

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:AnastesMp (WP:SPA) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). All I see are mentions in passing and an interview ([10]), which is not a great source (for reasons elaborated at WP:INTERVIEW). As written, fails WP:CREATIVE, and I cannot find anything to prop it up. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivial and unconvincing sources with trivial and unconvincing I information, none of which amount to actual substance, hence deletion is the solution. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pune Plant (Tata Motors)

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

Can't find much in the way of evidence this topic meets WP:GNG. Seems to receive almost no coverage in independent sources. Ajpolino (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - manufacturing plants are not inherently notable; there is no evidence of significant coverage to require an article Spiderone 10:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A major facility of a major manufacturer certainly is notable, much like the Saint Louis Assembly or Windsor Assembly which wouldn't be considered for deletion. Significant coverage certainly does exis demonstrating passing WP:GNG.[11][12][13] And these are just English language sources after only a few seconds of searching. Most certainly much more Hindi and Marathi coverage exists. --Oakshade (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good find Oakshade! Not sure how I missed those. Per the refs Oakshade found, I think the plant likely meets GNG and I'd like to withdraw my AfD nom (though I'm not sure I can, per WP:WDAFD since someone else has supported deletion). But I think this AfD can be closed keep or withdraw. Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as I've been watching this and the listed links are simply company and business announcements, none of this suggests a convincing article of anything but a local plant, that's not significant enough for actual notability itself. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In addition to those presented above, below are some more sources. Perhaps more non-English sources are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Tata Motors Union awaits Tata blessings on new wage settle agreement". The Economic Times.
"Lost faith in Cyrus Mistry's leadership: Tata Motors Pune union". The Economic Times.
"Tata Motors’ UK research connection". The Engineer.
"Tata Motors close Pune plant for 3 days". Mint.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOPAGE and WP:NOTINHERITED. The plant itself has not received significant coverage independent of the company. The sources confirm that the plant exists, not why it is notable. In addition the sources are dealing with routine news - closure of a plant, comments by the union. None of this explains any cultural or historical significance of the plant. Also, the article itself is a bunch of WP:OR and honestly, this is eligible for a TNT. On top the that, the title isn't very precise either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the article in its entirety is an unreferenced essay and is strongly promotional. This content belongs on the company's web site, not in an encyclopedia. The sources presented at this AfD are local or routine, so the notability is not there for a stand alone article to begin with. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Absence of good evidence one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tu Maza Jeev

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

I CSD nominated this per WP:SNOW but it was denied so I'm taking it here - it is pretty close to being pure vandalism given that the creator has created it in mainspace at least three times (including the current version), had it moved to draftspace at least twice, had the draft rejected repeatedly, had several editors pointing out the things that are missing, and has now cut and pasted the rejected draft without attempting to address any of the issues. Of course an article doesn't have to pass AfC, but bypassing the rejection of AfC reviewers three times and creating the article in mainspace anyway is just disruptive. Specifically, the film lacks notability per WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. There is one source that's borderline reliable (a city edition of Times of India - that's generally not considered a reliable source but might be acceptable together with multiple other sources, of which there are none). bonadea contributions talk 17:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 18:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 18:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: I strongly oppose the deletion of the same the reason for the same are

1- TOI is the supreme newspaper of India and its sources are applicable for the courts of India than Wikipedia must too accept it
2- The film may not be notable to many as it is a regional film and in the East indian language which is a regional language
3- The verifiers of wikipedia lack to justify the problems in my article u may visit my draft and check its history if I make corrections the other verifier undos the same which is unfair
4- U can find sources of the film on the world wide Web or in many sites which i believe doesn't lakhs notability

As i have been repetitively saying my intentions are to expand the reach of Wikipedia to everyone its violation is my own violation so I don't entertain the same --†Ïv㉫Ǹ Ｇ✿Ǹ＄Aしv㉫＄ 09:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Your good intentions are not in question even though it does look like you are ignoring the comments from multiple editors on your draft, but what you say above does not really address the main question: does the film meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for films or the general notability guideline? One of the AfC reviewers asked for at least four or five independent sources discussing the film in some depth; there are currently three sources (two of which have been added by another editor). Sources do not have to be in English, but they have to meet Wikipedia's reliable sources policy and as mentioned above, the city pages (as opposed to the main edition) of Times of India are usually considered to be less reliable in terms of showing notability. This is particularly true for entertainment news - and indeed, if you read this source it is rather clear that it is not particularly factual and unbiased - it reads like a rewrite of a press release from the movie makers. --bonadea contributions talk 11:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Writing an article is not vandalism in any sense of the word. The deeply flawed AFC process is entirely optional and no editor should be penalized for declining to go through that ordeal. Whether to delete this article should be debated on the notability of the topic. There are legitimate claims of notability. This is the first film about the culture of the Roman Catholic East Indians and the first filmed in their own dialect. There is no basis in policy for insisting on four or five sources. I see no evidence that the Times of India coverage is a simple reprint of a press release. This Daily News and Analysis source is very good, and provides a different perspective on the film. It should be transformed from an external link into a reference. Instead of being deleted, the article should be expanded and improved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is of course possible to be disruptive when it comes to article creation, but the relevant issue here (as pointed out in the nomination) is notability. The article now shows borderline notability at best; we have no actual reliable sources showing that it is the first film in East Indian Marathi (the director claims that it is in newspaper interviews but secondary sources for that kind of claim would have been useful - I might be a bit picky about this because of my profession, but that's my opinion and interpretation of WP:RS anyway). The large audience numbers might be a stronger claim to notability; it would be good to get people who are more knowledgeable about Indian films to weigh in here. I also don't agree that the DNA India source is very good as far as coverage of the film goes - I had the same reaction when I first saw it, but then I realised that Tu Maza Jeev is only mentioned in passing. --bonadea contributions talk 15:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

_{Replying to the comment above} :- @Bonadea:I am extremely sure that you are not an Indian citizen, here I belong to the same community that this film is released and I have cited as many as available resources for the film u want I can send u the movie personally so that u can believe. India has 1652 languages and all have equal status according to the law and by commenting disputes u do against article 14 , 15 , 16, 21 , 25 of the Indian Constitution . By contesting u breach my Freedom of expression in India right. The film has been proved to exist as it has been on IMDB and I have seen many articles which have only one source and it has no deletion tag on it for eg Mother Teresa of Calcutta (film). My article has existence in real life and my community has witnessed it. The film had no objection on the Marathi Wikipedia and it was there created by an administrator there Mr:तू माझा जीव. My sincere request for you is please don't waste wikipedias time to tag it for deletion as it is baseless.As there is no mention that A local language film needs to prove notability --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 04:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that it would be helpful if we had a better source claiming that this particular film was the first one to be filmed in a specific dialect does is not in any way a comment on the existence of the dialect. I have looked it up, I know that it is an existing varity of Marathi (or, according to some, Konkani). The nationality of any of the people involved in a discussion is wholly irrelevant, and Wikipedia versions in different languages have different notability policies. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 08:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: the main problem rises that Wikipedia doesn't has the article on East Indian language I have asked an administrator about the same if he permits I'll have an article on East Indian language so it will have no doubt in the dialect u want to know. For your reference u have a look at this article and let all your doubt gets clear and u too give a green signal for my article this Christmas season 😀👍

No, the existence of this article about a movie is completely unconnected to whether East Indian Marathi exists as a separate dialect. A well-sourced article about the dialect would be excellent - as I have already said I am fully aware of its existence, and I would be happy to assist you with better sources, since the one you linked to here does not meet Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources and should not be used as a source in Wikipedia. But again that has nothing to do with the article Tu Maza Jeev. Finally, I don't decide whether any article stays or remains. The way Wikipedia deletion discussions work is like this: One editor decides to nominate an article for deletion, and provides their reasons. Other editors weigh in and agree or disagree, based on Wikipedia policy. The administrator who closes the discussion does so in accordance with the consensus in the discussion, without adding their own opinion. --bonadea contributions talk 13:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly a notable subject and needed just a little more references which have been included.

It will be a net gain!Mahveotm (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akasa Singh

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

The subject seems to be singer who has just made their debut with one playback song in a movie. I am unable to find reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. (There are bunch of passing mentions, but nothing actually about the subject). I don't see WP:MUSICBIO satisfied either and this seems WP:TOOSOON to me. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a playback singing role in one film is not enough to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Spiderone 09:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karrm Infrastructure

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

Blatant advertising with nothing but blatant advertising sources, and worse, the advertised accepted it themselces instead of having it reviewed, showing exactly the blatancy. There's absolutely nothing here to suggest accepting against WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 23:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. They got into a local newspaper for building five units. Think about it after reading that a few times. That is lower than run of the mill. There is a 32-story building with 100's of units being built right up the street from me. Please, we are not a webhost for every dinky developer. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't delete per WP:GNG. From my study of WP:GNG, I believe the article passes the criteria. A check on Google.com news showcases lots of news-related references that are verifiable according to WP:GNG. I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong. I also believe the article is neutral and non-promotional. Please keep. The deletion tag is uncalled for.Mmesoyaba (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article includes: "Karrm Infrastructure designs and creates affordable housing for Indian developing residential communities with the view of enhancing better living standards and ending housing insecurity across the nation" -- such content belongs on the company's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as per WP:GNG. Promotional content seems to have been removed. Besides, there are lots of news references that supports the notability of the write-up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krawtani2600 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Usman (Indian politician)

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

I tried WP:BASIC before coming here and have failed to find any WP:RS about this person. The infobox claims he won a seat from the Lucknow West (Vidhan Sabha constituency) but he hasn't. Probably a INC member but failing WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Creator also seems to be WP:SPA with WP:COI. The article was recently deleted by User:DGG when it was at Mohammad Usman (Veteran Congress Leader) for G11 - Unambiguous advertising or promotion but I have not seen that version of article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The references are many but they are in 1980s newspapers and books. Where to get them online to meet your reference criteria?? 13:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC) User:Adil Usman

Did he win any election? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Usman 13:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)No he did not won, but contested on INC seat. The only Congress candidate to secure around 15000 votes more than anyone ever in that constitutency since the Indian Independence. Also he was the Secretary of Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee of Uttar Pradesh and Working President of District Congress.Along with other contributions to the society, country and to the general masses of Lucknow.Adil Usman 13:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adilusman009 (talk • contribs)

Adil Usman 17:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Mohammad Usman's father, Late Haji Hussain Ali was jailed with Jawahar Lal Nehru in Lucknow jail. His uncle and grandfather too were jailed, but his father was released on the basis of under age. The other were jailed for three months. After the Independence, Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru visited Lucknow, near Firangi Mahal and awarded freedom fighter pension to all those people who were jailed in Lucknow Jail along with him. Mohammad's Usman uncle and grandfather didn't accept the pension and denied on the basis said by his grandfather " Hum Madre Vatan Ki Kamai Nahi Khaenge", and the PM was speechless on this note. But again I don't have any internet link to validate this.Adil Usman 17:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adilusman009 (talk • contribs)

Thanks! Fails WP:NPOL. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unsuccessful politician does not get a Wikipedia article just because of the number of votes he happened to get in the process of losing the election — WP:NPOL accords notability to holders of political office, not unelected candidates for it. But there's no other credible or properly sourced evidence of notability even being claimed here at all. Also, I have to presume this is a conflict of interest — creator's username suggests a direct family relationship of some sort (I'm guessing "father-son", even if I can't prove that outright, but "uncle-nephew" or "grandfather-grandson" wouldn't change anything either.) Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the UPCC secretary-ship could potentially be enough for a weak keep, but it needs to be referenced. --Soman (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 19:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having a key leadership position in a major national party would indicate notability. --Soman (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:POLOUTCOMES is clear that routine coverage in elections (which I presume exists) is not sufficient for a candidate who has never been elected. I don't see any other coverage which indicates why the subject is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 05:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MM Basheer Musliyar

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

This person is a real person, but not a notable personality Muhammed Anwar Baqavi (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ - MM Basheer Musliyar and C.H Aidarus Musliyar are both recent nominations for deletion who are founders of Darul Huda Islamic University in Malappuram. I am not sure their notability can simply be based on WP:PROF, as DHIU is not clearly a major institution. DHIU is not listed at Education in Malappuram and it doesn't seem to have accreditation for non-religious degrees. I do not know much about accreditation for religious degrees and am not over impressed by DHIU's membership in Federation of the Universities of the Islamic World, Morocco and The League of Islamic Universities, Cairo. All that said, the school seems to be serving a large number of students, and I would guess that there are significant reliable sources in Malayalam about the school's founders. I am not sure the article titles are correct and the tone of the articles is not NPOV, but the subjects seem to me to be suitable for articles. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken my vote. A search for the names of either individual in malayam and in arabic script yields mostly wikipedia mirrors.Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not proven. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as still nothing for the assured substance in independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 05:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C.H Aidarus Musliyar

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

This person isn't a notable personality Muhammed Anwar Baqavi (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ - MM Basheer Musliyar and C.H Aidarus Musliyar are both recent nominations for deletion who are founders of Darul Huda Islamic University in Malappuram. I am not sure their notability can simply be based on WP:PROF, as DHIU is not clearly a major institution. DHIU is not listed at Education in Malappuram and it doesn't seem to have accreditation for non-religious degrees. I do not know much about accreditation for religious degrees and am not over impressed by DHIU's membership in Federation of the Universities of the Islamic World, Morocco and The League of Islamic Universities, Cairo. All that said, the school seems to be serving a large number of students, and I would guess that there are significant reliable sources in Malayalam about the school's founders. I am not sure the article titles are correct and the tone of the articles is not NPOV, but the subjects seem to me to be suitable for articles. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken my !vote. A search for the names of either individual in malayam and in arabic script yields mostly wikipedia mirrors.Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not proven. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and I was unsure to comment before but I'll say there's still none of the needed substance for an assured article. SwisterTwister talk 00:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sahil Uppal

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

Fails WP:GNG no indepth coverage, very minor parts in TV shows. Too soon. Theroadislong (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete collection of minor roles does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niti Taylor

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

Notability concerns are there.Not much reliable,Independent ,Verifiable sources are there for this article and the article is almost fully relied on one source for its content.I think that it contravenes the Wikipedia policy regarding BLP. Param Mudgal ^talk? 06:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This aricle should not be deleted. She is a famous person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.186.124.127 (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG; the sole keep vote doesn't cite any policy Spiderone 11:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata Christmas Festival

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

Advertisement for non-notable local event. Lacks non trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term "local" is relative especially as we're talking about Kolkata, a metropolitan area of over 14,000,000 which is a larger population than 46 of the American states. Similar to something like a Hollywood Christmas Parade or Dallas Christmas Festival in the smaller cities of Los Angeles and Dallas which there is no consideration of deletion, it's a major festival and it's of no surprise coverage is easily found from even English language sources in a predominately non-English speaking country from non-local sources like the Times of India and the Deccan Herald.[14][15][16] Many more sources with significant coverage are available. Might this be a case of WP:BIAS? --Oakshade (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be notable. Times of India is a major newspaper in India and has an article focusing on this festival.2607:FEA8:1D60:3BF:FC9E:B095:FC2A:B49E (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T. Arif Ali

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

arif ali is a real person but not a notable personality Muhammed Anwar Baqavi (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2016 (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/2016 December 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 12:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - From what I can see in English, I agree that he doesn't seem notable. There may be more in Hindi or Malayalam (I think JIH Kerala website is not a reliable source here). Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No proper sources mentioned and fails notability parameters. 59.177.72.166 (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 11:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Consensus cannot be determined after two relists. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 23:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abhoynagar

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

Not sure whether it is a city, town, village or some other geographical region. Couldn't find anything substantial other than postal zip code. May fail at WP:NGEO. Hitro talk 20:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - peripheral Google references do not suffice to show notability. WP is not intended to just list random name references.--Rpclod (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are non-peripheral reliable sources that show that this topic passes WP:GEOLAND, nothing like "random name references". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND as a "Populated, legally recognized place", it is Ward No. 7 of Agartala, a quick gsearch shows that it contains the Regional Institute of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology (could have its own wikiarticle?), Hindi Higher Secondary School, TRIPURA FOREST DEVELOPMENT & PLANTATION CORPORATION LIMITED - www.tripurainfo.com/Login/UpLoad/1548.pdf, btw here is a map showing it. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It exists and per WP:GEOLAND, it's notable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the article indicates what it is or why it is notable, much less that it is either populated or a legally recognized place.--Rpclod (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pitam Pura. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kohat Enclave

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

Non-notable housing society. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the government of Delhi considered it notable and major enough to spend a fortune making the Kohat Enclave metro station on the Delhi Metro, then it's notable to us. --Oakshade (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOT applies considering it's only a local housing place, not an actual major subject, and we never keep articles because "one person or another considered it significant, therefore we must also accept it". SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How would WP:NOT apply to a neighborhood even if it was "not an actual major subject"? We have hundreds of thousands of articles that are arguably minor but notable topics. And it wasn't "one person or another considered it significant", but the entire Delhi Development Authority, Delhi Legislative Assembly, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation not to mention the Parliament of India which all funded and approved the Delhi Metro and where to place the station. --Oakshade (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe simply naming a metro station for a neighbourhood means it passes WP:GEOLAND. I'm guessing that if one could find Hindi reliable sources for this subdivision one could make a case that it passes WP:GNG and therefore GEOLAND for subdivisions, but that's just supposition on my part. Unless those sources are found, I'd say redirect to Pitam Pura, at least, for now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. With no prejudice against renaming as suggested by multiple participants here, if a consensus on a title can be reached on the talk page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Tamils

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

A redundant to Indian Singaporeans, not a notable ethnic group. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I think redirected the article maybe better. SA 13 Bro 12:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to Indian Singaporeans, plausible search term. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, Singapore Tamils are one of the major ethnic group in Singapore, Tamil bring one of it's official languages, even if you think it's not a major ethnic group, no where in Wikipedia says that you can delete an article based on just it's not a major ethnic group how small or big the ethnic group it is. if you feel it's justifiable to delete Singapore Tamils, then will you delete Malayali Australian and hundreds of different articles relates to various people groups to be deleted as well? Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no significant coverage or if the content has ben already covered, then we don't keep an article. If you feel other articles have been unjustifiably kept, please nominate them for deletion as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Indian Singaporeans This is content fork and should be deleted per WP:DEL5. The content is already covered in Indian Singaporeans and I guess a redirect is fine here. ~~I honestly don't see the need to keep a redirect hanging around.~~ --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tamil is distinct from the rest of India (like all other languages that united under the Indian banner). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tamil is an official language of Singapore. That should qualify the group for notability.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. The Tamils ave been classified as Indian Singaporeans (See Demographics_of_Singapore#Ethnic_groups). Also the article is a WP:POVFORK which simply duplicates material at Indian Singaporeans --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942: How the Singaporean government classifies its population doesn't dictate which articles are created on Wikipedia. All that matters is whether reliable sources discuss Singapore Tamils, which they do.

It's common for one large ethnic group to be sub-divided into smaller groups e.g Asian Americans and Chinese Americans or British Asian and British Indian. There is no reason why we can't have both Indian Singaporeans and Singapore Tamils. And as this article makes clear, not all Singapore Tamils are from India, many are from Sri Lanka. The article does have issues but none that merit deletion.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 21:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we divide larger ethnic groups, but this is a not needed here when the vast majority of information can be included/or is duplicated in another article (See WP:NOPAGE). The thing is that Tamils in Singapore (whether from Sri Lanka or India) are still classified as Indian Singaporeans where the term "Indian" is an ethnic term. The article Indian Singaporeans makes it clear that it cover both Tamils from India as well as from Sri Lanka. When an article already covers a topic, it becomes a WP:POVFORK to create another without a clear need. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear need - Indian Singaporeans is a very large article (nearly 80kB) and is good candidate for WP:SPINOUT. Tamils make up the largest part of "Indian" Singaporeans, therefore the first logical article for spin off is Singapore Tamils. The issues with duplicated content can be overcome by summarising the content in Indian Singaporeans. There are issues with Singapore Tamils but these can be overcome.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tamil is an official language of Singapore, and Tamils are one of the majot ethnic group.--Kanags (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for those who are not familiar with Singapore See Demographics_of_Singapore#Ethnic_groups In Singapore the major ethnic groups are Chinese, Malays and Indians (and Tamils are a subgroup of Indians). We don't have articles about sub-groups because the most sources study Indians as a whole. More importantly, this article is a WP:POVFORK it was creating by copying content from Indian Singaporeans without attribution. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ there are articles do exists for other sub-groups such as Sri Lankans in Singapore etc.. Also Singaporean Indians are quiet distinct from Tamil Nadu expatriates in Singapore who are recent migrants has cultural differences between Singaporean Indian, and numerous than latter.Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need to vote again. Please see WP:NOPAGE and WP:POVFORK. When you created Singapore Tamils you copied content without attribution from Indian Singaporeans. Sri Lankans in Singapore are a separate nationality - the government classifies them as "others", not Indian. But the Tamils form the vast majority of Indian Singaporeans and have never been counted as anything other than Indian. Tamil Nadu expatriates in Singapore are not a notable group - in fact, I have always seen sources discussing them as Indian Singaporeans. If we don't have sources, we can't have an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article need to be kept for reasons: 1. Indian Singaporeans article clearly mentions it's just about Singapore Citizens of Indian descent, it doesn't mentions anything about Other Tamil people living in Singapore who possess Indian and Sri Lankan citizens. 2. There are significant difference among Indian Singaporeans and Other Tamils. ^[1]^[2] 3. There are about 400,000 Other Tamils living in Singapore who are not counted in Indian Singaporeans article.^[3] 4. Also for your note, Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamil descent Singaporeans Also counted as Indian Singaporeans by Singapore government. 5. NRIs from Tamil Nadu are existing as separate community of sort in Singapore, though there is thin line of difference between Indian Singaporeans Tamils and Singapore Tamil Migrants from Tamil Nadu. ^[4]

References

^ "When Singapore Tamils visit India, they don't "go home", they leave their home". The Online Citizen. 4 August 2016.
^ "Rethinking Screen Encounters: Cinema and Tamil Migrant Workers in Singapore". www.screeningthepast.com.
^ "Recent Issue – Vol 88, No 1 – March 2015 | Pacific Affairs". www.pacificaffairs.ubc.ca.
^ "Singapore most preferred destination of Tamil diaspora - INDIA New England News". INDIA New England News. 23 March 2016.

Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not getting the points. We don't create a new article unless absolutely necessary. In addition, you citation doesn't state that "Singapore Tamils" are NOT "Indian Singaporeans".The article as it is now contains a bunch of WP:OR. I will explain below. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about Undefined scope The article claims to be: Singapore Tamils refers to Tamil speaking people of Singapore, predominantly migrated to Singapore in recent times, who were distinct from Tamil speaking native Singaporeans Firstly this is not cited in any reliable source. Secondly if the article is about recent immigrants from Tamil Nadu, then it should be at Tamil Nadu diaspora. The content of the article is not significant - half of it is duplicated from Indian Singaporeans and the other half is WP:OR. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not at all the same as Indian Singaporeans. Perhaps rename to Tamil Diaspora in Singapore.--Yellow Diamond (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is about the Tamil Diaspora in Singapore, then add the content to Tamil_diaspora#Malaysia_and_Singapore. That has more content than this article. If the article grows, then propose a WP:SPLIT. Per WP:NOPAGE, I don't see why need a WP:POVFORK at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is really a POVFork, but I'd support a merge.Yellow Diamond (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a content fork, and a breach of WP:NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles is not a breach of WP:NOR, I have added enough citation to justify Singapore Tamil community is existing one, the word is also. Here is the reference from National Board of Libraries (Singapore)^[1], Tamil community in Singapore includes both Indian, and Sri Lankan origin Tamil, it also include earlier migrants and recent ones. But the article Indian Singaporean refers only Indian origin Tamils who migrated to Singapore earlier. So, I suggest keep the article and help to improve it. Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Quote from Indian Singaporeans "Singapore's Indian community is characterised by an ethnic Tamil majority (54.18%) and a large number of smaller groups. Ethnic Tamils in Singapore include both Tamils from India and Sri Lankan Tamils". Indian Singaporeans covers both Indian Tamils and Sri Lankan Tamils. It also included the recent migrants (See "Contemporary period: 1990s – present"). At this point your article is a redudant content fork. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then why you have mentioned earlier Sri Lankans are categorized as other ethnic groups earlier. Hope you clarify things better rather conflicting your own views. Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for goodness sake, "Sri Lankan" refers to a nationality in this context. Recent migrants from Sri Lanka in Singapore (who are Sinhalese) are NOT classified are Indians. They are classified as "others". But earlier migrants from Ceylon (as it was then known) were Tamils and they were classified as Indians. The article about Sri Lankans in Singapore it badly written an unsourced. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Singapore, National Library Board. "Tamil community | Infopedia". eresources.nlb.gov.sg.

The Singapore Department of Statistics defines 'Indians' as a 'race' (or 'ethnic group'), comprising "persons of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan origin such as Tamils, Malayalis, Punjabis, Bengalis, Singhalese etc this is from Indian Singaporean article. You are contradicting your view once again. :( it's seems you just don't want article on Singapore Tamils sub-group among Indians, but seems okay with other Sub groups. Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no double standards. What you are not realising is that we don't have articles about individual ethnicities titled Sinhalese in Singapore, Punjabis in Singapore, Bengalis in Singapore. We only have Sri Lankans in Singapore and Indians in Singapore (which was later moved to Indian Singaporeans but it still one article). By a long standing consensus we do have articles about Nationality intersecting Nationality, provided a significant coverage exists. But we don't create individual ethnicity pages if the information is already covered in other articles. This is called a content fork and it not useful. Malayali Australians which you cited is another good example of a content fork (and it should be redirected/merged as well). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Winnan Tirunallur: There are no such articles on any of these sub-groups in Singapore because they are bundled together. This is an encyclopaedic article being discussed, not an exercise in WP:BLUDGEONing a single editor because you're pushing the envelope in order to challenging that editor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per Kanags, "Tamil is an official language of Singapore, and Tamils are one of the majority ethnic group".Shankar2001 (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, whilst there is significant overlap between Indian Singaporeans and Tamils in Singapore, these are still distinct concepts and an article on Tamils in Singapore (and Tamil language and culture in the country) is definately a legit article subject. --Soman (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been shown on this article that Tamils are regarded as separate from native Indians in Singapore. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been shown on this article that Tamils are regarded as separate from native Indians in Singapore? Where? I saw this which mentions "Singapore Tamils" and on reading the article it uses "Indians" not Tamils. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Tamils are defined in Wikipedia as "Tamils, are an ethnic group who speak Tamil as their mother tongue....."; they are a sub-group of native Indians in Singapore. You don't need word to word something to define as "Tamils".Shankar2001 (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - arguments provided seem to point towards this group being both distinct and notable Spiderone 09:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not a huge fan of WP:OTHERCRAP arguments, but in this case, there is quite a bit of other crap. Seems overall like a relevant demographic classification. TimothyJosephWood 13:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article about demographics, but that of 'ethnicity'. While there may be arguments for a SPIN-OFF article, the entire article was lifted from the Indian Singaporeans article without any form of discussion. I fail to see what cats have to do with whether an article is merited or not: they're categories, and do not serve to define articles. WP:OTHERSTUFF cuts both ways. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity is a demographic classification? And the category was provided as a list of examples of similar articles, for example, that we have a 35k article on all 15k Eurasians in Singapore. When there are a half million Tamils, I find it hard to believe that a full article isn't warranted in principle. Having said that, I wouldn't be opposed at all to draftifying it if the creator wants to beef it up some, and perhaps request input from related WikiProjects. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as sufficient given the similarities. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, better renamed to Singaporean Tamils. This is a concept distinct from Indian Singaporeans, which include a significant number of non-Tamil people such as Punjabis. Lysimachi (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kani Kusruti

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

Promotional prod removed by editor hence starting the AFD discussion. Page is overtly promotional and is written like an advert. Moreover the person lacks notability. Recommend DELETE Film = Revolution (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree that inpart the article is too promotional but don't think it is bad enough for TNT, the promo parts can be edited out. There is reliable coverage such as the Hindu here, Manorama here, a short piece in Times of India here, and controversy reported in the Asianet News here, there seems to be enough for WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a notable person. There are many reliable coverage like Times of India here,The Hindu here, Asianet News here, Deccanchronicle here,Manoramaonline here are these. Page is well written too. there seems to be enough for WP:BASIC Ayyappan CS 15:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayyappancs (talk • contribs)
Keep Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the listed characters are noticeably "woman, "singer", "guest", "wife" and "housekeeper" and those are the ones aside from the unnamed characters; that itself is not what establishes notability and the listed links are still nothing but announcements, mentions and other entertainment casualties, nothing we accept for substance. As it is, Ayyappancs links are shown to be nothing but these same exact sources: Interviews, announcements and mentions, none of that is what satisfies our set established policies. What's worse is the sheer fact we've establishes these such publications are largely paid for publishing such materials by the subjects themselves, hence also unacceptable. We make no compromises because of "She's from another country" or "She's a woman", and we never have established that in policy, and we won't now. I'll allow Drafting if needed, SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 04:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GreedyGame

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

Clear advertising with clear advertising-motivations by advertising-only accounts, not only considering every single thing here is either published or republished PR advertising, but the casualty of simply tossing links without actually specifying shows it too, regardless of anything, because that's exactly what WP:NOT states, we are not a company-advertising platform, and this is quite clear it was supposed to be used as one. For Wikipedia's sake, the history itself shows this was not planned for anything else but advertising, so it's both blatant and covert advertising. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on a run of the mill tech company. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promo piece. Agree with K.e.coffman on the run of the mill coverage/company. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planys Technologies

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

Clear advertising by clear advertising-only accounts and, regardless of the "first and only company", this is still advertising and the sources show it, thus there's nothing to suggest both non-advertising-motivated and actual convincing substance, and the article's current history speaks for itself. With WP:NOT policy, there's nothing to suggest we should tolerate this. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Apologies for violating the wikipedia norms. I have edited the article again and updated, please review and let me know of any other changes.To give an overview, Planys Technologies is an authorized company in Chennai TamilNadu, India and the content mentioned is authentic and true abiding by the company norms. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by RamanujaVijay (talk • contribs) 09:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yes we are noted and I have mentioned the references as well. Maybe my referencing is wrong, please guide me as to what should be done further. There are a couple of article publications in which we were featured upon and I have added a few in the referencing column too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RamanujaVijay (talk • contribs) 07:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft Depending on how innovative their submersible technology is, they might conceivably be notable, but the references here do not show it. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yes we are noted and I have mentioned the references as well. Maybe my referencing is wrong, please guide me as to what should be done further. There are a couple of article publications in which we were featured upon and I have added a few in the referencing column too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.232.134 (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current sources and article text imply WP:TOOSOON status. Possibility of further sources that can support notability can be accommodated by future undeletion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shy Kalra

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

Article about a fashion choreographer fails WP:ANYBIO. Speedy was declined by user:Simbalillyoreo without giving any reason. I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to support notability. GSS (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note — The article creator Oreolillyaga10 is a confirmed sock puppet of Simbalillyoreo (user who declined the speedy). GSS (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG - Only the first reference (Verve Magazine) is specifically about the subject. All the other references only mention the subject, or the subject gives an opinion about another subject, or are non-neutral. A google search shows only 4 news items, non of which are specifically about the subject. -- Taketa (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel White (Actress)

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

WP:TOOSOON: The actor has played supporting role in Bengali film Har Har Byomkesh and Hindi film Ungli. There are only 3 independent sources about the actor in Times of India but all three sources are published by the same author (Ruman Ganguly) which looks like paid publicity. GSS (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. TOOSOON, two supporting roles (one with a character that is not even named) fail WP:NACTOR. No objection to userfying, since if she keeps it up she may become notable in few years. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's just too soon for her! Mhhossein ^talk 18:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinion here is divided, with several users for deletion stating that the article functions as an advertisement, essentially qualifying for deletion per WP:NOT. Conversely, several users have stated that the company meets notability guidelines, with some stating that promotional tone has been addressed or can be addressed via copy editing. Of note is that the article was copy edited by some users to address promotional tone after it was nominated for deletion. Ultimately, no consensus for a particular action has arisen within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capillary Technologies

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Literally a blatant advertisement not only given the overfocused information, but also the fact it's clear the company contributed to this, in both with its employees and a company account, see "Capillary1", and that's basically sufficient to delete alone with WP:NOT policy. After this, we then consider the fact everything is literally advertising, either published or republished, therefore showing none of it can be taken seriously, and we certainly shouldn't since we know the damages of advertising here. Searches unsurprisingly showed nothing but such blatant PR, therefore the WP:NOT policy still applies. To even explain, note how the consistency of all sources focus with company advertising, and damned in these assured, "The amazing story of this company and what they say" is one of them. SwisterTwister talk 19:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:ORG via substantial coverage in respected business publications. A click of the "news" button at the top of this AFD shows sufficient substantial coverage in business publications . Please do not assert that any editorial coverage in a business publication by a staff writer is an advertisement. Look up the definition of advertisement. It is paid coverage written by the company. The relevant part of WP:NOT says "(NOT)Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. " That applies to this article. Every editor is free to remove any statement which is promotional in tone or which is not reliably sourced. In fact various editors have worked on the article since a possible single-purpose account created it. If a likely company account edited an article at some point in its history, along with unbiased unrelated editors, that is not a sufficient ground to delete it. Edison (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Simply to enhance my nomination, I will state that WP:NOT twice mentions "Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue, means of advertising companies or anything close to it" and that's exactly what this is, to the letter, in that it goes about company finances, services, who it worked with, its people, etc. None of that is notable and we should not mistake it as such and, as it is, we've confirmed as shown in numerous other AFDs closed as Delete, we cannot confide in these publications because of the sheer blatancy of publishing whatever the company asked for, not what genuine news needed. Therefore, we cannot ignore WP:NOT and accept whatever advertising exists, because "it needs improvements" is not taking away this is an advertisement in and out, and those are allowed removal by policy alone.

Therefore, now said about the unconfided usability in these sources, there are therefore no actual sources to use because it's all advertising. WP:ORG means nothing if policy is applied, and it's a policy we use every single day. What's once again damning is the sheer fact it's obvious this company used this article as an advertisement and also involved its own employees, that alone is enough for deletion regardless of anything, because as WP:NOT also cites "Wikipedia is not a PR webhost". SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; this information belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The elements which made the article look like corporate spam are gone in one of the recent edits. The page has improved history section now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.156.47 (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 122.166.156.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The main concerns with this entry were edits made by an apparent internal employee of the company in question as “Capillary1”, the content which did not have a neutral point of view and links to non authoritative websites. The issues seem to have been fixed now where the Overfocused information written by User ‘Capillary1’ have been removed and general information available on trustworthy news sources has been added, satisfying WP:NPOV. I don't agree with SwisterTwister’s comment stating - ”sheer blatancy of publishing whatever the company asked for, not what genuine news needed” since most of the information mentioned on the wiki page has trustworthy and valid citations . According to me, the tone of history section and the rest of the sections seem quite generic and neutral that satisfies WP:NOT. The citations now point to authoritative external sources which are not paid advertisements but trustworthy news coverages and this satisfies WP:NOT. It was also stated that the mentioning of the Financing of the company violates WP:NOT but these are significant events in the company history. A google search makes it evident that there are trusted business publication references and satisfies WP:ORG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLastMonk (talk • contribs) 04:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC) -See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aseemksinha — TheLastMonk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment -- two of the "keep" votes comes from single purpose accounts. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Firstly, this debate is not a Vote as you said, but a discussion of fair opinions on the article. Secondly, Every account will look like a single purpose account in beginning even after a few edits. Thirdly, since you seem to be an experienced contributor, you must have read the Single purpose account page you must be aware of the community standards of not Biting the newcomers, to focus on the subject matter and not the person. Fourth of all, Please look at the valid points I have made and review the article based on that and help come to a consensus since our collective motive here is to protect genuine and worthy content on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLastMonk (talk • contribs) 05:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering that this is a Singaporean company, I find it extremely suspicious that it has not received significant coverage in the Straits Times (which is pretty much the only broadsheet newspaper here). That led me to look at the sources. Most of them are from Economic Times/Indiatimes which as we have seen here have often published redressed press releases. In addition to that, many of the sources are often routine news of merger/aquisition/product launch. There is not one good article which focuses on the company and explains why it is significant or what impact it has made. The sources are not good enough for WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. Add to that the promo pressure - the article is swamped by SPAs and so is this AFD (and I suspect undisclosed paid editing going on). There is absolutely no need to waste volunteer time on stuff like this - this is pretty much against WP:NOTPROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be WP:SPAM & per nom Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 05:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
week Delete Article writing is very poor and intends are clearly promotional in nature. But it is known and substantial company to be here if we can keep merely startups who are just started somewhere. It is covered by popular known media as well as material for books. Might be Neutral writing is the right way to keep it. Right now it is written like a company profile nothing else. Improve the content my vote may change. Light2021 (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The page might not meet the high standards of Wikipedia, but that solely should not be the reason to take this down. The company is quite a renowned one and has progressed quite well in last couple of years. The references of the page are to prestigious publications in India and abroad, and it will be hasty to term them as advertisement. Given the nature of Wikipedia to be repository of information, it will behoove to have this organizaion with of course better content. Aseemksinha (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aseemksinha[reply]

"The page might not meet the high standards of Wikipedia, but that solely should not be the reason to take this down." That is actually a very good reason to delete this page. Wikipedia is not a place to promote one's business and Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "it would be hasty to term them as advertisement" Yet that's exactly what the contents are, nonetheless, as it's all advertising so that compliments the fact of "might not meet the high standards", we never keep articles simply by the basis of "they are known and advanced". In fact, none of the Keep comments have said anything else but "they're important!". SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Every source that can be found from a Google search and also the cited references show that the company is Headquartered in Singapore. A little bit of digging in web shows that the company operates globally and has a bulk of its market and operations outside of Singapore which explains why this company is mentioned more outside of Singapore. It also has been cited by trusted sources such as Harvard Business Review, Forbes, Fortune, Gartner, TechCrunch etc which have written in length on why the company is significant, satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. Therefore Not having references from one particular Newspaper (Straits Times in this case) or from one particular region(Singapore) is not sufficient ground to call an article not good enough for WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. Moreover, the article in its current state seems to have a neutral POV with sources cited even if it has been edited by several SPAs. (SPAs are not against Wikipedia Policies as long as they stick to the code, follow the guidelines and write from a neutral POV). Ashwing (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aseemksinha[reply]

Keep The sources and awards are enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. The arguments for deletion are not compelling. If it had a POV problem in the past or even if it still has one now, that is not a reason for deletion. That is a reason for fixing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMathews (talk • contribs) 05:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a policy-based comment? The links above are suggestive guidelines, not policies. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Punit, Itika Sharma (2014-11-07). "Six-year old startup Capillary Technologies faces road blocks. Startup backed by Norwest, Sequoia, Qualcomm & Amex Ventures to see exit of 2 co-founders by March 2015, tweaks US strategy amid lukewarm response". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  At a time when several investors are placing bets on Indian enterprise software product startups, Capillary Technologies, which provides cloud-based software solutions for retailers, is faced with multiple road-blocks in its seventh year of operation.
  While sources have earlier said that Capillary's co-founder Krishna Mehra is on his way out of the company due to differences with other founders, it is now learnt that a second (of the three) co-founders, Ajay Modani, has also decided to step down.
  ...
  Capillary Technologies enables retail marketers to manage customer data, gather insights from the same and personalise engagements through social media, mobile, e-mail, online, and in store channels. The company is backed by marquee venture capital investors such as Norwest Venture Partners, Sequoia Capital, and Qualcomm Ventures.
  It was also the first Indian company in which American Express Ventures invested earlier this year. Capillary Technologies has so far raised around $34 million in institutional funding rounds, as per online startup database CrunchBase.
  According to the company's website, its clients include retail giants such as Marks & Spencer, Nike, Puma, Raymond, Peter England and Lifestyle, along with food chains like Pizza Hut and Faaso's.
2. Dharmakumar, Rohin (2012-11-05). "Capillary Technologies: Secret Cache. Safe online digital storage: File away your returns". Forbes India. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Two college buddies drop out of their jobs, tinker around with a few ideas, and come up with just the product customers were looking for. Aneesh Reddy and Krishna Mehra came up with the name ‘Capillary’ before they had any idea what the business would be. But after a couple of early ‘pivots’ around shopping ‘deals’ and licenced, on-premise retail CRM (customer relationship management), they hit the sweet spot: A hosted, pay-as-you-go retail CRM that builds a world of data and intelligence around each customer, using mobile phone numbers as identifiers. No new terminals, no servers, no customised implementations—just actionable analytics, like suggesting an instant 15 percent discount on trousers to a customer who’s buying shirts.
  ...
  Capillary is used across nearly 10,000 stores today, and handles over 2.5 terabytes of data across 15 million customers.
  ...
  Till it raised a mammoth Series A funding of $15.5 million in September, Capillary was mostly under the radar, thanks to $1.5 million in angel funding from 17 different investors across the world.
3. Chng, Grace (2014-02-20). "Start Singapore". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  AMERICAN Express Ventures, the venture capital arm of the well-known credit card company, has made its first investment in a Singapore software firm.
  It has teamed up with venture capital firms Sequoia Capital, Norwest Venture Partners and Qualcomm Ventures to invest in Capillary Technologies. According to US tech blog Techcrunch, the total investment was US$15.5 million (S$19.6 million).
  Capillary Technologies sells software to help retailers understand customers' buying behaviour. It will use the funds to expand into new markets such as the United States and Australia.
  ...
  Capillary moved to Singapore nearly three years ago from Bangalore, India, where it was founded.
4. Cheok, Jacquelyn (2014-02-13). "Local CRM startup bags $5m funding from Amex Ventures". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  LOCAL startup Capillary Technologies, which makes customer relationship management (CRM) cloud-based software, recently bagged close to $5 million in funding from American Express (Amex) Ventures, in what it claims is the latter's first investment in the region.
  The funds will be used to expand Capillary's services in existing markets including Singapore, India and the US, as well as open new offices in Australia and China this year, chief executive officer Aneesh Reddy told The Business Times.
  ...
  To-date, Capillary has raised over $20 million since its launch in 2008.
  The global CRM software market is forecast to hit US$36.5 billion by 2017, according to global information technology research firm Gartner.
5. Cheok, Jacquelyn (2014-07-18). "S'pore-based CRM start-up bags US$14m Series B funding". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  CAPILLARY Technologies, a Singapore-based customer relationship management (CRM) start-up, is going places - and literally too. It recently bagged US$14 million in Series B funding - one of the highest amounts by a Singapore start-up - in a round led by US-based Sequoia Capital and Norwest Venture Partners.
  Existing investors Qualcomm Ventures and American Express Ventures also participated, taking Capillary's total funding to over US$30 million to date. The start-up now manages enterprise customers in some 16 countries worldwide, having entered new markets such as the US, Australia and South Africa shortly after it raised US$14 million Series A funding in 2012.
  ...
  The start-up's latest clients include Marks & Spencer, KFC Singapore, Lacoste, Keedo and Courts. This brings its total client count to more than 150 major brands across 10,000 retail locations, and total reach to over 100 million consumers globally. With the Series B money, Capillary will enhance its product offerings, enter new markets and expand headcount.
6. Shu, Catherine (2015-09-02). "Social CRM Provider Capillary Technologies Raises $45M, Acquires MartJack". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Capillary Technologies, the Singapore-based social CRM company, has raised a $45 million Series C to fuel its evolution into a omnichannel retail platform. The round was led by Warburg Pincus with participation from returning investors Sequoia Capital and Norwest Venture Partners and brings Capillary’s total funding so far to $79.1 million.
  Most of the capital is earmarked for the acquisition of e-commerce software platform MartJack, which significantly expands Capillary’s online retail capabilities. Capillary also announced the purchase of Ruaha Labs, a machine learning startup.
  ...
  Capillary is currently targeting expansion in India, China, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and the United States. Increasing its SaaS offerings means that Capillary now competes more closely with companies such as SAP, Oracle, and Salesforce.
7. Perez, Sarah (2012-09-25). "Social CRM Company Capillary Technologies Raises $15.5M From Sequoia, Norwest & Qualcomm". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Capillary Technologies, a social CRM company that helps retailers engage over mobile, email, social and in-store channels, is announcing the close of $15.5 million in Series A funding led by Sequoia Capital and Norwest Venture Partners with Qualcomm Ventures also participating in the round. The company, which offers a cloud-based SaaS platform for customer engagement, clienteling, loyalty and social CRM solutions, currently works with over 100 major brands across 10,000 locations worldwide, and just recently entered the U.S. market.
  Current customers include Pizza Hut, Puma, Robinson’s, United Colors of Benetton, Mothercare, Store21, Sunglass Hut and Nike.
8. Mishra, Pankaj (2014-02-12). "With $4M In Fresh Funding From Amex Ventures, Capillary Wants to be Salesforce Of Social CRM". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Capillary Technologies, the social CRM startup based in Bangalore, has raised additional funding of around $4 million from American Express Ventures. The startup plans to expand into the U.S., Middle East, China and Australia with this fresh funding, which takes the total capital raised so far to around $20 million.
  Norwest Venture Partners, Sequoia Capital and Qualcomm Ventures are among other existing investors in the startup.
  ...
  The startup competes with bigger enterprise vendors such as Oracle, Salesforce and SAP on one hand, and smaller, niche startups including Mobiquest, Swiply and Punchd at the other end. Its product — InTouch — gathers real time customer data, applies predictive analysis, and helps retailers such as Nike, Puma, Marks & Spencer and Nokia contact potential customers with personalized offers on-the-go.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Capillary Technologies to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the current version of the article and consider it to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. That the article can be further improved is not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Cunard (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow assessment of provided sources - final. Nördic Nightfury 11:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 11:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis from the sources above:
At a time when several investors are placing bets on Indian enterprise software product startups, Capillary Technologies, which provides cloud-based software solutions for retailers (hold for company quote) .... Capillary Technologies has so far raised around $34 million in institutional funding rounds, as per online startup database CrunchBase....According to the company's website, its clients include retail giants such as Marks & Spencer, Nike, Puma, Raymond, Peter England and Lifestyle, along with food chains like Pizza Hut and Faaso's (clear advertising with the usual signs of company cosmeticizing, and the final part itself says "company website information"}} showing the blatant signs none of it was independent but instead the company's own words, the publication itself is known for republishing company words)
Capillary Technologies, the social CRM startup based in Bangalore, has raised additional funding of around $4 million from American Express Ventures (hold for additional funding information).....Its company competitors are...." (another clear PR with the natural signs of PR involvements, sheer consistency)
Capillary Technologies, a social CRM company that helps retailers engage over mobile, email, social and in-store channels, is announcing the close of $15.5 million in Series A funding led by Sequoia Capital and Norwest Venture Partners with Qualcomm Ventures also participating in the round (the company's services are....) its clients include (yet again following the same exact information and words, yet a different publisher and date, showing the author is only the company itself and naturally since it's about the company's own business plans)
Capillary Technologies, the Singapore-based social CRM company, has raised a $45 million Series C to fuel its evolution into a omnichannel retail platform....The company announces...Its clients are... (Yet another PR consistency
LOCAL startup Capillary Technologies, which makes customer relationship management (CRM) cloud-based software, recently bagged close to $5 million....The funding will be used for....The company's other funding is....and the other plans are... (yet another PR consistency)
A well known company....has teamed up with venture capital firms Sequoia Capital, Norwest Venture Partners and Qualcomm Ventures to invest in Capillary Technologies....
(Hold for company's CEO story)....Capillary is used across nearly 10,000 stores today, and handles over 2.5 terabytes of data across 15 million customers.

When a company's only attention is by seeking and hoping for funding and clients, it shows it hasn't even stabilized itself and thus is publishing and republishing PR, since that's their only interests and, as it is, WP:NOT clearly states "Wikipedia is not a business listing for simple company information such as funding, activities, etc.". There's no compromises here since it's clear the only "news" there is, what the company itself wants its clients to hear. As it is, my nomination clearly stated the company itself only used it for clear advertising and here we are now, with SPA comments. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- actually, speedy Delete as G5, since all major contributors appear to be sockpuppets or meatpuppets of the editing ring whose representative is User:Ashwing. Unfortunately, the data here is too hold to prove it by checkuser but everything about the article is consistent. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

The article was created 11 November 2011‎. Ashwing (talk · contribs) was blocked five years later in December 2016. WP:G5 is not applicable. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and to the extent that arguments to remove all companies from Wikipedia are relevant, why are they not stated as IAR? Unscintillating (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major reliable sources think their audiences need information about this topic, such as Bloomberg and Gartner, and we follow the sources. The article is fine, as it has useful things to say that serve as a reference point for the topic, interconnecting that information into the world, written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. Unscintillating (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added "WP:GNG" as a wikilink to my !vote, to address an objection below. Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not a policy-based vote and simply stating "major reliable sources hink their audiences need information about this" is not how our policies work at all and they never have, because our articles aren't controlled by these said "major reliable sources" or how they controls our actions against them. We have also never accepted things because they were "fine and useful" especially not when it's clear advertising as shown here; I even showed above how the company blatantly republished its own quotes in said "major reliable sources" so there's not even independent "news", hence the sources are not acceptable. All of our policies in WP:What Wikipedia is not clearly state "Wikipedia is not a general listing for business information, services and other contents" and this exactly fits here. Therefore, the fact the account itself was blocked for advertising is relevant and it damages us as an encyclopedia to keep any articles connected to those campaigns. Like with these other advertising campaigns, we remove them as they have no place here. The fact the quoted "reliable major sourcing" above was shown to be simply be published and republished PR says enough since the news publishers couldn't even be clean about it, so we shouldn't jump into ourselves. As the Delete votes commented earlier, the concerns about advertising, SPAs and the overall influence here is alone to delete, regardless of existing sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per our article, the proof by repeated assertion fallacy "is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted...In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth..." Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus after 3 relistings--a good example of why multiple relistings can sometimes be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U.K. Sivagnanam

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

Non-notable social activist and politician. He is not even the chief of the organisation. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep found this while patrolling & have helped a bit with the article, initial blurb looked like nothing but a quick Google search turned up a trove of links in both Indian & international media, as well as multiple references via Google books, for this individual, going back decades. I listed several on the article's Talk page & there are plenty more. JamesG5 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only the leaders of organisations are notable.Rathfelder (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable activist. Fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find anything with a coverage of the person...Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I linked multiple articles and a Google book source on the Talk page, and the link at the top of this page https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22U.K.+Sivagnanam%22&num=50 produces several more. JamesG5 (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, not convinced. I went through the Google link James posted. There are several repeats of the same article quoting the subject about a meeting with Fidel Castro twenty years ago, and several other cites quoting the subject. As is well established, quotes from a subject cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. In order to meet the GNG, as we all know, the subject needs to receive significant coverage that is about the subject. Nothing of the sort's been provided. Ravenswing 10:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG; I agree with Ravenswing entirely Spiderone 18:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)'[reply]
Delete - WP:POLITICIAN stresses on significant coverage in reliable sources for an independent article. Unfortunately coverage here is minimal. Other than "broken brick wall" and "meeting fidel castro" articles, I couldn't find articles on work done by this person. Even the book simply points out the incident of breaking the wall. Thus the article fails WP:GNG. vivek7de--tAlK 14:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lataguri MPCA

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

No sources. Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 06:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Three issues here:

Notability. First and foremost, the article meets WP:ORG per Forbes India, the Business Standard, and The Economic Times.

Paid editing. It's likely that the page creator is in violation of our paid editing policies. If the article is notable. though, we should still keep it.

Reliability of the sources. I respectfully disagree with User:SwisterTwister that "we cannot confide in India's publications, even if known and major, to not publish company advertising." It's not for us as Wikipedia editors to make that call. Our standard is verifiability, not truth, and so we should rely on the sources above even if we suspect they are advertising. Cerebellum (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Heal

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Purely promotional work by paid editor. Sourced to blogs and procedural coverage. Editing patterns consistent with paid PR editing, especially awards[17][18][19] and acquisitions[20] infodumps.

WP:OWNer Snkay9 accidentally revealed himself to be a paid PR editor in this edit where he attempted to link a Word document called "Revised Quick Heal Wikipedia Page.doc" by linking it from his Outlook inbox. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 20:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Linking Word document is not direct clue about paid editing (eg. I did similar thing, when I prepared some bigger changes offline). However, sources in this article are too weak to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually pretty damning evidence - look at the directory it was linked from. He received these instructions via email. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 15:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep (Modifying my comment). As excessive spam articles come from India, even notable articles from India are being seen as corporate spam. This company is covered in many reliable sources, which are third party and independent. The coverage is not for few days but for years, in not one source but in multiple sources. WP:GEOBIAS should be avoided. Editors should try to find some better AFD article as I did here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopma.in. Wasting time to delete a notable article as it is from India is pointless. --Marvellous Spider-Man 16:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marvellous Spider-Man: Company may be notable, but sources used in the article aren´t convincing. Please, could you (or anybody other) provide better sources for review? Pavlor (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources in the article is not a reason to Delete. A basic Step D in WP:BEFORE can give better sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvellous Spider-Man: Then it should be simple task to provide 3 references you think are best? Pavlor (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment- I am not supposed to research among thousands of sources. Articles created by paid editors can't be deleted if it has notability. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Marvellous Spider-Man 12:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvellous Spider-Man: My mini-review of your sources:

1: About issue of shares - seems to be based on informations provided directly by the company = weak source
2: Most of the text is by company representative; no author mentioned (only "Press Trust of India") = weak source
3: About their report about Cyber-Attack, not much about the company; no author mentioned (only "Press Trust of India") = useable source
4: Entirely based on informations provided by company representative; Written by Agencies... = weak source
5: About issue of shares (same issue as 1) - seems to be based on informations provided directly by the company = weak source
6: New COO - seems to be based on press-release, but at least something about the company (its representative) = weak/useable source
7: Company acquisition - seems to be based on press-release = weak source
8: About issue of shares (same issue as 1) and allegations against the company); behind pay-wall; no author mentioned ("BS Reporter") = useable source
9: Company responds to allegations (see 8); short news; no author mentioned ("our bureau") = useable source
10: About issue of shares (same issue as 1); behind pay-wall; no author mentioned (BS Reporter) = useable source

Conclusion: If these are best sources about this company, this article has no place on Wikipedia, I fear. 6 of these source cover plain issue of shares... the rest is not much better. (Note about my source ratings: weak = no notability estabilished (no RS); useable = some notability estabilished (somewhat RS), but only thin coverage; good = notability estabilished (RS), broad coverage). Pavlor (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:GEOBIAS. Wikipedia has no term called useable source, as you have branded them. These sources are third party independent sources. The amount of scrutiny you are doing here, if this level of scrutiny is done on other company/organization articles, then I believe 79% of all WP:COMPANY articles in Wikipedia will be deleted. This AFD discussion is about Notability, not about content dispute in the article. Editors can reduce the article into a stub. School articles with complete zero sources, zero result in Google news are kept in Wikipedia as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Marvellous Spider-Man 16:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvellous Spider-Man: My source rating is explained at the end of my first post... I should add RS = reliable source. Pavlor (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep : There are significant coverage about the Quick Heal in multiple independent sources which is sufficient to meet the notability criteria. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm seeing is TOI/ET used as PR blog hosts and procedural coverage by stock market sites. This is why I nominated, my own searches returned the same problem. Could you please cite an independent, reliable source discussing Quick Heal? -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 15:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jergling: A simple search is giving more than 7 million search results from the reliable sources -- I don't think that there could be more than that to establish notability as per WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGCRITE. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7 million sources != 7 million reliable sources. ORGDEPTH is about seeking quality over quantity, not the other way around. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 17:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update : I've removed some promotional contents and added few reliable sources. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've deleted the unsourced list (thank you), and added yet another press release. These are not establishing GNG, they're just establishing the company's ability to publish press releases and PR blogs. Do you see my issue here? -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 17:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This PCMag article about Quick Heal AntiVirus Pro was mentioned in the original PROD: [21] I also found The Inquirer article about iOS security vulnerability discovered by Quick Heal and others: [22] Sure, still not ideal sources about this company, but far better than republished press-releases. Pavlor (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Inquirer article (which is an actual article by a staff editor!) makes a genuine case for notability by citing Quick Heal as a subject expert, thank you. It's still rather strange to me that he cited QH rather than the normal resources (Malwarebytes, Sophos) but it shows that they have a presence and reputation. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 21:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– A google search shows, Quick Heal was covered by forbes way back in 2012 ^[1]. This puts up a good case of showing its repute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.223.154.169 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that Forbes outlet has similar permissive publishing policy as other Forbes portals, then no, it is weak source. Pavlor (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AV-Comparatives lists Quick Heal among other anti-virus, internet security software. Marvellous Spider-Man 07:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.forbesindia.com/article/12-hidden-gems/quick-heal-viral-success/34063/1

Delete as corporate spam with no indications of notability or importance. The current copy contains:

In 2008, Quick Heal were selected as hosts for the AVAR 2008 International conference held at Delhi.[12] In 2010, Quick Heal received an investment of ₹ 60 Crores from Sequoia Capital[13] And new branch offices were opened in Madurai, Tamil Nadu. In 2012, offices were opened in Japan and US, and in 2013, offices were opened in Africa and UAE.

We have here inconsequential intricate detail; news of funding (routine); office directory (belongs on company web site). The rest of the article is pretty much same. No value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Poor sources. The only potentially good source is Forbes, and a single source does not suffice WP:NCORP. Plus, I have lost a lot of respect for Forbes since I realized they are running a ton of blogs with little editor oversight. Verdict: likely WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one thing we've laid here at AfD is that we cannot immediately confide in these publications alone, and this is because of the sheer blatancy of advertising, and that's the case here, regardless of anything. The only solutions for such questionability is to remove them altogether since they are both not improvable or convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep : There is a lot of significant coverage for Quick Heal. Similar to PC Magzine, Quick Heal is also listed on SC Magazine, ZD Net Links : http://www.zdnet.com/article/a-look-at-quick-heal-mobile-security/ & http://www.scmagazineuk.com/quick-heal-technologies-endpoint-security-total-with-dlp/review/4613/.

Apart from the sources, Quick Heal is a well known provider of products and solutions in the Security software industry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Droopdead (talk • contribs) 20:15, December 6, 2016 (UTC)

Comment- The sources I gave are better than yours, and they are WP:IRS sources. If they don't get convinced by The Economic Times, The Hindu Business Line, Business Standard, The Indian Express sources, they won't change their decision by checking your links. The administrator will take his/her decision. Creating new accounts will only give more confidence to delete voters. --Marvellous Spider-Man 16:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WP:SPA, please note that notability is not inherited, and so the cited product reviews don't help here. They are relavant to discussion of notability of the products, not for the company. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Amazon too rates Quick Heal as a Notable Brand in today's coverage in a leading daily ' Economic Times' http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/mobile-antivirus-software-sold-most-in-2016-amazon/articleshow/55834459.cms.

Again, Quick Heal is definitely a notable company

@Droopdead: Unlike others, I see products as part of company life, their reviews in reliable sources may help to improve notability of the company article. Looking at sources you provided:

scmagazineuk.com - review of product by magazine staff writer (apparently); looks like good source
zdnet.com - looks good, but it is introduced as Mobile India blog post; blogs aren´t usually reliable source
economictimes.indiatimes.com - passing mention among many other products = useable source

From my experience, company articles need much better sources than other topics to survive AfD. Promotional language, suspected COI and SPAs are warning signs for many Wikipedia editors. Pavlor (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- User:Pavlor's review of sources are his own views. Most of his comments are wrong. He is finding unreliable sources as good source and third party WP:RS sources as bad source. His edit count is very low as compared to his 8 year old account. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvellous Spider-Man: Of course my mini-review of sources represents only my view (what else?)... What source(s) I found as good you think is(are) unreliable? Edit count as mark of quality? What to say, this conversation becomes really amusing. Pavlor (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep while the article maybe written poorly and need updating, saying a company listed on the India NSE isn't notable is kind of crazy. The NSE is their largest according to Wikipedia^[1]. The Times of India also isn't just a blog. ^[2] Ferrari250 (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ferrari, and Spider-man are right. There are good sources. The nom didn't even really try to make a case. If there is a COI issue with this article or editor then make that case at COIN. COI is not a reason for deletion.--Adam in MO Talk 03:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles from The Economic Times [23] The Economic Times/Press Trust of India, [24] [25] Business Standard, [26] [27] The Indian Express, [28] The Hindu, [29] NDTV/Press Trust of India, [30], would seem to be enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The article needs work, but the subject is notable. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight: All sources you listed except one (University course) are about issue of shares in February 2016. Is this really only visible basis for notability of QuickHeal? Pavlor (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The very first source I listed is about a corporate acquisition by QuickHeal that isn't at all related to its IPO, so I'm not sure how in depth you looked at these sources. While several of the stories are about the IPO, many of them are in the context of a lawsuit regarding share ownership at that time, which is distinct enough from the IPO to be another fount of notability. One of the articles from Business Standard is also technically about the IPO buts gives a profile of the company as a whole. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and I meant to comment sooner, and something I'll note first is the fact we've established as it is we cannot confide in India's publications, even if known and major, to not publish company advertising and that's clearly the case in the suggested links above; it's noticeable because all of them have the same consistency in only actually focusing with the company's advertised information and businesses hence clear advertising. Another is that simply notice the sheer case of this article also clearly existing to only advertise the company itself. Therefore removal is entirely applicable with policy WP:NOT because it allows removal of anything that is otherwise business advertising-like or otherwise unsuitable for an actual encyclopedia. Delete, as it's clear this is advertising, "but there are sources!" be damned; another says "but these sources are good" hence not actually acknowledging policy WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 20:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All Indian sources are being branded as paid news and unreliable. These non-notable Indian company even paid money to Reuters? BRIEF-Quick Heal Technologies Sept-qtr profit rises. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3 short sentences. That is really broad coverage... Source text: Company document about financial results. Such sources can be used for verifitability, but are too thin to show notability of the subject. Pavlor (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That itself is clear PR as it is because Reuters is one of the worst blatant ones to republished such information. SwisterTwister talk 01:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discussion is absolutely outrageous. To say that news sources from Indian publications is not trustworthy is autocratic and baseless. India has the largest number of publications int he world and TOI is the read english newspaper in the world. Yes. I do believe that the onus is on the guys to proove that Quick Heal is not notable company after giving references from multiple 'Known' Indian publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Droopdead (talk • contribs) 14:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references provided above meet WP:RS criteria and therefore the topic is notable and meets WP:CORP. The objection is that this article is SPAM, not that the topic isn't notable enough to merit its own article. There's a worrying trend on AfD to nominate articles whose topics meet notability criteria but whose content is SPAMmy. Deletion is not an appropriate step for these articles - it is a simple matter to delete the SPAMmy content and tag the article for attention. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same thing when WP:NOT in fact applies especially considering all of these numerous accounts quickly coming to this AfD; we should'nt compromise with such blatancy and it's clear we can only solve such concerns by deletion entirely, not saving it for the company itself. WP:CORP and WP:RS are'nt applying since this is clearly company-motivated advertising and thus such guidelones are not applicable, but WP:NOT in fact is since it's policy. SwisterTwister talk 01:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with your application of WP:NOT and your interpretation is not supported by the relevant policies and guidelines. At the end of WP:NOT it lists the actions an editor should follow, which are:

When you wonder whether the rules given above are being violated, consider:

Changing the content of an article (normal editing)
Changing the page into a redirect, preserving the page history
Nominating the page for deletion if it meets grounds for such action under the Deletion policy page. To develop an understanding of what kinds of contributions are in danger of being deleted, you have to regularly follow discussions there.
Changing the rules on this page after a consensus has been reached following appropriate discussion with other Wikipedians via the Talk page. When adding new options, please be as clear as possible and provide counter-examples of similar, but permitted, subjects.

The first course of action is to edit the article. Further, when we then look at the grounds for such action under the Deletion policy page, we find at criteria 4

4. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)

It is clear that the first duty is to change the content of an article and to only delete if there is no relevent encyclopedic content. Some of the content is completely promotional but there is enough content remaining to merit an article.

Delete., the references are not substantial coverage--they amount to pres releases or notices, no matter where published. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

DGG These are not the only sources available. The heading and the content was about Quick Heal. What other susbstantial coverage should be given? Did you search google news typing "Quick Heal", "Quick Heal technologies", "Quick Heal antivirus". What are you expecting from the sources? --Marvellous Spider-Man 01:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To weigh in here, I'll note everything I'm finding is still only published and republished PR, regardless of publication and name, because it's the contents about this company that matters, and it's suggesting it's only PR-based. Regardless if there were 100 or 200 of such PR, it would still not help. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which Indian newspapers and Indian news channels are considered reliable? Times of India, NDTV, Indian Express, The Hindu ? Or all Indian sources are considered unreliable? As this is going on with the delete votes. If anyone is concerned about paid editors, then full protect the page indefinitely. --Marvellous Spider-Man 03:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every newspaper in the world publishes what amounts to press releases at times (another name for them is "human interest stories") . It's necessary to read the articles to determine their nature. There is no source that is absolutely always reliable. Its factors like these that make GNG a very complicated standard, instead of the simple number counting that it might seem to be. (Less controversially, it's against policy to protect a page indefinitely for fear that a paid editor will turn it into a frank advertisement. We have to first let the disruption happen, which means that for articles subject to such things, we need to watch them all carefully. In practice, nobody is going to watch routine company articles except the company.) DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources provided are noteworthy. If anything, article needs to be restructured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourabhpaul1986 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sourabhpaul1986: new editors like you will not help my case with Keep votes. The article won't get deleted with one million delete votes, if it has notability (which exists in this particlular case). And your votes are very suspicious. You guys will waste my time as meatpuppetry will only stiffen the resolve of Delete voters. This very notable article was written by paid editors and WP:COI editors. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is kept, it does indeed need to be restructured, and if nobody else does it, I might. But I would much rather devote my efforts to fixing the articles of volunteers, than of paid contributors. User:Marvellous Spider-Man, why should editors like us do work that others have been paid for when there is so much else that needs or attention? DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the copyedit hatchet to the article and cleaned it up. Personally I don't care if an editor is paid or not so long as the article itself is decent. But I'd expect a paid editor to know the policies and guidelines and how to format a citation properly....if I was paying for this article I'd demand a refund. ;-) -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's really quite a poor article, and a lot of the sources (as they stand now) are passing mentions of the 'company' in discussions of their 'product', or likely reprinted press releases of their financial minutiae. However, the Forbes India is undoubtedly an article 'about' the company, the ETI article as well though less informative. Listing on NSE and Bombay Stock Exchange also tips balance slightly towards keep - we have historically biased towards keep for companies listed on major stock exchanges since they are, and will continue to be, subject to analyst and press coverage. Agree among others with HighKing, DGG, and others above - there is much here that is spammy, but ultimately there is (at least marginally) enough available to write and maintain an article about a company that is (at least marginally) notable. (Noting I came here without being invited by anyone, without any connection to the company -- just a long-time semi-active wikipedian who clicked on the oldest unclosed AFDs. In this case I see lots of parallels with AFDs and DRVs about Arch Coal, admittedly a much larger multinational, but where some of the same issues were hashed through years ago (7 years+-). Martinp (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A notable company producing antivirus software. Sources are there. Passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP...Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Deletion commenters complaining about what the lack of "notable" in the title means are incorrect. Most lists on Wikipedia are restricted to notable entries. This may be clarified on the article talk page or in a comment in the wikicode if there is confusion on this point, without including an inappropriate self-reference to WP guidelines in the title. See MOS:LIST#List naming. Further questions about scope or inclusion may be resolved on the talk page (so far unused here), with inclusion in the complementary Category:Residential buildings in India as a guide. postdlf (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of residential buildings in India

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

This article needs to be retitled if it is to be a viable list. The population of india is around 1.3 billion.... TheLongTone (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. WP:CSC allows us to manage potentially unwieldy lists and right now it is confined to bluelinked articles. I don't see why it doesn't meet WP:CLT. I'm also surprised that there is no residential sub-category in Category:Lists of buildings and structures by type. It's broadly recognized that this is a list that should not be exhaustive per CSC and any problems that might emerge in the future with overly long lists of non-notable Indian residential buildings can be solved via normal editing. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I have just created Category:Lists of residential buildings. There's just three lists at present that I can find to populate it -- including this one -- but it seems an obvious sub-cat of Category:Lists of buildings and structures by type with room for growth. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's List of American houses, most of which seems to be houses notable for their size or famous residents. Peter James (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is implicit that it is a list of notable ones. We don't put the qualifier "notable" into the title. --do ncr am 14:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit my Aunt Jemima. It is essential that clear criteria for inclusion are stated.TheLongTone (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that residential buildings can be notable for a variety of reasons. Buckingham Palace, Ronan Point, and Highpoint are all notable residential buuildings, but other than the fact that people have lived in them they have little in common. It's obvious that without inclusion criteria this list is potentially a random selection of things. TheLongTone (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a list of notable residential buildings in the country. Passes WP:LISTN...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with TheLongTone about inclusion criteria. Most of these are tall buildings, which could be a suitable criterion, but there's already List of tallest buildings in India, which includes the tallest. It looks like most of these are (or could be, assuming they are verifiable) included there, or in lists for the cities in which they are located; exceptions may be Trump Towers Pune (no height stated, fewer floors than others) and The Park (not a building, so shouldn't be in the list, although Trump Tower Mumbai, part of the development, could be added). As that list mentions the use (such as residential) of the building, a list limited to residential would be substantially a duplicate, and this title is too vague and there's no content worth merging. Peter James (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and potentially WP:NOTIINFO. While there is no harm in creating a list of (notable) residential buildings, WP:LISTCRITERIA would imply that any residential building in India could be included. For a country wtih 1 billion people this could be endless. Support deleting this article and splitting down into sub-articles more relevant to cities or states where articles are more likely to be encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each state can be made into a separate section like they did in List of American houses...Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 11:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Floatigation

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

Non notable neologism. Google searches only find 26 hits - almost all by a single author. Facebook, linkedin, blogs, mailing lists but no significant coverage in reliable sources. No hits on google scholar. noq (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's Mariculture as a possible merge target but that appears to only cover salt water, apparently. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it part of Hydroponics or Hydroculture perhaps? PamD 08:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to be a term only used by one person who I suspect is involved in the project referred to in the Decca Chronicle article - it does not appear anywhere else without the Dr. N. Sai Bhaskar Reddy name being mentioned. Only 26 google hits make it unlikely to be used by anyone else. noq (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insignificant coverage in independent sources. utcursch | talk 03:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think its just an application of Hydroculture where plants would be grown using water only and would have some floating devices along with them to enable floating in larger water bodies. Pinging editors who might help here @Shyamal and AshLin: §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neither WP:GNG nor WP:DICTDEF. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mami (2012 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM, as tagged by Marchjuly in January 2016. First AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 19:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable film as per [[WP:NFILM], barely any sources. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFSOURCES...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Shahi

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

Fails WP:NDIRECTOR and WP:GNG §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Dheena

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. The only slight claim of credibility is that the subject is a Guinness World Record holder, but this was not well covered by mainstream, third-party sources, and, taking into account WP:BLP1E, is not enough to achieve notability. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 00:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is not really a case of BIO1E. First he made it to Limca Book of Records in 2007 for running a radio show continuously for 92.7hrs (source); then next year in 2008, Guinness World Records, when he was on air for 168hrs (source).

There are coverage which discussed him before he broke the record and after^{(click "next")} in multiple mainstream reliable sources. There are also quite a few independent coverage (from world record) of him, like this one.

One should notice that the time-frame within which he was covered by multiple reliable sources spans for a decade. Additionally, these are only English-language sources; his coverage should be at least double in number in Tamil language (language of the region he belongs to).

Radio Jockeys do not compose music or sing songs or do anything related to the music industry. They just play music and talks about them in breaks. WP:MUSICBIO is completely irrelevant to this line of profession. They should be judged in respect to WP:GNG which in my opinion has been established by above sources (which are definitely not all available sources). Anup [Talk] 04:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as one-line into Radio personality for his world record purpose. Rest no notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Radio personality as a compromise. Other than the records, there is not a lot of information available about the subject in sources (e.g. [31], [32]). The Radio personality article presently has no mentions of the Limca Book of Records or Guinness World Records, so a merge will improve that article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep and try to expand, but merge is a poor choice here. It's like merging minor authors to the general page of "author" It is of almost no actual use. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 23:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can merge some author who holds the record for writing the longest book ever and if that's the only notable thing he has done or a painter who has painted the longest canvas painting and so on.... "Try to expand" is actually of almost no use because all the trivia about him can be added. I can listen to his radio show someday and mention in his article that he admires singers like Lata Mangeshkar, Balamuralikrishna and so on... We can "expand" by writing his views which he expressed on his show about flood relief activities in Chennai or how truck regulations should be made strict so they don't run over people and so on.... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RECENTISM and WP:BLP1E. The merge suggested above doesn't make sense to me. The proposed merge target is about the general concept. Adding a line or two about his specific, non-notable, example, would violate WP:UNDUE. Perhaps if there was a List of radio personalities, it might make sense to redirect/merge to that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed deletions

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Redirects for deletion

MFD discussion debates

Other deletion discussions

[1] "When Singapore Tamils visit India, they don't "go home", they leave their home". The Online Citizen. 4 August 2016.

[2] "Rethinking Screen Encounters: Cinema and Tamil Migrant Workers in Singapore". www.screeningthepast.com.

[3] "Recent Issue – Vol 88, No 1 – March 2015 | Pacific Affairs". www.pacificaffairs.ubc.ca.

[4] "Singapore most preferred destination of Tamil diaspora - INDIA New England News". INDIA New England News. 23 March 2016.

[5] Singapore, National Library Board. "Tamil community | Infopedia". eresources.nlb.gov.sg.

[6] ttp://www.forbesindia.com/article/12-hidden-gems/quick-heal-viral-success/34063/1

[7] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Stock_Exchange_of_India

[8] ttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/quickheal-technologies-to-list-shares-on-february-18/articleshow/51012525.cms

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 == India ==
 <!--New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arthi_Venkatesh}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coverfox}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Magneto_The_Mall}}