Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

See also: Points to remember when debating in India related deletion discussions.
Note: AnomieBOT removes and archives closed debates from this page a few times a day, so there is no need to manually remove such pages.

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 speedy keep. Easily meet notability requirements as the principal officer in multiple national attorney organizations that are substantiated by references already in article and probably bad-faith nomination. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adish Aggarwala

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

Do not show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Timberlack (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs|talk 20:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since nom has been sock-blocked, relist for good-faith comments instead of soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2021 (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. Tone 17:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undercover Utopia

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

The first title from this imprint went on to become a notable series. There's no evidence the imprint is notable, and with neither the TV show nor their founders' articles mentioning it other than in passing as co-founders, there's no obvious redirect. The production house has no article and with only five titles there's no evidence it's notable enough to build an article to redirect this to. StarM 02:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional and poorly referenced. No inherent notability, only by association. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2021 (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. Ugh, political articles are always a problem because partisanship often leads editors to toss policy out the window. The deletion arguments are essentially ESSAY, POV & POVFORK. I’m also concerned by the argument that this contains material that wouldn’t be suitable for the bio - so is this a coat rack or a disguised opportunity for hosting blp vios? Not sure but it means we need to be cautious in the outcome.

On the keep side, the argument is that its notable and has sources and some ridiculous comparison with other articles which is invalid per wax.

This therefore comes down to an issue of notability and since its an article about bihar under lalu prasad yadev have the sources been demonstrated to discuss that intersection in a nonpolemic and scholarly way so that we can create a neutral and balanced article? My read of the keep arguments is that this argument has not been made and that the sources have been asserted and not demonstrated. Given the concerns about blp and pov expressed in the delete argument we need to be very clear that polemic or partisan sources wouldn’t be a suitable fit for a neutral article but that’s a question for another day. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bihar under Lalu Prasad Yadav

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

Delete --This is not an article it is an Essay and should be deleted as per WP:NOTESSAY. If articles which are mostly an Essay are allowed then others will create articles like Gujarat under Narendra Modi, West Bengal under Mamta Banerjee, Orissa under Biju Patanaik, United States of America under Donald Trump in order to push their Point of View and opinion. Such essays are usually created either to glorify or castigate the person. Heybata (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC) — Heybata (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Russia under Vladimir Putin and Presidency of Donald Trump and its not a valid ground to delete an article having a lot of reliable sources.No personal opinion are mentioned, everything is from high quality sources, read the policy carefully, u mentioned, its backed by large number of sources and not a original publication. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination is itself a big issue in this case as the nominator is a WP:SPA, mostly having any issue with the subject. The route of Afd was chosen though the cleanup might have been a good idea with the article having a lot of reliable book sources from high quality publishers and authors in the topic area. I can see many comments are just posted by people who haven't edited in this topic area in the past nor do procedural grounds indicate the need to delete such article. Meanwhile some of the initial comment also indicates WP:COI issue of the voters in this Afd. The attempt of one of the voter in the original article of Lalu Prasad Yadav to keep criminal conviction in the lead [1] seemed POV violation as a whole section talks about multiple criminal conviction of the subject. I want to clarify, I know about WP:uncensored. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A WP:CFORK like this could be appropriate if the information does not fit in the article about Lalu Prasad Yadav. However, I find the current article a bit confusing. First of all, the WP:LEAD does not seem to give a summary of the article as the lead is supposed to give, but instead provides background. A fork also does not need to contain a short biography of the person of which it is a fork (Lalu Prasad Yadav). That is no reason for deletion though. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yupp, the article discusses about transformation of Bihari society in his tenure, including the changes in contemporary politics. You can call it partly political and partly a historical article. Actually, it also mention the background of politics of 1990 Bihar, which paved the way for RJD coming into power, the lead indicate that particular thing only. Heba Aisha (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article could be improved (e.g. the lead should be the Background section and a new lead is needed), but that's no reason for deletion. There are 79 sources used; most of them look decent, and the topic seems notable enough. I suggest that the nominator might better address their perceived complaint of bias by finding reliable sources that give the other point of view, and use them to improve the article. --RexxS (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made the changes u suggested. ThanksHeba Aisha (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a good WP:CFORK since it mainly offers a perspective about his rule than rely on facts. Equally . Comparing the subject with Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is also far from making any sense because these individuals reigned has presidents of their nations. Lalu Yadav was just a chief minister. Once WP:UNDUE sections like "Background", "On Yadavisation", "Colonial roots of underdevelopment in Bihar" and others have been removed then the article will become small already. --Yoonadue (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- It depends upon WP:Notability of issue, and here you can find 100 of books about governance during his period. I can see wikipedia going to miss a historical article if it gets deleted as articles related to Bihar are already in poor state with non verifiable sources. All the old politics related article were written by using sources that are not accessible and a lot of information was veiled. This is the first time I tried to give visible and verifiable source for every point of the article.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see sections like personality cult in Russia under Vladimir Putin, these are the things mentioned many a times in the news articles and the sources, similar is the case of Yadavisation[2][3] , which has gain notability in political circle of Bihar, a simple google search will tell you that its not WP:UNDUE.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should I assume WP:SILENCE ?Heba Aisha (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this subject holds enough currency to require a stand alone article. I also don't see similar articles for every chief minister/state combination. Some of the sources don't even mention Lalu Prasad Yadav so the article also violates WP:OR. Important content already exists on Lalu Prasad Yadav. Any important content in the article should be shifted to under Bihar article.Santosh L (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's better to keep an article seperate if enough information can be included in it and it becomes too big to be included in any article. This topic needs seperate mentioning considering the notability and reliable sources present on the topic. Heba Aisha (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources which donot mention him, must mention the background of his political ascedency, afterall everything is accessible, anyone can see clearly, its nothing like an WP:OR.I would like to mention wat admin said above:There are 79 sources used; most of them look decent, and the topic seems notable enough Heba Aisha (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should I assume WP:SILENCE?Heba Aisha (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPAGE. You can easily find more than 80 sources for expanding a subject like this, but the main article Lalu Prasad Yadav should be enough for all relevant content. That article is only 66k bytes, and there will be no issue with adding roughly 10k bytes more there. --RaviC (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As per administrator Miniapolis, the article couldn't be merge being too long and the content can't be included in Lalu Prasad Yadav article being not suitable for biography. Heba Aisha (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article Lalu Prasad Yadav doesn't seem long enough that it needs to have a separate article focusing solely on his political career. Whereas if we look at articles like Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin, those articles are huge and as leaders of a country, definitely can be able to spin off their own pages on their political careers. Whereas I feel much of this article contains excellent and detailed information that can easily be transplanted to Lalu Prasad Yadav, where the additional content would be a good addition to beef up the page, because currently, Bihar under Lalu Prasad Yadav is longer than Lalu Prasad Yadav itself. Also the information can be put on History of Bihar which also could use some more additions.Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I am agreed to put some content like colonial roots of underdevelopment in History of Bihar.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic with plenty of sources, and potential merge targets are long enough already. AfD is not cleanup. Miniapolis 15:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes Its not possible to merge and many fine sources are used. The nominator seems to be a novice who seems to have some dispute over the content, but it is not a sound criteria for delition. Heba Aisha (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not there. Uses selective sources to support his views. Shows Laluji and Bihar badly. This person is anti-bihari. Delete and block him. Pintu the dude (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Blocked for meatpuppetry.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC) — Pintu the dude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Some of the best authors in the area has been used here including Christophe Jaffrelot and Jeffery wistoe. The Afd is not a route to clean an article. It is open to add up what others know in seperate section without delition of sourced content. Heba Aisha (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Yoonadue and WP:NOPAGE. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:NOPAGE properly and relevant examples like Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign clearly says the opposite what's kept here.Heba Aisha (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously a notable topic. Being essay-like is not grounds for deletion. If it is essay-like, improve it. That seems to be a cosmetic objection anyway. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:CFORK. Comparing him with Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump as an argument for keeping doesn't hold water -- he's nowhere as consequential as the other two. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 1990'sguy, please see the number of books written above his rule. The topic is highly notable as a simple search on google books will take you to plenty of materials from publishers like Routledge and Penguin uk also the oxford university press. Being a national leader or president of a big nation shouldn't be the criteria to decide WP:Notability. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable topic since a large part of media coverage during Yadav's tenure as the chief minister (or his wife's) was concerned about his "rule" of the state and was largely critical about it. Any WP:POV in the article can be ironed out however. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article reads like a WP:POVFORK as described above, particularly by Santoshsatvik. Most of the section about Bihar_under_Lalu_Prasad_Yadav#Assessment has barely anything to do with the subject. Lalu Prasad Yadav is nowhere in the List of longest-serving Indian chief ministers. None of those 40 longest serving chief ministers of India have their own "xxx(state) under xxxx (CM name)". There is no need to develop a new standard for this subject as pointed out by the nominator. Tessaracter (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Tessaracter, the Afd is not about cleanup. If anyone think that there are pov issue in the article, the opposite view along with source could be presented. Meanwhile, I would suggest you to go through the sources as the sources say what is there in the article. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Meanwhile, I would also urge you to do necessary edits if you feel the word " Assessment " is problematic there.PS: Various high quality sources are provided along with the preview and it is upto other editors to iron out any pov "if they think it is there ", though I have tried to remain totally neutral. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Aisha, you're not convincing other editors of your POV by bludgeoning the discussion. Let the community have its say, and I hope you don't have an undisclosed conflict of interest with this article. Miniapolis 14:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - Miniapolis, sure I dont have any COI, I was just saying it is open to be edited if one thinks so.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence that would lead me to conclude that this has been treated by sources as an independent topic. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it certainly has issues, I do not buy the argument that there's a lack of precedent—subnational entities and their leaders are perfectly valid targets for articles, see e.g. Governorship of Phil Murphy or Governorship of Rick Perry. (And Bihar dwarfs both Texas and New Jersey). There may be a lack of precedent for India but I would argue that is a reflection of Wikipedia's under-coverage of non-Western countries more than anything else. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 20:54, 23 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anjaam (1987 film)

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. PROD removed because " this was clearly a major production", but no evidence was produced to verify that claim. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication that this is a notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Freight Index in India

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

Sources are not good enough. Fails GNG Jenyire2 06:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 06:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The name sounds as if it should be notable, but it is actually a non-notable index of a start-up company’s own trading platform. "The NFI is based on real transactions taking place on Rivigo Freight marketplace". Fails WP:NCORP. SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Web searching does not reveal enough coverage to satisfy WP:NCORP and they seem to revolve around the establishment of the subject only. Considering that the parent company Rivigo is salted, it is even more unlikely for a part of the company's operation to be notable. The words seems slightly promotional, though I would not accuse the creator of WP:COI yet out of WP:AGF. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 10:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, SailingInABathTub does a good summary above, fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete: per SailingInABathTub, and Aseleste. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheppina Evaru Nammaru

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

Not sure this is notable. The cites in the article are routine coverage, and WP:BEFORE failed to find anything that demonstrated GNG/NFILM. I don't speak Telugu, which is holding me back from declaring this at PROD confidence, though when working with previous Indian cinema I've found English-language reviews. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, considering the release date. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've run a Telugu-language search, but could not find any decent sources. Films with non-notable cast/crew may not receive coverage unless they are exceptional. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not apparently pass WP:NFILM as the only coverage seems to be routine press releases which do not confer notability. If the Telugu search above didn't yield anything decent then it's hard to see a reason for keeping this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not apparently pass WP:NFILM/WP:GNG. I wasn't able to find a single news article dedicated to the film. Kolma8 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Alex-h (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2021 (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 extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus and a well-supported argument that the subject was already notable in terms of coverage prior to the arrest that serves as the basis of the WP:BLP1E assertion. Given the volume and divided nature of participation, it does not appear that further relisting will yield a clearer resolution. BD2412 T 19:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disha Ravi

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

Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. Being of the few who have been arrested does not establish notability. Wareon (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Comment: I had moved the page to Arrest of Disha Ravi forseeing something like this! DTM (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wareon, are you proposing we delete Arrest of Disha Ravi as well? DTM (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Wareon, are you proposing the text be deleted or are you proposing the text be moved to Arrest of Disha Ravi?

Had the article been created post-arrest this question would have been valid. The page was created prior to the farmers' protests as well so calling it "inherited notability" also fails. The Vogue and Citizen Matters links make a case for notability of the subject in herself as a climate change activist while the arrest has only pushed her into world view. Vikram Vincent 06:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article was moved back to Disha Ravi. Fences&Windows 12:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. The person was notable much before the arrest. In fact the page was created in November 2020 with suitable citations. Vikram Vincent 18:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even the BBC has covered her arrest. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56060232 Vikram Vincent 18:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Public outcry over her arrest covered by WP:RS https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/academics-activists-condemn-disha-ravis-arrest-say-govt-distracting-real-issues-143429 Vikram Vincent 18:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV established with The New Indian Express giving page one coverage. Vikram Vincent 05:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV: Is being a part of Time magazine report lend a hand to notability? https://time.com/5939627/disha-ravi-india-toolkit-arrest/ Vikram Vincent 12:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. My analysis of sources is as follow:

BBC only talks about arrest.
Vogue has only quotes from the subject, no significant coverage.
The Wire makes no mention of "Disha Ravi"
Arre.co.in is an unreliable source that makes no mention of "Disha Ravi".
The News Minute is reporting same thing as BBC about arrest.
Bengaluru.citizenmatters.in provides no biographic details but only covers her small interview.
Boldsky.com is same as above. Just small interview.
The Guardian only provides a quote by the subject.

Clearly, some of the sources are misused and most of them provide no significant coverage. She is known for being arrested over farmers protests but not everyone arrested over the protests require article. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:There are over 30 40 50 sources in the article and Aman's analysis, which was made at the beginning, does not hold anymore. Please look at the newer sources before voting. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 06:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single source is any different than what has been already analyzed above. Instead of updating about every single source you add, how about you just show multiple reliable sources that provided her significant coverage without talking or mainly relying on the words about her arrest? I know that is not possible at this moment, and that is exactly the point. Shankargb (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she was notable before the arrest -- the arrest further highlighted her relationship to the international climate movement, which was why she was notable to begin with, Sadads (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage is increasing exponentially, and planet-wide. Any arguments about lack of sources prior to this are based on outdated information and should be ignored. Abductive (reasoning) 19:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fails neither WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination seems based on the premise of the article subject being arrested yesterday would be the reason for encyclopedic inclusion. This article was created in November; she's not notable because of being arrested, but for other work. /Julle (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Reasons others described well. Honestly, I failed to see the rational behind this nomination. RationalPuff (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per analysis of sources by Aman.kumar.goel. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources apart from those who are talking about recent arrest. See WP:NOTNEWS. Srijanx22 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Sources before the arrest say nothing other than her interview as a part of larger article as right described above. Vague handwaves does not change this. Shankargb (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved discussion of !vote. Fences&Windows 12:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shankargb:

The tag placed here was not WP:ASPERSION but reasonable concern as your talk page has at least five sections with warnings related to disruptive editing in similar areas and two DS alerts in under one year, last being given to you yesterday. Vikram Vincent 05:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempts to derail this AfD with your continued WP:DE any further will be reported to WP:ANI. Be warned. Shankargb (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third threat by Shankargb, first on my talk page then below krao212 and now here. Please go ahead and report. Best! Vikram Vincent 05:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no scarcity of such 'climate activists' because there are too many. For a name, you can also create article about Mitzi Jonelle Tan and say that notability exists. But what requires is significant coverage in independent sources. The subject that has become more notable is 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest, but not this subject whose notability relies on the protest as of now. desmay (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, including based on the sources I have added to the article, which includes in-depth reporting on more than Ravi's arrest, and includes coverage of her past activism, education, and current prominence. As a co-founder of the 'Fridays For Future' campaign, she has been referred to as 'Bengaluru’s Greta' by the New Indian Express, and this may help explain the intense interest in her arrest and incarceration, as well as the prior and current coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subject fails "WP:GNG". No significant coverage provided by independent reliable sources apart from her recent arrest. Hundreds have been arrested in these 'protests'. No way we would want articles for each of them. Shankargb (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:BLP1E, there is reporting that is not just about a single event, but also includes the larger context of her past activism, her association with past and current protests, and Greta Thunberg. Ravi also wasn't previously low-profile, because per the WP:LOWPROFILE explanatory supplement, she had given "one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication", e.g. British Vogue, as a notable commentator, and "participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for [...] a cause," and she is engaged in "high-profile activity." Per WP:BLP1E, her arrest also appears to be significant, including based on the increasing amount of sources added to the Reactions section of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why they don't talk about her significantly without discussing mostly about her arrest? It is because this person is known for single event. Shankargb (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To clarify, per WP:LOWPROFILE, Ravi gave interviews to British Vogue and The Guardian in September 2020, before her arrest, which helps demonstrate that she is not WP:BLP1E. Beccaynr (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Aman.kumar.goel's analysis of sources. Sources do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Nothing to show direct, in depth coverage of the subject. Many added sources do not even mention the subject and I question why they were added, and fail WP:NOR. Additionally, I think this falls into WP:NOTNEWS. Perhaps there will be more significant coverage in the future, but does not seem to currently meet WP:GNG. Bigpencils (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Bigpencils (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The account has been primarily linked to AFD discussions.

Delete Only being noticed over the recent arrest per WP:BLP1E. I can support a redirect to 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest since she is one of the many who have been arrested, but separate article is unwarranted. Mukt (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have pointed out, subject was notable before her arrest; this is not a newly created article. Funcrunch (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom and findings by Aman Kumar Goel Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 07:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear cut case of WP:BLP1E. I can't see if she has done anything notable in her career that attracted media attention except her recent arrest. GSS ^💬 07:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete Her only known event is indeed the sharing of toolkit as part of protests. Aside that the subject has a lack of significant coverage. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC. Not every arrest is notable. Neither you become notable just because you are a climate activist, also WP:notnews Shrikanthv (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BASIC, 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. With over 30 WP:RS, there is zero evidence to show it fails. Vikram Vincent 08:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well sourced, and I see no reason to delete it. If there wasn't a controversy around this, I doubt that this page would have received so much deletion-attention. Tanyasingh (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of attention in major news media. Here's an in-depth article in The Guardian from today, 15 February 2021. Bishonen | tålk 11:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

The Guardian article only talks about her arrest, which is nothing more than routine coverage. It does not change that the subject really fails WP:1E. LearnIndology (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No brainer. Well sourced article, she has worked hard for climate change. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See WP:NOTNEWS. LearnIndology (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. A good majority of WP:ILIKEIT comments above haven't proven how the subject is notable. Tessaracter (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tessaracter: whose comments do you think are WP:ILIKEIT? Vikram Vincent 14:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep although she may not be popular unlike Thai activist Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul, I feel that the subject passes WP:GNG as there is a wide media coverage mainly focusing about her arrest. Yes this is a case of WP:1E. Abishe (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Numerous people, including her, have been arrested in relation to the 26 January riots and the alleged Khalistani separatist propaganda. That clearly does not make her notable enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. 203.192.236.24 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is not about a person who is notable, WP:BIO. The girl is only in the news as she was arrested in a case. That reason alone is not sufficient to create a Wikipedia page. Amavas Ki Raat (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Amavas Ki Raat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete The notability of the subject is being inherited from 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest, as such the subject lacks notability on the basis independent of the subject about which the article already exists. Krao212 (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved discussion of !vote. Fences&Windows 12:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shankargb: Do you know the above editor? I dont think you should remove a notice that has been placed as per procedure listed in the header. The account of krao212 was created ten months ago and their talk page has two DS alerts and almost ten sections dealing with disruptive editing which is reasonable concern for either SPA or canvassing. Vikram Vincent 05:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's no evidence of 'canvassing'. I have removed the above misleading tagging again made in violation of WP:NPA (it is fine to remove it). If you did it again then you will land in WP:ANI for this continued WP:DE. Shankargb (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shankargb: This is the second time you have threatened me, first being on my talk page. I would suggest that you please go ahead and report me if you think my actions are unreasonable. I have followed the process having due concern. Vikram Vincent 05:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the recent and past reporting, Ravi's WP:GNG notability also appears to be based on her past and current work as a climate activist, not simply her involvement with the 2020-2021 Indian farmers' protest. e.g. Farmers toolkit case: Aarey to EIA, Goa to Dehra Dun, Disha Ravi part of many climate causes (The Indian Express), Delhi Police Arrests Climate Activist Disha Ravi, Who is She? (The Quint), From climate activist to 'Toolkit Editor', who is Disha Ravi? (Economic Times), Who is Disha Ravi, the climate activist arrested by Delhi police? (Scroll.in), Who is Disha Ravi? All you need to know about the 21-year-old climate change activist held in Greta Thunberg toolkit case (The Free Press Journal). Beccaynr (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- +1 and also note for closing admin this particular case is quite polarizing because its caught up in the larger political environment around the farmer protests: several of the accounts participating in the vote are new or inexperienced editors or accounts that have only been active on deletion discussions. Sadads (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But not a single source provides her coverage without mainly talking about her arrest. You need to show multiple reliable sources which provided her significant coverage without talking or mainly relying on the words about her arrest. I know that has not happened, that's why you need to read WP:GNG. Shankargb (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:GNG says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material," so the significant coverage of Ravi's past activism and biographical information does appear to contribute to her notability, even when the sources also discuss her recent arrest and/or incarceration. In addition, there are sources, such as British Vogue and The Guardian, at minimum per WP:BASIC, that contributed to her notability before her arrest, because "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Beccaynr (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vogue only provides her quote and same with Guardian, prior to her arrest. So yes it still fails WP:GNG given this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Shankargb (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was created well before her arrest, including citing The Guardian, which is an internationally renowned newspaper, well before her arrest. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Government of India's Delhi Police has made her notable. Here's an article in The New York Times. ^[1] I would have created the page myself. It's great to see such a well-referenced page. AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article existed before the single event being complained of, so not only should WP:BLP1E be considered, but also the notability of Disha Ravi prior to arrest. In any event WP:BLP1E has three conditions that must be met. The third is If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. For this to be NOT met the event must be significant AND the individual's role must be substantial AND well documented. Given the depth of coverage of the arrest, and that Disha Ravi's role in that arrest was central and the arrest is well documented, I contend that the third condition is not met and so WP:BLP1E is not met, and so the article should not be deleted. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created as a puff piece[4] with zero reliable sources providing her significant coverage. Having an article on Wikipedia is no indication of notability, otherwise there would be no process called "AfD". Shankargb (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Puff piece is defined as Puff piece is an idiom for a journalistic form of puffery: an article or story of exaggerating praise that often ignores or downplays opposing viewpoints or evidence to the contrary. What you linked to was a stub. Please don't confuse with terminology. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 05:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article before her arrest read like a puff piece. The problem is with your poor comprehension skills. Shankargb (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shankargb: I sense you are getting upset as you talked about my reading comprehension, The problem is with your poor comprehension skills, instead of pointing out the specific sentences in that stub that amounted to puffery as you claimed. Vikram Vincent 05:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you missed Disha A Ravi is a youth climate activist from Bangalore, India.[1 She focuses on bringing voice to communities in need..."? Shankargb (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was created before her arrest November 12th 2020. Ample references even then to prove she is notable. Now even more coverage of her. Dream Focus 21:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Sadads and Bishonen, and Beccanyr; the sources provided by Beccanyr are substantive, and discuss more than just the arrest. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page was under the radar when it was created, does she have notability? The page creator is an admin, they have voted here without declaring that they created the page, that may not be a "rule" but imo good manners I suppose. Did the article pass the exacting standards that Wikipedia requires? I checked one source, the Thomson Reuters one. An opinion piece in which the subject is one amongst the many. The article as it stood then smacks of WP:NOTADVOCACY and ought not to have existed. Is there objectivity in how Wikipedia chooses its subjects? My vote is to impart it. Looking at it today the subject is not notable except for her arrest. Basis of my vote is wp:notnews wp:event and wp:1E Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:From the first version you linked, the Vogue focuses on four climate change activists of colour and Disha is one. Citizen matters is a community reporting website which focuses on interviewing Ravi. This establishes basic notability. What it also establishes is that the subject is not a product of the farmer protests as being claimed. Vikram Vincent 04:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Ravi is a notable person recieving considerable media attention, and ought to remain on Wikipedia. Even if she were not notable beyond her arrest, the coverage from BBC and other international news warrants at least a page covering that. Audrey (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has 41 references and clear independent media coverage. She was notable in her hometown of Bangalore before being arrested. It would be a tragedy for Wikipedia if this was deleted for arbitrary notability reasons. Narayansg (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is based on a person known for a single incident, hence must be deleted.--03:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.36.43.76 (talk)
Keep - I find the keep arguments persuasive. Sourcing from the arrest is plentiful and in depth, and sufficient sourcing precedes the arrest to get over 1E. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the essay WP:NOT1E is in my view correct: "If the article's subject has done more than one notable thing, even if the rest of it is far overshadowed by the primary event, BLP1E does not apply." The previous coverage is enough. In addition, I am not convinced that Ravi meets BLP1E criterion 2, which asks whether she "otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." It seems clear that she is far from low-profile and that she likely will, to the contrary, receive substantial attention in Indian public discourse. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Extraordinary Writ. The argument that she was one of 26 arrested doesn't hold, as the media was giving her specific attention. The pre-arrest covering is small, but probably sufficient (f.i. 1/4 of a Vogue article). She doesn't seem she meets BLP1E criterion 2 either, 'likely to remain low-profile' after her arrest. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article needs to be deleted since the subject is not someone notable enough to deserve an article. Also, the article seems to be highly biased and has quoted many far-left news sources. It fails to depict a neutral and complete picture of the issue, which is still ongoing at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaindivij21 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Jaindivij21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Per others. Besides, I'm worried this will become a political case. Modi supporters will be likely to support deletion because that would help draw attention away from it. Of course, the opposite is also true - those supporting the protests will want to keep it. But we can always delete the page when the dust settles down and she doesn't appear to be that notable after all. In case of doubt, don't delete. Steinbach (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also as per others in support so I will not repeat. This article predates arrest and has numerous valid references. I also believe it would be a tragedy for Wikipedia, a project that supposedly is to cover the sum of knowledge. This individual should be documented here. Smallison (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having an article on wikipedia is not an indication of notability. You need to show multiple reliable sources that provided her significant coverage without talking or mainly relying on the words about her arrest. Shankargb (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily surpasses WP:GNG. Well sourced article. WP:Not censored. She has become internationally well known, and the coverage is world wide. Mogul, Rhea (February 20, 2021). "CLIMATE IN CRISIS – Disha Ravi: Indian climate activist becomes symbol of crackdown on dissent". NBC News. Ravi's arrest prompted protests and renewed concerns of an authoritarian backlash to the farmers' protests that have rocked the country. Calling the page "propoganda" is a red herring and poisoning the well argument without any basis. Wikipedia does not make up the positions; and we rely on WP:RS. WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth. And such arguments are just WP:I don't like it content disputes, that are not a reason to delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article of Disha Ravi should be deleted. She is not an important person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.5.145 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:Not censored. Article is well sourced and created before any sort of arrests. Albertaont (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one is censoring anything but discussing the notability of the subject that is a mere case of WP:BLP1E. Shankargb (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She is known for singular event only. Hence delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.189.98 (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's too obvious that supporters of the Indian regime (and also climate change deniers) want to get her left out. Miss Ravi had already been portrayed in The Guardian^[2] and in The Vogue^[3] in 2020, besides she is the founder of the Indian offshoot of Fridays for Future in March 2019^[4]. She may not be the most important person in the world, but still relevant enough to have a Wikipedia site been created for her. 178.191.247.76 (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Portrayal in Guardian and Vogue in not a pre requisite of having a page on wiki. She is known only after her arrest by Indian Police in involvement in Anti India activities & she is not notable elsewhere, hence page may be deleted . read essay WP:BIO & WP:NOTNOTABLE. 14.139.114.211 (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin: Re the new accounts and IPs above, it may be worth considering that there's a call on Twitter to disrupt this AfD.[5] (Thank you for the alert at WP:RFPP, User:Vincentvikram). Bishonen | tålk 14:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Plenty of strong WP:RS coverage, goes beyond WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a very clear case of failing BLP1E.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging from the numerous well-reasoned keep arguments, it is far from "very clear" that the article fails BLP1E. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Although it's not, anyone making WP:BLP1E argument also need to be aware what BLP1E is not WP:NOTBLP1E. Wide interest in this discussion either for or against does strongly hint that the subject is notable. Why is that?....something we need to ponder on. RationalPuff (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reading WP:NOTBLP1E we come across, The major moving part in BLP1E regards low-profile individuals; a low profile by choice (especially someone who actively avoids attention) is generally considered an argument in favour of the deletion of borderline articles. WP:BLP1E is about a very narrow criteria as mentioned and hypothetically, even if the subject wants to remain low profile after this in order to fit within BLP1E, practically they won't be able to. Having said that, following are the reasons why the subject won't fall within BLP1E: 1. The case is high profile and will remain in the media for a while. An exclusive Time magazine has covered the issue which means worldwide attention; 2. Social media groups are having a field day in trying to project the image of the subject using trending hash tags. You can find public calls to disrupt this AfD and the page; 3. The page of the subject received 128,153 views in under 5 days with 54 authors and 337 edits(as of this moment) which is a good indicator, even if not per Wiki criteria, for notability. Vikram 17:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E, can't seem to find anything else to establish notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I understand how this looks like NOTNEWS & BLP1E but there are definitely an abundance of reliable sources for this to satisfy WP:BASIC. Celestina007 (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article need not be deleted. The person concerned has be in international news for past few weeks, and as an activist she has been standing against establishment. She has been searched the most in last two days in India in Google. Removal of this article is not necessary. But the method in which article is written is not of Wikipedia standard— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.144.69 (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established by reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of the position any of us take on this page, if (and it is a big if), Disha Ravi is found guilty of conspiracy for editing a document on google docs, then we all (every wikipedia editor) will potentially be guilty of conspiring to peddle second hand knowledge and for every action taken on the basis of that knowledge. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS and Aman Kumar Goel's comment. Subject does not seem notable enough for an encyclopedic article.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 23:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aman Kumar Goel's comment convinces me that the subject is not notable enough for an article. Subject is only came in knowledge after recent event. In fact, if you read the article, 95% of the article is about the recent event. So, delete. Aniruddh 02:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As of 18:18 on 19 Feb 2020 the article is 2532 words long. Words 19 to 106 and words 658 to 2532 are about her arrest. That is 1963 of 2532 words (78%) are about her arrest. However in the remaining 569 words are backed up by 19 references. So if you removed all of the words about her arrest, there would still be a well referenced article that meets WP:BASIC. This is not a case of WP:BLP1E. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Now in a Google knowledge panel but only 11 thousand page views yesterday. Strange this is language linked to a Spanish article but not any Indian languages. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage from plenty of WP:RS. The above links by Beccaynr significantly reports about her climate activism and her role in protests which makes it clear that it's not WP:BLP1E. Also, WP:BIO1E states, If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate., so it easily passes the notability test. SUN EYE 1 17:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And per WP:NOTNEWS, which states, "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event," those sources, and many others in the article, including the recently-added report from Reuters, which states, "Ravi’s arrest has kicked off a fire storm of criticism against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government for using heavy-handed tactics to counter the farmers’ agitation," show that the news coverage goes far beyond the context of a single event, includes her past activism and her role in protests, and her significant impact on the ongoing protests. BBC News, The New York Times, The Telegraph (UK) and TIME magazine have also reported on the broader context of Ravi's arrest. Beccaynr (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC) NBC News describes Ravi as a "well-known figure in the country’s growing environmental movement" and also reports Ravi "has emerged as a symbol of the Indian government’s crackdown on dissent" and her arrest has "renewed concerns of an authoritarian backlash to the farmers’ protests that have rocked the country." Beccaynr (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC) (comment updated Beccaynr (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)) WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS both appear to support a standalone article for Ravi, due to the sources discussed here and the many other sources included in the article that further demonstrate her substantial and well-documented role as an activist and in this recent event. Beccaynr (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in recent times there has been significant coverage on this topic, and topic became Notable. Heba Aisha (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a one sided narrative of a person to derail the investigations of serious charges. Let the courts decide hence this page should be deleted ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.142.115.44 (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be deleted this is propoganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:D0B:26C4:8D09:8D8E:9B15:6AB1 (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of references from WP:RS/P that are all WP:SIGCOV pieces on her as sole subject: E.g. The Guardian, NBC, BBC. I could probably list off much of the WP:RS/P list who have done piece on her (e.g. even financial-focused RS like Fortune). Unambigious pass of WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Ever Keep Absolutely this article is notable, don't know how some people reacts like stupid and questioning on its notability. The World Is Standing With Disha Ravi. Pok ai

Keep She is notable and she has been well known before her arrest, the topic important. April 2020 ‘’[6]’’^[5] User:Baronlx01 — Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What seems to be odd is that wiki contributors had no problem with the wiki page before her arrest and imprisonment for conspiracy and sedition against the Indian Government. The arguments seem to be that now she has been arrested the page created about her before her arrest needs to be deleted. That because a single arrest does not warrant a wiki page. So my question are those grounds for removal of a wiki page. If there is a wiki page about an activist and the government in their country arrests and imprisons them does that according to wiki contributors provide sufficient reason to remove their page obviously not to back down to an authoritarian regime or support a friendly democratic power but because being arrested and having that in the news would make the page more popular than it should be. Is that your reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.252.25.234 (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Back in October, before the page was created and four months before she was arrested, she was one of half a dozen "young activists" from around the world being sought out by the BBC for comment on safely protesting during a pandemic. Since then, we've had more than enough significant coverage to establish notability. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2021 (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. Those advocating keeping the article improved it or supplied sources, which were not challenged. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rehana Fathima

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

The subject does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. The subject has only recieved coverage for some contriversial events. The users Harryishere (talk · contribs) and Ritabharidevi (talk · contribs) (creator), who participated in previous AFD to vote as keep were blocked for socketpuppetry. Ghiblifanatic (talk · contribs) is also a suspected socketpuppet. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly meets WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV from 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2021 [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. Not a WP:BLP1E. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Being in the news does not mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Its true that the subject has been covered in multiple sources for some events. But that doesnt mean she passes WP:GNG. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: people who perform some symbolic act of protest in support of a political issue may appear in the news, but that does not entitle them to have a Wikipedia page about them. Suppose I run naked in the streets (repeatedly) to support some political movement I may get similar amount of media coverage. News items like "the serial streaker strikes again" will make headlines :) Will you support creation of a Wikipedia page about me ? Sahir 11:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sahirshah (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Delete: It seems to be a promotional article, which may contradict Wikipedia's policies.There are no significant contributions from this person and sources are mostly controversial issue . Padavalam🌂 ► 15:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject has had significant coverage in independent reliable sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bio subject is controversial but meets GNG. Our test for notability is not whether or not the topic should get SIGCOV, out test is whether or not the topic did get SIGCOV in "reliable sources that are independent of the subject." HouseOfChange (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some people like Thjarkur have been ardent supporters of this page because they got the wrong idea about the whole thing. She is neither a famous feminist nor a human rights activist in the conventional sense. She was an employee of a telecom company in Kerala and became famous in social media as a bikini model or some such thing. When the Entry of women to Sabarimala controversy flared up she appeared in the news for attempting to enter the temple. She may be mentioned in this page, but does not merit a page on her own. Sahir 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sahirshah (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
- Comment: Agree with Sahir. Three users from Kerala including myself voted as delete as we know about this person very well. The subject is notable only for creating controversies. So it would be better if we have more users from Kerala to participate in this discussion. I am going to inform the users from Kerala that I know to participate in this discussion. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 12:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the opinion that She is neither a famous feminist nor a human rights activist in the conventional sense. Just recieved some coverage from national medias only for controversial events. Better to merge with Entry of women to Sabarimala.The article itself was created by a sock who later got blocked. I also suspect this article was created for an undisclosed payment.Poppified ^talk 13:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Poppified (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Comment'In my previous comment, I clearly said already said I am going to notify the users from Kerala that I know to participate in this AFD. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Poppified#Need_participations_from_users_from_Kerala. Since I know this user, who is also from Kerala I left a message, please tell your opinion which is not all canvassing. The user is also uninvolved in previous AFD. I have never said to vote in favour of me. I have also told Poppified (talk · contribs) to notify any other users from Kerala that he knows to participate in this AFD as I dont know any other active users from Kerala.Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 15:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Clearly fails WP:GNG. Just because this person appeared in news, it doesn't mean they are notable. This person is notable in certain areas only because of the controversial issues surrounding the person. So I believe this article should be deleted from main space . Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article also constitute a lot with WP:NOTNEWS. So, it also supports the idea of cutting off of the article from main space. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Toddy1: Noticed you added a "canvassed" tag to my vote. Kindly read the page wp:canvassing on what is and isn't appropriate notification about an event or a vote. The "canvassed" tag you added here is wholly inappropriate. Thank you - Sahir 02:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, this article includes significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, WP:SUSTAINED over several years, about her career as an activist, including but not limited to: Times of India, 2020, News Minute, 2018, Scroll.in, 2018. Beccaynr (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am working to revise the article before I conduct additional research, but I now better understand that her actions have been deeply offensive to many people; this seems to help explain why she appears to meet WP:GNG, because the offense she has caused, and the consequences and reactions she has experienced, have generated significant news coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources confirm notability.--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SIGCOV in multiple RS; easily passes the GNG.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When sources are enough to demonstrate GNG, we don't need any other "notability litmus test". ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 05:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG and SIGCOV with a great margin... A simple google search brings multiple sources from reliable news outlets. I don't understand the argument above that she is not notable although admitting that she received "some coverage from national medias" for a controversy. The point here that she has received media coverage from a national media. Kolma8 (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2021 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinnathambi

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

Only one source. If the consensus is to delete, redirect to Chinna Thambi. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. His position makes him pass WP:NPOL. However notability is in that case "presumed" and not guaranteed, and basing an entire article on a single dead-linked election document seems very thin. I don't speak Hindi and don't know any Indian newspaper archives, so I can't find out whether there's anything more substantial out there. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily passes WP:NPOL. former member of the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly,should be renamed if necessary .See this (page number 82) Padavalam🌂 ► 15:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NPOL as a member of a state-level legislative assembly. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL, may be renamed to Chinnathambi Thevar per source provided above. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammadullah Khalili Qasmi

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

The subject fails WP:NACADEMIC WWGB (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The account that made this page – User:Khaliliqasmi – has a similar name to the article's subject. Possibly promotional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertPipeline (talk • contribs) 08:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum to the above: Their user page actually lists the same exact name as the article title. DesertPipeline (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks essentially like an A7 case or very close. Possible WP:AUTO too. Nsk92 (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of meeting WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe there's a language and alphabet barrier but with only one or two (I'm not sure) publications listed in Google Scholar, and single-digit citations, WP:PROF seems far out of reach and that's the only thing that even looks like a claim of notability in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2021 (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 13:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zia-ul-Haque

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him a notable cricketer Rondolinda (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Me neither, @Rondolinda: AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 09:28, 14 February 2021 (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anup Maithil

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

Contested redirect. This person is clearly not notable enough for a stand-alone article and does not meet WP:GNG independently. The redirect to Mithila Student Union was contested by the article creator. All coverage of this person is trivial and he is never mentioned outside of his association with this organisation. I can't find any evidence of notability separate from Mithila Student Union. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. fails GNG. DoctorsHub (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 15:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability outside of the student organization. Important info is covered there. —Kbabej (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2021 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thilakam (2002 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG as nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE that I can find. PROD was removed with "de-prod. There are a lot of false positives for this name, but seems sufficiently notable not to go for prod" Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFILM, Google search does not turn up anything that establishes notability of the film. --Ashley yoursmile! 17:43, 22 February 2021 (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. But refashion as an article about the village Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamand Gram Panchayat

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

Gram Panchayats are village self-governence body. There are over 250,000 Gram Panchayats in India. There is no point in having independent Wikipedia articles for each any every GPs unless they are notable. RationalPuff (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

India is a democracy with 3 levels of governance: central, state and panchayat. India is largely rural, with about 900m people living in rural areas (compared to about 15m rural pop. in the US). Since India has such a large rural population -- 68% of its total -- its villages and their governance are important. With 600,000 villages and 250,000 gram panchayats, the average population served by a GP is ~3,600. For perspective, New York State has 534 villages with an average population of 3,524. Every one of these 534 villages has an article in Wikipedia. List of villages in New York (state) This includes villages with pop. < 100, such as Dering Harbor, New York with pop. 11.
Kamand GP serves a population of about 3,000 (2011 Census). Likely to be 3,500 today, extrapolating from Demographics of India. More importantly, Kamand GP borders IIT Mandi which is a technological university of global importance. Kamand GP includes the two villages at the entrances to IIT Mandi South and North Campuses.
As Wikipedia is online, there is no problem per se with 250,000 pages, provided they are properly categorised. At present there are just a handful of GP pages, categorised by state. As the number grows, the categorisation can be changed to district-wise. --Tagooty (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What you stated above is content for Gram panchayat. Feel free improve Gram panchayat rather than creating tons of other articles that essentially says the same thing with the exception of name of the place it linked to. A village and its governce body are not the same thing. GPs need to meet WP:NORG. Simply establishing it exists is not enough. RationalPuff (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Kamand, Himachal Pradesh, per WP:NGEO. A gram panchayat is a local administration body, based at a village, and serving a cluster of villages around it. It should always be integrated with the page for the main village. There is no need for a separate page on the panchayat itself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In case it wasn't clear, my !vote was to Keep the article after retitling it, as per WP:NGEO/WP:GEOLAND. All other issues can be discussed on the article talk page. They are not for this forum. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Kamand, Himachal Pradesh per Kautilya3's rationale. Kamand village is a populated and legally recognized place, hence meets WP:GEOLAND. p. 218 number 015566. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomPuff: @Kautilya3: Thanks for the clarifications and suggestions. The guidelines you've cited are very useful to me.
I propose to change the name of the article to "Kamand village, Mandi district". There are Kamand villages in adjacent Kullu and Kangra districts in Himachal, hence the qualifier "Mandi district".
The article will have a section "Governance (Gram Panchayat Kamand)" with the current content, plus sections about the village: "Description", "Education", "Demographics", "Transport", "History", "Gallery". I will make the changes within 72 hours. I hope that this addresses the concern and the discussion can be closed favourably. --Tagooty (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, qualifying with "Mandi district" is perfectly fine. However, I don't think "village" is needed in the page title unless it is needed for some other disambiguation. See, e.g., Una, Himachal Pradesh. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article creator now has renamed the article. But it need be made contextual. Also there are loads of unsourced content particularly related to the GP and its members. You simply can't have these unless you back it up with relevant references. RationalPuff (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RationalPuff: @Kautilya3: I have removed the GP members section until I can get authentic references. This makes the various sections more balanced. I've added some references for content on the village. Will keep improving as I get further references.
@RationalPuff: Could you explain what you mean by "But it need be made contextual"?
As the notability issue is taken care of, I request that the AFD notice be removed. --Tagooty (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2021 (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. Delete votes address sources, and while the keep votes attempt to refute them, they do not do so in a manner that is able to achieve consensus. Additionally the keep votes do not address the arguments for promotion in a way that is consistent with policy—simply claiming someone is notable is not a counter argument to the deletion votes on spam grounds as promotion is a violation of WP:NOT, which is an independent grounds for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Chanchlani

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

As per the previous two afds, he still isn't notable - his Nick win is the only thing that changed but it hasn't resulted in any additional coverage. Forbes 30 under 30 is meaningless, it has no value and it's based on a lottery and persistence and is awarded to 600 people a year, which is far from unique. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish A. Chanchlani has an extensive review of the sources (minus the current passing mentions which are worthless.) The Nick award is interesting from a Wikipedia point of view because it's a kids choice award, and yet his channel is very much not a children's channel, which leads me to believe the voting was, let's say untoward... CUPIDICAE💕 17:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All sources claim, and a career was needed which I made. Ashish Chanchlani#Career — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.238.206.29 (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: No new definitive GNG sources to help since July 2020. 30 under 30 doesn't establish notability. The Nick award really depends on better outside coverage and is about as notable as a Streamy award or a Behind The Voice Actors award. As I said in the CSD, this should have been rewritten completely at draft without any use of unreliable/not-so-reliable sources. If he is as popular as Dream (YouTuber) (23.5 vs. 24.4 million) there should be multiple RS'es that give him lots of coverage. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF The more I dig into the Nick award, the more concerns I have about it's value and general trustworthyness. Why is a channel - geared very clearly toward adults, publishing content like this, winning a KCA, intended for children? KCA is also overall kind of irrelevant to notability because all it requires is an online-click campaign. Not to mention our article on KCA India leaves me to believe this isn't the same award it once was. CUPIDICAE💕 19:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THe idea that because he has x viewers and so did y person, so he should be notable is flawed though. As the Nick award shows and the countless number of Facebook likes for certain websites that don't even exist, viewers and subscribers can be bought. The only thing that matters here is sourcing. And it simply doesn't exist yet. CUPIDICAE💕 20:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I bring up Dream because he had an extensive AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream (YouTuber) (2nd nomination) where a pile of sources were vetted or rejected to clean up the article and other editors eventually allowed for enough RS'es to show up. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards India depends more whether it's an established award or whether it's a trendy for that edition award or one of those magazine top 10 / year-end awards which don't really give the person anything except the media mention. It's hardly the Emmys though. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's some "favorite youtuber" garbage. Which is frankly laughable. Also their own website no longer works and doesn't appear to have worked for about a year, so that says a lot. CUPIDICAE💕 20:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I fail to understand how come someone who is nominated for notable award like Indian Television Academy Awards See This and has won multiple awards like Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards India This, see this and this and World Bloggers Awards See Forbes article mentioning his win, Apart from this he has references on highly reliable sources like Forbes, BBC World, Indian Express, Telangana Today, Republic Wolrd, Business Insider and many others How come this fails to not pass WP:GNG? Dtt1^Talk 20:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As has been repeatedly explained to you, these are all brand posts, press releases, unreliable and deprecated or social media. Go take a long read of WP:RSP. CUPIDICAE💕 20:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a single reference mentioned above is a brand posts, press releases, unreliable and deprecated at all If you have checked them closely then you must not have written this, and about WP:RSP I am VERY WELL aware about it and have gone through it briefly The Indian Express and others all are among reliable ones in the list :) Kindly Check Dtt1^Talk 20:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dtt1 WP:IDHT is jsut as disruptive as vandalism. I don't know if you're incapable or unwilling but literally the sources you linked: published by the awarding body, social media, press release, press release, a contributor piece which isn't reliable per WP:RSP about an award that isn't notable and cannot be verified in actual rs, a worthless 30 under 30 award given to 600 people a year that parrots an unverifiable story from a contributor, an interview that isn't remotely close to independent, a cruft piece in a listicle, a rehash of his video which i already outlined it's lack of appropriateness in the prior afd, deprecated source as per WP:RSP, literally sayas brand post in the header! CUPIDICAE💕 20:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per Dtt1 (talk · contribs)'s comments, plus a lot of his youtube videos from 2 years ago were school and college oriented, and viewed a significant number of times. It’s entirely plausible that he legitimately won the kid’s choice award, and that his audience has since, let’s say … grown up. ~~He also won an award at the Cannes Film Festival.~~ SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, he did not win an award at the Cannes Film Festival. He won a non-notable award where the award function (a one-off event) was held in Cannes – no connection to the film festival. (Cannes hosts many festivals and events of various kinds, the city is known for it.) This was discussed at some length in one of the previous AfD discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish A. Chanchlani. --bonadea contributions talk 22:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right - I withdraw that statement. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the kids choice awards "Grew up" is just as flawed as Dtt1's WP:TE and has no basis in policy. What sources is this based on? CUPIDICAE💕 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that the awards grew up, I was referring to Chanchlani's youtube audience.SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

his audience didn’t grow up magically in the 2 weeks since the award. It’s the kids choice awards. But what sources can you provide to support your statement as I’ve thoroughly debunked those that Dtt1 provided. CUPIDICAE💕 00:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ashish Chanchlani. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article as written does not make a case for general notability.
- - The onus is on the author of an article to establish notability under any circumstances.
  - The onus is even more emphatically on an article to establish notability when previous deletion discussions have found that the subject is not notable.
  - There have been two previous AFDs and an MFD.
  - Prior articles did not establish notability, and this article does not establish notability.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: The current article mentions,"Chanchlani was interviewed on Worklife India..." This show is a regional chat show and NOT an interview of notable personalities. The Indian Television Academy Awards is a vanity award event. Moreover, he is one among 5 'social media stars' nominee. The Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards India, cited sources (medianews4u, style.yahoo) are unreliable, which suggest that, these awards are not significant. Neurofreak (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The things that have changed since the last AfD are the Nickelodeon kids award and the Forbes India list. The award is of very doubtful notability, and being included on the Forbes India 30 under 30 list (which is not independently notable) doesn't in itself confer notability on an individual. Being interviewed on TV does not make a person notable either, unless there is independent coverage, but as it is, all sources in the article (including those that have been removed) are primary and/or not independent. Regarding the ITA Awards nomination, even if he were to win on Monday that means nothing – it's a "popular" category, not a notable award. This is an individual who makes money from adding covert advertising to his YouTube videos, and so it is probably important for him and his marketing people that he is as visible as possible on the Internet, to attract more customers. That's not Wikipedia's concern, however. --bonadea contributions talk 11:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by Dtt1. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superastig, which GNG sources are there? Please list them as the ones Dtt1 are being questioned. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is unfortunate that there are no WP:RS to reflect notability though the person is quite famous IRL. The three step methodology of the Forbes India magazine is a bit suspect as actual data is not provided to substantiate claims along with 'how were the experts chosen?' and 'what parameters did they use to identify the final 30?'. Further, voting in the second phase is prone to gaming and hence problematic. I'd have a similar set of objections to the Nick awards. Vikram Vincent 16:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would seem to meet WP:Entertainer, 23.5M subscribers is more than the population of most countries, certainly qualifies as "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Followers, as pointed out in several policies and guidelines, are generally worthless since they can be purchased. WP:BLP REQUIRES independent reliable sourcing. Not some arbitrary number that is full of bot accounts. CUPIDICAE💕 19:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The fact that publicists like their clients to have Wikipedia articles is indeed not our concern, in that it has no bearing either way on notability. I have to question how "extensive" the review of the sources in the previous AfD was. One of the sources classified as "unknown/spam?" is in fact the Indian edition of Entrepreneur magazine, something that would have taken roughly 30 seconds to learn: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/346458. And whatever the methodology or rigor of the Forbes list, its result is nevertheless coverage in a magazine that consensus has deemed reliable per WP:RSP. (The previous AfD claims that the article is a Forbes contributor piece; it is not. It ran in the print edition.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the concerned source was kept under "uncategorized.." not under "unknown.." as you mentioned above. This is a link to a guest list of an Entrepreneur India event. The same wikpedia article still can be read here: https://en.everybodywiki.com/Ashish_A._Chanchlani. As far as I know, it is not considered as a reliable source for wikipedia entries. Neurofreak (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that a publication has ancillary promotional events, PR wings, or "X Under X" lists is not a referendum on the entire publication's notability or reliability. Forbes is a good example of a case where the extended universe of promotional/"guest" content is separate from the publication itself, and the Entrepreneur article appears to be similar (the note at the bottom states it, too, was published in the print edition). Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither I commented on Entrepreneur notabilty/reliabilty nor I added the (entrepreneur.com) under "uncategorized/spam" in the previous AfD. I merely listed (entrepreneurindia.com) under uncategorized with a question mark, since the cited link was directing me to the speakers list of an event. Neurofreak (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gnomingstuff Did you even read my source analysis? Would you like to provide at least one independent source about this person? Because right now there's nothing that meets this criteria. Your assertion that my nom is simply because it's paid is ridiculous and untrue, considering I've now done three indepth analysis of the sources and not a single keep here has provided a single independent reliable source much less one that isn't paid for PR, which by definition doesn't contribute to notability. Further, Forbes is discussed EXTENSIVELY at RSP/RSN - 30 under 30 isn't a prestigious or notable award that establishes notability in and of itself, it's awarded to 600 people a year and there is nothing more that determines it other than a self-submission and luck of the draw. Further, he hasn't received significant coverage because of that itself. CUPIDICAE💕 20:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Gnomingstuff the previous AFD that discussed this forbes piece is a contributor piece as per the giant notice at the top and it is not in a print edition and the award itself is not from Cannes Film Festival, it just took place in Cannes and is a non notable award per our own determination. CUPIDICAE💕 20:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be talking about different Forbes pieces. The one I am referring to (https://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2021/ashish-chanchlani-going-viral-for-a-living/66315/1) is a piece that ran in the magazine. The author, Mansvini Kaushik, was employed by Forbes at the time of publication, and the piece ran in the print magazine ("This story appears in the 12 February, 2021 issue of Forbes India."). This is the Forbes category listed as reliable on WP:RSP. The awards are not the reason I bring this piece up, but the fact that the magazine decided to run a profile of him in the print edition. If you would like to argue that these are "paid-for PR" you will have to provide proof of that (and, by definition, it can't both be "paid-for PR" and "luck of the draw"). Similarly, the Enterpreneur piece is also a staff profile independent of this guy. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly that's what I am trying to explain which Gnomingstuff just did well and better than me, apart from Forbes and Enterpreneur there are others too like (https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/entertainment-others/youtuber-ashish-chanchlani-family-coronavirus-covid-19-6565075/) this from Wikipedia:INDIANEXP which is again by their employee and also if we keep aside the fact that he won those notable awards we cant deny that these aren't at all paid stuff they are Notable.Dtt1^Talk 06:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Express is certainly quite reputed media organisation, but the article is not an independent profile of notable persons. It is a 2-liner news about his COVID-19 recovery, and the remaining article quote his twitter and instagram posts. Neurofreak (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes piece that Gnomingstuff refers to is independent in the sense that it does not appear to be commissioned by Chanchlani's PR people, but it is undeniably a primary source as it is an interview – and looking at the raw word count of that text, almost exactly half of it is direct quotes from Chanchlani. This was published because he is on the 30 under 30 list published by the same magazine, so not independent in that sense. (As an aside, the Forbes writer claims that the blogger award Chanchlani won was connected to the Cannes Film Festival, so not exactly a careful fact checker...)

As for the Entrepreneur article, the situation is identical. A piece based in its entirety on an interview with a lot of direct speech, published because Chanchlani was listed in their "35 under 35". To be clear, that kind of source does explicitly not count towards notability. --bonadea contributions talk 08:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Lacks WP:RSP and no in-depth coverage. In my opinion the subject in question does not qualify for a standalone page on Wikipedia.- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 15:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt undisclosed paid-for-spam with no evidence of notability. GSS ^💬 17:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt No indication of notability. The editor must be having a laugh at us. scope_creep^Talk 17:37, 18 February 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Institute of Professional Studies (TIPS) Dwarka

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

A completely unsourced article that doesn't meet WP:ORG, WP:SCHOOL. RationalPuff (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Degree-awarding institutes in India are typically presumed notable; 'schooloutcomes' touches on this more broadly. Zindor (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment References are weak but this is a degree awarded institute affiliated with Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. Niceguylucky (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a degree-awarding, GGSIPU affiliated college (see here for latest proof) that enrols thousands of students each year. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES point number 2 suggests that online coverage for such institutions may not readily be available online. Dial911 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keepaccredited school, although sources light, it meets guidelines. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2021 (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. Obviously this is not the most notable subject in the encyclopedia, but after much-extended time for discussion, consensus is that it falls just above the scraping-the-barrel line. BD2412 T 05:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ayodhya

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

Completely unsourced article that doesn't meet WP:ORG, WP:SCHOOL. Google search didn't return a single independent source. RationalPuff (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very little coverage can be found online. -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - my understanding is that sources for degree-awarding colleges can usually be found. I'm not finding anything myself, but perhaps someone fluent in Hindu or Urdu would be able to find something. I'd frankly be quite surprised if there really was nothing online. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be surprised if there was nothing on line, but also note that sources do not need to be online, they just need to be reliable, secondary and independent. Having seen today multiple articles on vocational colleges in the US that lack any source beyond their own website, I am not as sure as I once was that sourcing on all tertiary institutions is easy to find. Although I did no searches just moved on after adding a founding date category to those pages, so for all I know it is really easy to find sources and the article creator was lazy. My current example of this is that Dallin H. Oaks lacks any sources on his bio for the first 2 years it existed, and it has never been hard to find sources on Oaks. I still think we need to use a broader array of sources on Oaks' time as BYU presdient, but it has always been possible to find sources on him. Well, at any time after 1970.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution, as per-- User:Necrothesp There appears to be a disturbing trend that South Asian sites are nominated before any research has been done in Urdu, Tamil of Hindi, or in this case deletions are proposed quoting policys or essays that just don't apply. ClemRutter (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Degree awarding institute in India acceptable. Niceguylucky (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unfortunately the article creator has been in the habit of creating new articles, getting them past draft, then adding promotional content. I have just blocked him temporarily for spamming - he's had plenty of warnings. Maybe it would be a good idea to draftify. Deb (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep accredited school, although sources light, it meets guidelines. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" votes suggest sources do exist without clearly supporting that view. Relisting to determine if a clearer consensus and notability can be determined.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it exists, but there's not much here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:30, 13 March 2021 (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ushasie Chakraborty

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

Not enough news article. DasSoumik (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have made revisions and added more sources to this article, and per WP:NACTOR, Chakraborty "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films," including but not limited to her role as Satyabati in Anjan Dutt's film adaptations of Byomkesh Bakshi, and she has a significant role in the television show Sreemoyee. Based on the sources that were in the article and the ones I have added, Chakraborty appears to meet WP:GNG; the news coverage over the past decade also extends beyond her acting career and includes her academic studies and personal/political/family life; it also appears that additional sources are likely to exist, per WP:NEXIST. Beccaynr (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rescue described above, Sadads (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets NACTOR as explained above Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 18 February 2021 (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Banerjee (actor)

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

This page have not enough news article. So this should be deleted. DasSoumik (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do get the above, but there are films he has starred in with articles here. -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable films. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Niceguylucky (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2021 (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aryann Bhowmik

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

This page does not have enough news article. DasSoumik (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Possibly a bad nomination, has appeared in several shows. -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, another one that meets WP:NACTOR as Bhowmik has had significant roles in multiple notable films. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - comfortably meets NACTOR, if you want the article to be improved but aren't sure how to do so, it might be worth starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers or Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. AfD isn't the place for this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 12 February 2021 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Titoo – Har Jawaab Ka Sawaal Hu

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

There are three articles on this topic, this one in mainspace and two in drafts: Draft:Titoo - Har Jawab Ka Sawal Hu and Draft:Titoo – Har Jawaab Ka Sawaal Hu. This article should be deleted, it's a substub and not ready for mainspace, this will make way for the more developed of the two draft articles to be moved; the other draft should be deleted. // Timothy :: talk 06:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirects and copy/paste content moves have been created. It appears the article history is here, its behind a acouple of redirects. // Timothy :: talk 10:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a better version at Titoo - Har Jawaab Ka Sawaal Hu (different dash). Move/re-redirect/merge as necessary? --Finngall ^talk 16:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Yes, I think the original page history is here [16] from Nov 2020. I don't think the subject is notable (at this time), coverage all looks promo, so deleting/redirecting it all might be the consensus. Hope the closing admin has a good mop. // Timothy :: talk 20:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all mainspace versions. This sort of duplication of draft content is unseemly, and the topic has not yet been demonstrated to be notable. BD2412 T 06:37, 24 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mukhyamantri (2009 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. 9 votes on IMDB. One review [[17]], that does not pass GNG for many criteria. Kolma8 (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2021 (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. Something of a close call, but there seems to be a consensus that he doesn't meet GNG such that subordinate notability guidelines are less relevant. Go Phightins! 20:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwas Patel

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

BLP of the chairman of a national body. The trouble is I’m not seeing any in depth coverage and I don’t think the awards are notable. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found other reliable independent resources about the subject when Googled. passes WP:RS. DoctorsHub (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could you share the three best ones please? Mccapra (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many references available when looked online http://paymentscouncil.in/Governance.aspx, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/banking/finance/banking/pci-appoints-new-chairman-vishwas-patel-co-chairman-loney-antony/articleshow/64846548.cms?from=mdr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennnyy88 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks but I don’t think these help with notability. The fact that his name is on the website of the organisation he chairs is not a surprise, and a press release about his appointment naturally quotes him. But this isn’t in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete All I can find are PR blurbs on this guy. However, he might merit a future article. Rogermx (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep very poor references, doesn't meet wp:rs, he is founder of CC avenue, so might meet wp:nsoft, needs writing and sourcing. ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2021 (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Pillai

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

This person has played only acted in a single movie and is not notable enough. No enough references to prove his notablity. Fails notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT) CRICKETMANAIC303 CRICKETMANIAC303 (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One notable role and its associated press probably does not meet our standards. Jupitus Smart 02:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of independent and reliable references. Niceguylucky (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG,WP:NACTOR there are no significant roles in movies Padavalam🌂 ► 16:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability.Fatzaof (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2021 (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sneha Unnikrishnan

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

This person is not notable enough. No enough references to prove his notablity. Fails notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). You can edit and improve the article or merge or redirect it.CRICKETMANAIC303 CRICKETMANIAC303 (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack reliable independent references. fails GNG. Niceguylucky (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough credited roles in movies Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 11:59, 16 February 2021 (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Shukla VK

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

Completely promotional, essentially a resumé of the person, only sources cited is the person's social media. Gaioa (T C L) 15:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possible speedy A7): An article moved to draft but then returned to mainspace by the WP:SPA article creator. The article is sourced to self-published references and Indian media searches are finding no coverage of this person. Notability is not inherited from work in a functional role as a dubbing voice; fails WP:ENTERTAINER. AllyD (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per fails WP:Notability and other applicable notability criteria. Also, WP:Autobiography according to Talk:Abhishek Shukla VK (permalink), which means the author has a WP:Conflict of interest and should not have moved it out of draft: space in the first place. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG for a BLP. Kolma8 (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable references. Notability is in question. Niceguylucky (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to pass our notability criteria. Referencing is also very poor, a symptom of lack of notability Fiddle Faddle 17:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails to pass WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 16:28, 14 February 2021 (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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Velagada

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

While I don't doubt that Velagada is indeed a surname, I can find no evidence that it is a notable topic for an article. The article's content is completely unsourced and partly incomprehensible. There are no notable people with the surname. Lennart97 (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2021 (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 , rather weakly, but a consensus does exist. No prejudice towards recreation (including any other administrator undeleting this article and draftifying) if the state of play changes. Daniel (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Kumar Chaturvedi

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

None of the published work by the subject does not seems to have significant impact on the field of study. The subject has won some non notable awards. But he does not have recieved independent coverage from multiple sources to establish notability hence fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While he's a bit above average in a few criteria in his field*, there's nothing demonstrating an exceptional career or scholarly impact.

*criteria

I compiled the average total citations, total pubs, h-index, highest citation, and highest first-author citation for Chaturvedi and ~100 of his coauthors (with more than 30 papers--people publish in this field a lot).
Total cites: avg: 2669, Chaturvedi: 2366.
Total pubs: avg: 94, C: 264.
h-index: avg: 18, C: 24.
Highest cite: avg: 351, C: 113.
Highest first-author cite: avg: 95, C: 87.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Passing WP:GNG isn't a requirement, as WP:NPROF may be the relavent criteria here. As per JoelleJay's analysis, I'm not convinced is suitably notable though. Might be some reviews of the recent books in due course, but perhaps too soon for that to be grounds for notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:JoelleJay, Inorder to pass WP:NPROF, the subject must satisfy atleast any of the 8 criterias mentioned there. I dont see he has passed any of that. His contribution doesnot seem to have made an impact in the field of study. Also he is not a winner of any notable awards. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 17:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kichu, yep, I should have clarified that the criteria I was assessing were for NPROF C1, which seemed to be the NPROF criterion he was most likely to pass (but I don't think he does). JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The original article submitted has been stripped of several things we should be considering (copied below from the edit history of Santosh Kumar Chaturvedi, with wikilinks added): Fellowships at Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Royal College of Psychiatrists, Indian Psychiatric Society and honorary membership of World Psychiatric Association all might count towards WP:PROF #3, and the Editor-in-chief position, albeit of a red-linked journal, might count towards #8.

Fellow Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, UK
Fellow, Royal College of Psychiatrists, UK
Member, International Association for the Study of Pain,
Life Member, Indian Association of Palliative Care.
Life Fellow of Indian Psychiatric Society
Honorary Member, World Psychiatric Association, WPA ,
Member, Editorial Board, Psycho Oncology [Wiley]
Director, Board of Director, International Psycho Oncology Society [2006-2012]
Editor in Chief, Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation & Mental Health
Member, WHO’s Working Group on the Classification of Somatic Symptom and Dissociative Disorders 2010-2012. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 07:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity or delete No secondary source found,might be case of wp:toosoon.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - may also see Google Scholar profile [18] with many published research - each of them cited heavily by other academics. Researchgate has 4000+ citations [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:568F:8FE2:C871:721A:56BF:5D8F (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rudrabhishek Enterprises Ltd

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

The sources provided does not establish the importance of this company. Most of the sources provided shows only the profit and income of the company. I can only find one reliable source from the list (but it focus mainly on the company founder). All other sources provided may not be reliable thus completely failing WP:COMPANY Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Economic Times has a few pieces by/close to the company founder (self-authored, about what he's reading,about office work after lockdown) but these are insubstantial in looking towards WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches also find announcement-based coverage such as this but I am not seeing the coverage needed for notability here. AllyD (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shivesh Kumar

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

As per Wikipedia guidelines - Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. Also, the subject has not received SIGNIFICANT coverage to meet the notability guideline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:D487:A600:CAC:35F7:BB98:5CDA (talk) 23:42, February 10, 2021 (UTC)

Keep - Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from edit summary from when they AfD tagged the article. Article had been PROD-ded thrice by IP for notability, and was overruled by two different experienced editors (Pinging GB fan and Johnpacklambert to chime in). As for my own view, subject is clearly and verifiably notable per WP:NPOL as an elected Indian state legislator. The references are in dire need of improvement and the article possibly needs to be stubified, but there is no justification for deleting the article entirely. ‎ --Finngall ^talk 04:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 04:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 04:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to hear from you and other experienced editors as to why they are ignoring the last sentence of the guidelines mentioned here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges that says that just getting elected does NOT guarantee notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.54.82 (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to hear from you as to why you are ignoring the first guideline, whereby members of state legislatures (in this case Bihar Legislative Assembly) of federal states (in this case India) are presumed to be notable by Wikipedia standards. You seem to be hung up on the word "local" which in this case would apply to cities and governmental subdivisions below the state level, not at the state level as is the case here. --Finngall ^talk 17:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the complete last sentence of the guideline for Politicians and judges that contains a sub-clause "OR AN UNELECTED CANDIDATE FOR POLITICAL OFFICE, DOES NOT GUARANTEE NOTABILITY" which is an addendum to first guideline. This sub-clause does not contain the word "local". So irrespective of which level of election it is, winning or losing does NOT guarantee notability unless there is SIGNIFICANT coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.54.82 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, he was elected in 2010? He was defeated for reelection in 2015, but that in no way negates the previous victory. --Finngall ^talk 18:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does not negate the previous victory but it does not guarantee notability either, unless there is significant coverage. You keep ignoring the fact that "DOES NOT GUARANTEE" is an addendum to the winning/losing clause. No one has shown a SIGNIFICANT coverage so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.54.82 (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major surgery carried out. Passes NPOL, elected member of a state legislature. --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be so kind as to provide to this AFD at least three articles on the subject that would prove that the person has received SIGNIFICANT coverage, which is a requirement for being notable as per Wikipedia guidelines?

Could you be so kind as to listen to what you're being told? State legislators are inherently notable under WP:NPOL #1 — which means that so long as it's possible to verify that they actually held the claimed role and aren't an outright hoax, their article must be allowed to exist regardless of whether it's written and sourced up to scratch yet or not. They are not "local" officeholders under NPOL #2; they are state officeholders under NPOL #1, and are thus held to a different standard than the one you're trying to shoehorn him into. And no, the fact that he was defeated when he ran for reeelection in 2015 does not negate the fact that he held an inherently notable office for five years before that, either. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I'm an attorney by profession and majority of my opponents have lost their cases against me is because they are unable to distinguish and interpret the difference one word can make in a clause of a contract or statute. For example in this notability guideline - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians it uses the word "CABINET" (please note it says cabinet level are generally regarded as notable) which changes the notability interpretation here because only around 5% of elected legislators in India actually hold a cabinet position. The subject in this case also did not hold any cabinet office and did not receive any SIGNIFICANT coverage.

The base notability tests for politicians are spelled out at WP:NPOL, not at WP:POLOUTCOMES — the latter is only a summary of established practice in certain special circumstances where interpretation of NPOL tends to be disputed (like some cabinet ministers and city councillors), and is not the sum total of all our inclusion standards for all political offices. The rule is not, and never has been, that people are only notable if they held a cabinet position. Cabinet ministers are notable, yes, which is specifically pointed out in POLOUTCOMES because there are some countries (e.g. the United States) where the cabinet are outside the legislature (and thus some people have erroneously brought US cabinet members to AFD on the grounds that they weren't elected legislators) — but in countries, such as India, Canada and the United Kingdom, where cabinet members are in the legislature, serving in the legislature makes a person notable regardless of whether they were cabinet ministers or just ordinary legislators. If somebody passes NPOL, then they pass NPOL regardless of whether their particular situation is listed in POLOUTCOMES or not, and NPOL does not restrict political notability exclusively to the cabinet. So citing POLOUTCOMES does not make you the guy who gets to drop the mic — NPOL drops the mic on POLOUTCOMES, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep seems like a bad-faith nomination. He was the MLA from Bihar[20]. passes NPOL.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be so kind as to provide to this AFD at least three articles on the subject that would prove that the person has received SIGNIFICANT coverage, which is a requirement for being notable as per Wikipedia guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.54.82 (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NPOL is one of the few guidelines which I would say we should hold to as long as we can at all verrify. People in legislatures of states that are part of federal Republics are clearly notable (US, Brazil, Mexico, Germany, India etc) so this qithout question passes it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be so kind as to provide to this AFD at least three articles on the subject that would prove that the person has received SIGNIFICANT coverage, which is a requirement for being notable as per Wikipedia guidelines?

Delete - If we are following the Wikipedia guideline then it should be a no-brainer. Guideline clearly says that "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability". It also states that the subject should have received SIGNIFICANT coverage to meet the notability guideline. In this case SIGNIFICANT coverage is missing. The candidates party supporters can fill this discussion with a large number of "Keep" count but we need to follow the guidelines set in Wikipedia. Please see this link on notability guideline (last sentence in Politicians and Judeges category) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges It is very unfortunate that some of the experienced Wikipedia editors are ignoring the guidelines set by Wikipedia. Those who are saying it passes NPOL are clearly not reading the guidelines in DETAIL.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.54.82 (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is a state politician, not a local one. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are reading NPOL correctly. You're the one who isn't. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Members of the Bihar Legislative Assembly pass WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer the IP's question, there are news sources about the subject, including this article in the Hindustan Times. --Enos733 (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You provided just one article about the subject being beaten up in a train, this certainly cannot be called SIGNIFICANT coverage. Please note that we have to set aside our bias/emotions that he is an Indian and needs to be in Wikipedia. We have to think purely in terms of meeting the Wikipedia guideline which is whether the subject has received SIGNIFICANT coverage to be considered notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.54.82 (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "bias/emotions that he is an Indian and needs to be in Wikipedia" going on. Most of the commenters here aren't even Indian. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support keeping of an an article about a state (or equivalent) legislator in the USA, Russia, Brazil, Germany or any other country where people in sub-national bodies have legislative powers. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NPOL as having been elected at the state level, and can an admin please close this soon before the ip comes back to the horse? Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Legislative Assembly of Bihar is a state level role that passes NPOL #1, not a "local" role. Yes, the article needs some improvement, but state legislators are not deletable on "local political officeholder" grounds — it's a state legislature, not a "local" legislature. And frankly, considering that participating in this discussion is the IP's first Wikipedia participation ever, I strongly suspect a WP:BADFAITH attempt to erase someone the IP has personal beef with for some reason that's none of Wikipedia's concern. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: To be fair, the IP addresses used by the anon are all US-based, which is at least one small indication that this isn't a personal thing. I see this as a serious misinterpretation of guidelines mixed with a highly problematic dose of WP:IDHT, but I'm not detecting bad faith here. Hoping that this can get WP:SNOW closed soon, though. --Finngall ^talk 18:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bihar has 100+ million inhabitants. If Bihar's population would be counted separately from the rest of India, Bihar alone would be the 15th most populous country in the world. Just sayin'. --Soman (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We consider MLAs are notable so easily passes WP:NPOL Padavalam🌂 ► 16:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Elected member of legislative assembly, hence is notable by virtue Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 12:02, 16 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chandulal Banker

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing significant for him, fails GNG.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a long line of non-notable cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Banker

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 16:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a super long line of non-notable cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2021 (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 08:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anjub Botawala

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a long line of non-notable cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet requirements of WP:NCRICKET --Whiteguru (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notable content not found for this cricketer. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers - lacks the evidence of notability for a stand-alone article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 18 February 2021 (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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Kamal Foundation

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

Non-notable organization, likely covert advertising. The article relies on brief mentions and sponsored news articles. M4DU7 (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Node

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

Does not pass NCORP. Most of the sources used are just press releases, opinion blogs or articles written by company founders. Funding reports fall under routine coverage and are insufficient to demonstrate notability. M4DU7 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article with a history of WP:SPA development, describing a company's changing business model, funding and sales figures, and setting out their product wares. Several of the provided sources are press releases which have been given bylines to their PR contact. The industry awards which are listed for their products do not appear inherently notable. Searches find coverage of studies by the firm,but these fail WP:CORPDEPTH. There is also a 2016 Times of India piece covering this and other e-commerce startups ([21]). Overall, I don't think there is enough WP:RS coverage to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; quite clear that a lot of time has gone into this but the subject itself is not notable and, as above, it does not pass NCORP Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 16 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R.S.Venkat Ratnam

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The linked source is an obituary, not sure why but it is published a month before his death. His son is a pretty notable spiritual leader in India though - Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader). Daiyusha (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No evidence of nobility. RationalPuff (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Niceguylucky (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2021 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Institute of Technology

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

No evidence of nobility. Completely unsourced and promotional article. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:ORG RationalPuff (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support 100% self-published sources Abcmaxx (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence this meets WP:NSCHOOL. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep a notable Engineering college which is affiliated to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. Niceguylucky (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of oldest and notable engineering college in Meerut affiliated to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. Yashvash60 (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify:Sources are not available and the present ones are self published hence definetly fails GNG. But the subject is a notable educational institute which lacks sources to establish notability. So moving to draft is recommended as interested users can work on the subject after finding suitable references of any kind. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 10:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 20:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, leaning towards delete. Yashvash60, could you provide evidence that this instituition is particularly old (especially since it claims to be founded in 2001) or notable, therefore making it wp:NSCHOOL? I tried but I can't find any evidence of that by myself. Necrothesp, I do see that it awards degrees, but from what I can tell, their degrees are mostly trade certifications/industry group certifications, ie [amazon web services]] certified user, etc. There are many instituitions that grant these degrees, and I don't believe that any of them are by themselves notable per wp:NSCHOOL. I would appreciate your thoughts. Warmest regards, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Changed my !vote to delete - searching for the instituition by name doesn't even show any coverage in newspapers or review journals. I can't imagine how a tertiary institution that succeeds under GNG or NSCHOOl could possibly have 0 coverage in unconnected sources. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by what you mean. The article lists plenty of degrees up to PhD level! We have always kept degree-awarding institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Necrothesp, could you point out where it says that this institution grants research PhDs? From what I can tell, the closest thing they offer is a DPharm, which is certainly a professional degree, not a research degree. Warmly, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 13:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The school also offers a Ph.D (Doctor of Philosophy)... But in any case, professional degrees are as valid as general degrees. They are not simply "trade certifications/industry group certifications" as you allege above, but degrees! According to the article, it grants BTech, BPharm, MPharm, MCA, MBA and PhD. Every one of those is a recognised degree, not a trade certification. These (plus others) are confirmed by the college's website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article makes such a claim, but the present website for the instituition has dropped that claim: [22]. At any rate, granting of degrees doesn't necessarily mean it will survive under GNG - pre wp:schooloutcomes, the most important thing that saves an instituition's notability is substantial secondary source coverage - which I simply haven't found evidence for. Warmly, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 15:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources are independent of the subject. Alexius08 (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of colleges affiliated with Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University: Article does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT (NSCHOOL). Sources are not independent of the subject. No SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Keep votes do not provide any sources or rationale based in guidelines. Being affiliated with a notable school does not make this subject notable. // Timothy :: talk 16:14, 5 March 2021 (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 19:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Kamal

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

Non-notable businessperson whose page had previously been deleted through an AfD. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2021 (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/2021 February 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still remains a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable businessperson, fails in meeting wiki criteria for people. Setreis (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: AFDs should be a last resort. It seems as if a hasty attempt to delete an article that requires some work. The nominator doesn't seem to have verified if the subject meets WP:GNG and did online research. He is a prominent businessman and art connoisseur. He runs an art gallery which is based in Dubai and is the chairman of Alturaash Group. He founded Asif Kamal Foundation in India that works with underprivileged children and their families in the area of education and healthcare. He launched several initiatives to help the needy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Alturaash Art Fund is another initiative to promote artists globally and to provide loans against modern and contemporary art. He has been discussed in numerous mainstream newspapers. I recreated this page only because he has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources since the last AFD, including [23][24][25] [26] and meets WP:GNG.SKSaqib (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable businessman who fails WP:BASIC, WP:BIO. RationalPuff (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable businessman, passes GNG. However this is the 2nd nomination but from then I found few news references which are new, reliable and independent. Niceguylucky (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for WP:UPE and sock or meatpuppetry. MER-C 19:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete relies entirely on paid-for news releases on unreliable sources. Salt to prevent SPAs from sneakily publishing the article again. M4DU7 (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @M4DU7: Are you seriously claiming 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 which are mainsteam newspapers and published by their editors to be paid articles? Where does it say they are paid sources? These articles were published at reputable presses with editorial oversight and have significant coverage to establish notability of the subject.SKSaqib (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am seriously claiming exactly that. The New Indian Express article just quotes him and provides next to no coverage on him. The other four sources are promotional PR trash on low-quality sites that have a proven history of publishing paid-for spam. Wikipedia's NBIO bar is far higher than this. M4DU7 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@M4DU7: This is just a shot in the dark. Please show me where its written those are paid articles. Do they have disclaimers at the bottom or paid content written anywhere. I think you knee jerk jumped to that conclusion. Just because you may have seen a few paid articles published at these websites doesn't mean you will put every article in the same category. All news publications do allow to publish paid content, even New York Times does, but they also let readers know by putting disclaimers, tagging under sponsored, partnered, brand post categories. None of the news articles i have cited are paid ones and they are reputable newspapers in India.SKSaqib (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not all sites post the PR disclaimer. It comes as no surprise that all these articles were published pretty much the same day and that there is zero coverage in any better source. May I ask you how you know Asif Kamal's date of birth? Seems suspicious when I consider the fact that you have made no real contribution outside this article. Shot in the dark? Yeah, right. M4DU7 (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You asking this question clearly shows that you didn't check references properly. I found his date of birth on The Statesment.-SKSaqib (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The what? I cannot find it in the article or here. Please link it before accusing me of not checking the references properly. M4DU7 (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per sources provided by SKSaqib. Passes GNG however it needs some work.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for WP:UPE and sock or meatpuppetry. MER-C 19:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Current sources establish notability and found more sources online. Passes BASIC.-Tushar.ghone (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for WP:UPE and sock or meatpuppetry. MER-C 19:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is nothing more than vanity spam sourced to paid for black hat SEO sites and covert press releases. CUPIDICAE💕 20:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tend to agree with M4DU7 that it's likely at least one of the sources are paid. That in turn brings greater suspicion of other sources. If you look at Angela Paljor, the New Indian Express article author for the source in the article, you will find her other articles contain gems like "Hair care offerings to tackle monsoon frizz", which is clearly an ad for Schwarzkopf Professional Keratin Smooth Perfect Range. The article descriobes the product and uses quotes from "Melissa Hughe, National Technical Head, Schwarzkopf Professional". It's an ad. Or, examine "Banking on home service and client loyalty", where the services of numerous hair salons in the Shahnaz Husain Group are described. Quotes in the article are from "Shahnaz Husain, Founder, Chairperson and Managing Director of The Shahnaz Husain Group".

One of the sources included in the first version of the article was "Asif Kamal has made name in the Indian Art Industry" from thestatesman-dot-com. It has the byline "SNS Web", which I believe equates to press release distribution. Anyway, I can't link it here because it is in the spam blacklist. And so on... Possibly (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to mention few important points here with not agreeing on Possibly's argument about his claim for the paid article based on assumptions, first of all, The New Indian Express is a pre Independence established and credible media house in India, having an in-depth article about someone doesn’t mean it’s a paid article and also we know that the paid and sponsor article are allowed in the media houses and they do the paid article with the disclaimer on it and it’s not a hidden story. Claiming about an editor who’s expert on writing about art and culture mostly that she is a paid editor based on a few articles which have an in-depth discussion about product or profile. I can see not all the references mentioned on the page is from the same agency, same editor, I can see references from 2014 onwards in different agency and a different storyline about this person and he is in the media from 2014 onwards regularly. For the sake of argument, If an editor has done a few paid articles also in her editorial journey doesn’t mean all of her articles are paid? Timberlack (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for WP:UPE and sock or meatpuppetry. MER-C 19:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have significantly improved the page, adding a controversy section with more authoritative sources.-SKSaqib (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per added new references, passes WP:GNG. Timberlack (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for WP:UPE and sock or meatpuppetry. MER-C 19:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added new resources and content, passes GNG. LucyLucy (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LucyLucy and Timberlack: which new sources would those be? CUPIDICAE💕 16:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for WP:UPE and sock or meatpuppetry. MER-C 19:38, 19 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagore Almeida

AfDs for this article:

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

same as my last AFD. complete spam article, refbombed out the wazoo, but sourced almost entirely to blackhat SEO and paid for nonsense (and interviews, of course.) CUPIDICAE💕 13:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see I had declined a speedy in the past. I wasn't sure then that it would pass AfD and can't find any reliable source coverage now that indicates notability. He exists, no one is doubting that. StarM 14:23, 10 February 2021 (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 05:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MensXP.com

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

Cannot find reliable, extensive second party coverage. Google news shows nothing [27], beyond placed advertisements on news articles. Likely a non-notable per WP:NCORP. Sources currently cited are press releases from the Times group, and a piece from the Economic Times covering the acquisition. The claim about the number of webhits per day is completely uncited, and I cannot find any secondary source to support the assertion.

In making this, I applied from NCORP this analysis on the sources I found, and on the sources in the article itself:

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
The Economic Times	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Coverage about the acquisition by the Times group
MensXP.com	N	N	N	N	N	Self-description
Press release from the Times group	N	N	?	N	N	Press releases are not considered reliable secondary sources
Outlook India	N	Y	Y	N	N	A passing reference to the site does not make it inherently notable
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 06:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content does not appear to be useful to any reader and article looks unlikely to be expanded any time soon Slywriter (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Vote by article creator) Notable for the following reasons:

1. MensXP has been mentioned or used as a source 144 times by Wikipedia English.

2. It has its own award the "MensXp icon of newHood".

3. MensXP has been title co-sponsor of Provogue MensXP Mr India World 2014.

4. Various milestones and activities related to MensXP have been considered notable enough to have been written about in independent, secondary, reliable sources. A few are shared here:

4.1. Prince Khanna joins MensXP.com as Director, Business Development & Sales

4.2. MensXP launches India’s first online men’s lifestyle shopping festival featuring over 250 brand

4.3. Forging New India: Angad Bhatia ‘MensXP is an authentic and familiar yet connectable millennial voice for the nation’

4.4. MensXP celebrates first anniversary of digital cover with Saif Ali Khan

4.5. MUMBAI: India’s largest online men's lifestyle brand, MensXP has entered the men's grooming products sector with its clean premium men’s beauty brand, ‘MensXP Mud’.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Times Internet#Subsidiaries and products Site is a naked churnalism portal. Nate • (chatter) 22:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided above. And also coverage provided by this book. Santosh L (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the source evalatuion above is completely accurate; the article is missing three significant independent reliable secondary sources. The reasons for notability listed above are not compliant with WP:NCORP and are blatant trivial coverage. —FORMALDUDE^(talk) 05:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing here passes WP:NCORP. The sources presented above are mostly routine announcements, not the kind of in-depth coverage of the business that meets NCORP. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2021 (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 02:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rishii Kumaar

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

Contested PROD. No reason provided.

Non-notable graphic designer/digital manager; no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

: Hi this is Vivovin I have created article of a indian famous Creative director who worked so lot of film as creative director by mistake i have added their post as creative graphic designer and digital media name which I've removed immediatly, even you think why i have created article of creative director please see this man article Rajiv Rao he is also creative director even his work profile is not describe i am requesting please remove the templete of considered of deletion lets work to do more stablish this article (Thank you)Vivovin (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - have you got any sources that discuss him directly and in detail? None of the sources that you have provided are about him. You have linked us to his IMDb but this clearly shows that he is just a crew member and a one-time assistant director. None of that is even close to meeting WP:CREATIVE. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply- I have reviewed his IMDb where clearly mention 5 credits as creative and 1 credit of 1st assitant director and creative director also; creative director is a big post under comes the zone (Criteria) of Creative so please understand and judge the equal, I think he is a know person and working hard so his article should be here. Vivovin (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If he is notable then where is the news coverage about him? Also 'working hard' is not a valid reason to have an article. I work hard, often more than 50 hours a week, but I don't deserve an article. Kumar is a normal hard working man, not a notable leading Bollywood figure. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vivovin - so is there anything covering Kumar other than his IMDb page and his personal Facebook account? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- There is no major coverage about him or notable works to be mentioned. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:OUTCOMES. The lack of significant coverage speaks for itself. For the second reason, we tend to delete articles about set and assistant directors. Otherwise, Dave Yekell and thousands of others would have Wikipedia articles. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2021 (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. While one of the votes was expressed weakly and another by a user with few other edits, there is no support for an alternate outcome. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sohini Sarkar

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

Does not have enough news sources. So i think the page should be deleted. Bapinghosh (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bapinghosh (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passing WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. A basic search comes up with much more references in the native language. This nomination lacks WP:BEFORE. - The9Man ^(Talk) 11:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Only one secondary source does significant coverage of the actress, the Times of India. The Tekegraph Calcuta is an interview, the URL is dead, but there is a link saved on the Wayback Machine. Need more sources. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Passes WP:NACTOR. 2401:4900:44EA:1828:504C:1EF3:D3A4:43BB (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2021 (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) Störm (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelappan Thampuran (cricketer, born 1937)

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing about them in sources. Störm (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 29 games for two different teams is a fair number to wonder whether there would be a significant amount of information in non-Internet sources. In any case, I wonder what the sources are for the players from Travancore-Cochin that their pictures were taken much later in life - perhaps they were used in some form of non-Internet printed media which we don't have access to. Bobo . 21:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete verrifiability means that the significant coverage in multiple reliable indepdent 3rd party sources needs to come before we create an article. Unless someone actually identifies such, we are obligated to delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether it would be possible to contact Cricket Archive to do so - of course the same argument can be made for the fact that we don't know who "CricPhotos" is and neither CA or CI make these clear. You can never be sure of the sourcing of images unless they are cited sufficiently. Not a badger, by the way. Just an interesting curiosity which seems to only apply for this side. Bobo . 21:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 29 first-class appearances across 10 years or so is surely sufficient for there to be a reasonable presumption of coverage in Indian sources. If this was an English or an Australian cricketer, we wouldn't want for places to look: I find it hard to believe that in cricket-mad India there wouldn't be similar coverage hidden, to me at least, behind a language barrier. Johnlp (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I doubt whether this is a duplicate article for Kerala Varma Kelappan Thampuran? If not please add a distinguish tag in both the articles later. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 12:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 29 matches across a career of at least a decade would indicate notabilty. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:52, 19 February 2021 (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 List of Travancore-Cochin cricketers. Daniel (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelappan Thampuran (cricketer, born 1925)

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing about them in sources. Störm (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Travancore-Cochin cricketers are a weird beast. There are images of TC cricketers in their advanced age on their CA articles. I wonder if this means that there is further information in non-Internet printed sources that we would be unable to get our hands on. It must have been that they had a get-together when they were much older, though we have no way of knowing when the images were taken. Bobo . 21:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here even close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for repeating my argument from the other TC page. There must be non-Internet printed sources somewhere - these players' profiles include photos that were taken later in life, presumably during the Internet age and certainly in a context where they would probably also be used in print media. CA makes no indication of where these images come from other than calling the source CricPhotos, which I can't find anywhere which cites who they are. Bobo . 21:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Travancore-Cochin cricketers - as an alternative to deletion for this cricketer that doesn't seem to meet GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCRICKET. --IWI (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobo192: And your argument is exactly why we have guidelines like NCRICKET, which this person does not meet. --IWI (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has played a first-class match. Does not fail any subject-specific notability guidelines. Bobo . 10:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "first class"? --IWI (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Travancore-Cochin cricketers Has played 1 FC match, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to WP:FOOTY where a player with 1 or a few matches but no coverage, is deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2021 (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. BD2412 T 06:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jitender Mehra

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing about them in sources. Störm (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a long line of non-notable cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Remember the good old days when AfD debates such as the original for this article were populated by people who cared for the cricket project? Of course not, nobody who sends cricket articles for deletion in those days was around back then when they could easily have been finding sources for themselves. Bobo . 21:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him notable. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Himachal Pradesh cricketers - no evidence that he passes GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as notability is not evident. Bobo192 makes a curious point in reference to the original AfD over 10 years ago, and although there was a slight keep pile-on back then, I don't see any evidence that notability has been established in the time passed. Although observing the guidelines set out per WP:CRIN, I don't see how this article could be developed or determine the subject as being notable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The odd thing is that, unlike many others which have been put forward for deletion, this player has played within (most of) our lifetimes. I wonder if this makes it more possible that print sources are available to those who have access to archives. I mean this in the nicest way possible, but of all the articles put up to AfD, this is probably the least appropriate player to make this argument for. This guy has played within our lifetimes. Bobo . 11:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't totally out of the question that print/book sources may exist, but simply assuming they do doesn't mean they do. I vote weakly as I take the points mentioned that there is a "possibility" that notability may be there, but it isn't proven and there is no evidence based on available material. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to make this argument however many people throw arguments against WP:PRESUME or others at me. Bobo . 11:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I forgot to make this comment all that time ago, but at least a "Players by team" article exists for this time. Bobo . 11:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe instead of lamenting that no editor has added sources since the nomination we should remark that no editor has added one single significant reference in the >9.5 years since this was nominated the first time. For that little effort, there's nothing worth WP:PRESERVEing. One reference to a bare database entry fulfills neither WP:NCRIC nor WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:50, 23 February 2021 (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 List of Assam cricketers as an alternative to deletion. If new sources are found, as hinted at in the discussion, they can certainly be added. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umananda Bora

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing about them in sources. Störm (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - given that Bora died relatively young, and within the digital age, I wonder if there is anything about him in print media that we won't have immediate access to. Just a thought. Bobo . 21:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not at all a passing of GNG. What is this about Bora dieing? The article says he is alive? Am I missing something?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange. I looked up the profile of the user who added the Living people category and can't see anything about them that would be regarded as suspicious - although it is interesting that they have barely edited since 2013. Bobo . 21:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing suspicious about following Wikipedia BLP policy and assuming people are living unless stated otherwise. Anyway, I have updated the article per the source given. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm equally as suspicious of people who would rather send articles to AfD than expand them to their satisfaction. *shrug* Well, you can't win them all. Bobo . 21:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expand them from what exactly? Significant coverage simply doesn't seem to exist in almost every case that has been nominated. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my question to answer. Anyway, my original point about printed non-Internet material still stands. Bobo . 21:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Assam cricketers - there is no evidence that this cricketer passes GNG so the article should be redirected. No prejudice against creating it again in the future if sources are ever found. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:07, 16 February 2021 (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. Likely to be back at AFD if sources aren't incorporated soon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mridula Vijay

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

there is no reference that she played a significant role in listed productions joxinmcdaniel (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are sources not provided in the article, that verifies the actress has significant role in multiple malayalam serials and some minor roles in movies. The subject has also recieved enough coverage from well reputed multiple sources including Times of India. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has played significent roles in notable malayalam serials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CRICKETMANIAC303 (talk • contribs) 2021-02-06T09:47:01 (UTC)
Delete per nom, fails GNG and WP:ACTOR; Keep advocacy is WP:SOURCESEXIST — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Other sources 1.https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/malayalam/malayali-audience-loves-typical-heroines-mridula-vijay/articleshow/63533388.cms

2.https://english.mathrubhumi.com/movies-music/movie-news/tv-stars-mridula-vijay-yuva-krishna-to-enter-wedlock-movie-1.5299849 3.https://malayalam.indianexpress.com/television/mridula-vijay-yuva-krishna-star-magic-video-451944/

These are only some sources I would like to attach here to establish the subject's notability. Its clear from the sources that the subject is a major actress in malayalam serial industry and has also appeared in some tamil movies. Source no 3 specificaly mentions that The actress is famous for appearing in several number of TV serials and shows. She is also a notable model and dancer as per the sources .Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 08:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails all three criteria of WP:NACTOR IMO. Kolma8 (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete doesn't meet WP:RS. Not enough secondary and independent sources available.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not enough in-depth reliable sources to prove her notability. Alibilbao (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2021 (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) Jack Frost (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saloni Chopra

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

I have declined a bunch of speedy tags on the article, as there are too many sources to make a clear and unambigious delete, but I'm not sure what else to do with this, so I'm bringing discussion here. I am neutral. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article was speedily deleted then it was revived again. I could not find anything that could satisfy either WP:NMODEL or WP:ACTOR. RationalPuff (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, including due the #MeToo coverage; based on a quick search, there appear to be more sources than are currently listed in the article, and this article does not seem like it would easily merge into the Me Too movement (India) article. Beccaynr (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:HEY, I have cleaned up and revised the article, and added many additional sources; the additions and revisions help confirm WP:GNG notability due to the significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evaluations of the newly revised references against the notability guidelines by others may help with determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 05:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Constantly speedy deleted. Indication of COI. Fails WP:NACTOR. Timberlack (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:NMODEL/WP:NACTOR, the MensXP profile features Chopra as a model, discusses Chopra's roles as an actor, and specifically focuses on her role in the MeToo movement in India, which constitutes "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment," and is further emphasized in the Buzzfeed News profile of the MeToo movement in Bollywood, which includes a focus on Chopra, as well as the SheThePeople.TV report describing Chopra as one of the "significant pillars" of the MeToo movement, and Cosmopolitan India honoring her as the 2019 Editor's Panel Feminist Voice of the Year. Beccaynr (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have also added references from The Indian Express (2016), SheThePeople.TV (2016), and India Today (2018) that focus on her work as a model and activist, before her involvement in the MeToo movement, which helps add encyclopedic content and context for her role in the MeToo movement. Her role in the MeToo movement was also reported in the India Times, Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, AbpLive, The Indian Express, NDTV, ZeeNews, The Economic Times, and News18. Beccaynr (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Reuters also reported on her activism in 2019, after and separate from her involvement in the MeToo movement. Beccaynr (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Times of India and other things listed a reliable sources and give her significant coverage. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/metoo-movement-saloni-chopra-feels-that-it-is-about-time-we-address-the-sexism-that-exists-in-the-industry/articleshow/66308246.cms https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/television/saloni-chopra-makes-a-strong-point-about-rape-sexuality-and-slut-shaming-with-a-bold-photoshoot-see-pics-2994329/ prove she meets the general notability guidelines and are already in the article. I see a lot of the article was created after the nomination, Beccaynr doing a lot of work on it. Dream Focus 07:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to Keep per WP:HEY thanks to Beccaynr's improvements. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:08, 22 February 2021 (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. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mastram (web series)

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

Doesn't seems to satisfy WP:GNG. SwashWafer (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwashWafer (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- season 1 of Mastram already released on 30 April 2020. It is one the most viewed Indian web series. shooting for Season 2 is already going. on. It has been covered in major publications. Canadian intimacy co-ordinator, Amanda Cutting was roped in for the web series.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/web-series/news/amanda-cutting-sex-scenes-need-to-be-choreographed-like-a-bollywood-dance-sequence/articleshow/75779834.cms
https://scroll.in/reel/960370/mastram-trailer-anshuman-jha-plays-the-1980s-hindi-erotica-writer-in-mx-player-series
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/web-series/reviews/hindi/mastram/seasonreview/75874034.cms
--Ritabharidevi (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of Chutrandi. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 02:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Soft Porn and pornographic actors were merged with WP:BIO - so it is the bio's of the actors involved that has to meet notability. Let's not be swee here, this is soft porn. So we are not going to WP:GNG nor [[WP:NFILM] or anything like that. The references give strong notability to the main actor. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2021 (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 merge to Acharya Chandana. WP:ATD-M czar 05:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veerayatan

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

Non-notable religious organization. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Acharya Chandana then. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Weekend

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unfortunately I do not see any evidence of notability. Also the first AfD here seems to be for a different page, as the page was moved after its first AfD. Garnarblarnar (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NFILM, and claims for GNG don't stand after evaluating every ref's in the article. Kolma8 (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this meets any of the criteria listed at NFILM Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 15 February 2021 (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. In the absence of even the indication of where sources might be found, that keep argument holds very little water. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Koso

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

Football coach who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Had no head coach positions in fully-pro leagues according to sources (only assistant and youth coach jobs). BlameRuiner (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is generally more difficult to source an article from a remoter part of the world, and the fact that he was a football coach of a popular club and that there is still some coverage of him would indicate that he is a person of some significance. Anonymousme (talk) 04:23, 01 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymousme - whilst there is certainly an assertion of importance for Koso, the references provided are all very brief and don't go into much depth. Is there any coverage of Koso in other languages that might go into a bit more detail about him? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone - Like I mentioned that it is difficult to source an article from a remote part of the world and so this article is currently listed under:

This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

since anyone can contribute to Wikipedia with authentic sources and like you mentioned “whilst there is certainly an assertion of importance for Koso, the references provided are all very brief and don't go into much depth. Is there any coverage of Koso in other languages that might go into a bit more detail about him?.” I am sure that the article can be improved in the coming days. Anonymousme (talk) 05:35, 09 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sole keep vote carries little weight but with minimal participation, another week won't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and NFOOTY. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2021 (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 05:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chandranilekkoru Vazhi

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE other than Reference #3, which is a The Hindu article. I tried to PROD it, but the PROD was removed saying that that article is enough to satisfy GNG criteria for significant coverage. Kolma8 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as The Hindu piece is indepth and significant coverage in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one in-depth article is never sufficient to meet WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient evidence that this film passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:40, 23 February 2021 (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 02:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Punya Elizabeth

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

She has starred in three films but the only film where she got to play a major role would probably be in Gauthamante Radham. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi there, I created this article and I thought it will meet the criteria, But whatever it is i will accept the decision of Wikipedia. I only want to contribute best things for Wikipedia. But she appeared in 3 movies, so could anyone help to improve the article, if possible ? Otherwise, it is okay ! Much Love Onmyway22 (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Don't see the subject passing WP:NACTOR. Kolma8 (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even so please don't Delete the Article if she hasn't Participated in Multiply Movies Yet it means she's just a starter it doesn't do any bad if we give a chance until we get more updates about her. 🌸 Sakura Hana 💖 (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Author Hi there, I failed to find the supporting reference for Punya. And I understand the article is not meeting the criteria that is mentioned by the nominator. I want to keep the Wikipedia right. You may delete it. I am agreeing with the deletion. Thank you. Love you Wikipedia :) Onmyway22 (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence in article or searches that this person passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:32, 23 February 2021 (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 Dia (film). While keep participants argue for notability, no policy/guideline compliant sources or criteria are mentioned. Redirecting as an alternative to deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kushee Ravi

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

The article was previously AFD'ed and deleted for not satisfying WP:NACTOR. The subject has since worked in two films which have not been released yet. So its pretty much WP:TOOSOON for an article to be considered. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have the multiple significant roles in notable productions we require as a minimum to show an actress is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should Not Be Deleted the subject has been notable in the south Indian film industry. Very strong references have also been submitted to justify the claims. The subject's released films maybe just one at this point in time but she is in the limelight and working on a couple of films with renowned production houses. The strong references have been submitted to justify that as well. User:rangasn (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2021 (IST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete a case of WP:TOOSOON. Niceguylucky (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 19:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dia (film), where they played the lead role. WP:CHEAP and possible search term.-- `Ab207 (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Must Not Be Deleted Or Redirected The title looks to be notable in their respective field. The latest edit also shows that the individual has received some awards & accolades recently. It again proves the individual is actively involved in their respective field. The title deserves to be in the encyclopedia. User:Subashini_srini (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2021 (IST)
Keep has some good reliable sources, can be edited.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2021 (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. No prejudice against renomination Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Ahlawat

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

Non notable actor and film producer with a few minor roles and sourced to paid sources. A Google search doesn't show in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and WP:BASIC. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he meets WP:BASIC. Nalbarian (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nalbarian, Could you please clarify how he passes WP:BASIC? Ref# 1 and 2 are paid articles while ref# 3 is a press release with disclaimer at the bottom. None of these are considered reliable and independent of the subject.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Goenka

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable businessman who fails WP:BASIC, WP:BIO. Merely on the basis of awards nobility can't be established. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are multiple references in the article, many in languages I don't read/speak, the argument by the nom is very week based on existing references. Is this a drive by nomination, or does the nom have a point? I don't know, but a better argument the explains why those references don't meet WP:GNG would make for a more effective AFD, also addressing what is different between now and the AFD the resulted in Keep Jeepday (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Has a number of reliable sources. –Cupper52^Discuss! 09:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that the industry rewards (NASSCOM, Computer Society of India etc.) are a "well-known and significant award or honor". I can't locate significant coverage outside of mentions of these rewards. — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharat Goenka participants who are not blocked: Vejvančický (talk · contribs), Eastmain (talk · contribs), Panyd (talk · contribs)
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharat Goenka (2nd nomination) participants who are not blocked: Mccapra (talk · contribs), Csgir (talk · contribs), and Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus unclear. The comment appears to lean keep, while the keep vote is weak.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 20 February 2021 (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharti Axa General Insurance

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

I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Existing references are based on press releases and announcements, failing WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails our guidelines for companies/organizations WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 12:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NCORP. Extremely shallow coverage ("AXA increases stake..."). — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; optionally merge anything worth saving to ICICI Lombard, Bharti Enterprises and Axa. M4DU7 (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2021 (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. Sandstein 14:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ujjivan Small Finance Bank

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

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any that do. The existing references in the article are all based on announcements, PR, interviews and information provided by the company, failing WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails our guidelines for companies/organizations WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 12:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A WP:LISTED company with several analyst reports covering the company in great detail [28] [29] [30]. It is a small finance bank licensed and governed by the RBI, so it forms an integral part of the Indian banking sector. M4DU7 (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The analyst reports found by M4DU7 from Angel Broking, ICICI Bank, and HDFC securities establish notability. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations, "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."
Cunard (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2021 (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 merge to Shikhar Dhawan. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Shikhar Dhawan

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

Fails WP:NLIST. No source discusses his centuries as a group. The consensus is that such lists are not required. Störm (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Shikhar Dhawan. Lists of international centuries are, by definition, notable achievements and detailing significant numbers in prose alone is cumbersome and impairs readability, so tables are the way to go. These lists have the necessary context and explanation so do not fail NOTSTATS. Having said that, there are no issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT, so a merge would be appropriate. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main article on Shikhar Dhawan, as per same argument as above. No need for separate page.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the option of some prose and, possibly, a much cut down summary version of these tables added to the player's page. We don't need to be clogging up biographies with massively complex tables of statistics when we could summarise - and perhaps usefully use a table at that time. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS/WP:RAWDATA. "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." This article is just a list of scores from ESPNCricinfo and has no independent sources covering these individual achievements as a set. Agree with nom that there should be no precedent to include these on players' articles. Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to AFD closer recent afds were closed as Merge - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Faf du Plessis (2nd nomination); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Marvan Atapattu; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Cheteshwar Pujara, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Hussey; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Desmond Haynes; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Colin Cowdrey; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Martin Crowe; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Wally Hammond; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Justin Langer Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following also resulted in DELETE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan while these following articles resulted in redirection to player's article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal. With all of these lists of centuries or five-wicket hauls for players we are getting mixed outcomes. Admin needs to allow greater discussions (longer than a week) on all AfD's without resulting to arbitrary outcomes. Ajf773 (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more votes for possibly a clear result here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Fails WP:NLIST. Can be better merged into the main article about the subject. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per those above. BD2412 T 06:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Shikhar Dhawan. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to cricketer's page per comments above. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:31, 18 February 2021 (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 merge to V. V. S. Laxman. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by V. V. S. Laxman

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

Fails WP:NLIST. No source discusses his centuries as a group. The consensus is that such lists are not required. Störm (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to V. V. S. Laxman. Lists of international centuries are, by definition, notable achievements and detailing significant numbers in prose alone is cumbersome and impairs readability, so tables are the way to go. These lists have the necessary context and explanation so do not fail NOTSTATS. Having said that, there are no issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT, so a merge would be appropriate. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the option of some prose and, possibly, a much cut down summary version of these tables added to the player's page. We don't need to be clogging up biographies with massively complex tables of statistics when we could summarise - and perhaps usefully use a table at that time. Perhaps it could replace the utterly pointless table that is already in the player's article? Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS/WP:RAWDATA. "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." This article is just a list of scores from ESPNCricinfo and has no independent sources covering these individual achievements as a set. Agree with nom that there should be no precedent to include these on players' articles. Ajf773 (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to AFD closer recent afds were closed as Merge - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Faf du Plessis (2nd nomination); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Marvan Atapattu; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Cheteshwar Pujara, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Hussey; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Desmond Haynes; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Colin Cowdrey; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Martin Crowe; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Wally Hammond; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Justin Langer Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following also resulted in DELETE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan while these following articles resulted in redirection to player's article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal. With all of these lists of centuries or five-wicket hauls for players we are getting mixed outcomes. Admin needs to allow greater discussions (longer than a week) on all AfD's without resulting to arbitrary outcomes. Ajf773 (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more votes for possibly a clear result here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to V. V. S. Laxman. There is no policy-based or otherwise valid argument against all this content being incorporated in the main biography. A separate article is not justified on size-grounds, or on notability.----Pontificalibus 07:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fails WP:NLIST. Can be better merged into the main article about the subject. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per those above. BD2412 T 06:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:32, 18 February 2021 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shashidhar Kote

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

Did not think it meets WP:SINGER. Passing mention in the tabloids and fails WP:SIGCOV RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage in these two refs. [31], [32]. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 06:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 7 sources are not enough to show significance and the first one is self published.Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seven sources is more than enough if they have significant coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a singer she doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. As an Actress or TV host, there may be something there, but I still don't see any significant sources or significant coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Current sources satsifies WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep. There are more than 5 references with significant coverage. So it's correct to keep the page. Thanks. User:NinadMysuru (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2021 (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. I find TimothyBlue's rationale the most persuasive in the debate, along with a general consensus for deletion. Daniel (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kollam

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

Disputed redirection to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (I redirected it per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES; User:Aravind V R reverted). This is a poorly-sourced article about a school that is either WP:COI or original research. Citations are to self-published sources except one press release. I'd like to get consensus that this school doesn't meet our notability criteria. FalconK (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on my searches I assess this to be a notable school. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Keep: Navodaya schools is a network of schools funded by the central government in India. There is one such school in every district and provides free education to meritorious students in every district. The school used to have a dedicated website but now the government decided to have a single website for all schools, possibly to not drain government funds on domain fees. The absence of a dedicated website might have caused this confusion that this might not be a notable school, which is not the case. These schools, in most cases, are the best public schools in every district. I just noticed several schools listed in List of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas have their wiki pages being removed by some self-righteous editors who are doing a huge disservice to this encyclopedia and are wasting the time of several editors who have contributed to these pages. Most information added in these pages might get irrecoverably lost due to the such irresponsible activism. Aravind V R (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do a minimal research on the notability of a page before suggesting it for deletion. A google search might prove enough. Aravind V R (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT) or NBUILD. Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. None of the sources in the article are IS, BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV and no sources have been provided above. Article does not meet NBUILD, "…they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage, the type all schools receive in local press. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 04:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete like mentioned by Timmy above, the school fails general notability criteria, as well as notability criteria for organisations. Something doesnt become notable because of being a part of something notable. Notability is not inherited. This particular individual school is just another school that exists. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

verifiable existence is not notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

kindly see No inherited notability, and No inherent notability, the latter guideline specifically mentions schools. In short: this school is not notable only because it's parent school/organisation is notable. To become notable, this school also has to pass the relevant criteria. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a 3rd time as an involved editor disputed NC
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and relevant SNG criteria we have for highschools. Navodayas are no exception, unless and until we talk about the whole system. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 20:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember nominating a number of JNV articles for deletion, once bundled, but sadly, lesser participation, or the procedural close of one, left me somehow having bad response. Offcourse few were deleted. We should have a different policy on JNV schools, or atleast include one in the policies. These are so many JNVs in India. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 20:35, 21 February 2021 (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. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kochi Rajavu

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE Kolma8 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find a review on Sify - https://www.sify.com/movies/kochi-rajavu-review-malayalam-pclvIIgiffiag.html . There are other reliable sources which indicate that the movie was successful http://specials.rediff.com/movies/2008/feb/12sli1.htm . More references surely existed at the time of release, but they cannot be traced online now as with most other old Malayalam movies of note. Jupitus Smart 14:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart:: The first link is to a sify review "By Moviebuzz" while another link mentions the movie less than in passing. Can you please highlight how does it pass WP:NFILM and WP:GNG? Kolma8 (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear how the name used by the reviewer would have any bearing on the review. The second article shows that the movie was successful, and coupled with the fact that the movie had a famous set of cast and crew, it is evident that the movie had more reviews in its time. If you may, you can check for any of the recent movies of the cast and crew, all of whom are probably past their prime, to understand the amount of press coverage their movies generate. Just because none of our fellow editors, including me has any incentive in going to newspaper offices to check for newspapers that came at that time, to look for reviews and other write-ups about the movie, doesn't mean we delete all the articles that pre-dated the internet boom in India, and were made in WP:AGF. Best. Jupitus Smart 16:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really was hoping you will point out which criteria of WP:NFILM and WP:GNG the subject of this article passes/meets... Still disagree with your argument, but I do appreciate you taking your time to provide it. Cheers, Kolma8 (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per the reliable source review identfied in this discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I was able to find a review from Times of India [33]. And Kolma8 (talk · contribs), please make sure you nominate the old films for AFD carefully the next time. I happened to see you nominating some movies without doing very thorough WP:Before. Most of the low rated old movies you are nominating for AFD actually has theatrical release. Sadly sources does exist and we cannot keep here and I totally agree with it. But while you nominate some movies where there are some high profile casting involved, you can have some detailed WP:Before. This case itself, sources exist, but its hard to find. So please take some time and if you dont know Malayalam language, its then more hard to find sources. Since these are old movies, its really really hard to find sources. And some recent sources are available in malayalam language. Happy editing Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 12:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki (talk · contribs), thank you for your input and appreciate your effort in saving the article. I wasn't able to find a review from Times of India at the link you have provided. It is merely an IMDB-like entry. Please make sure to provide an actual review that will satisfy WP:NFO, "full-length reviews by ... nationally known critics." I really still don't see the subject of the article meeting WP:NFILM and/or WP:GNG, but do respect opinions of the community. Thank you again... R., Kolma8 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kolma8 (talk · contribs), WP:NFILM clearly says that in cases where its hard to find sources and establish notability, we consider other option. If the film features significant involvement by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career, then its considered notable. According to a reliable source Times of India and some other ones, some of the major personalities in Malayalam film industry is a part of this film and had a theatrical release which makes it notable by virtue. And about the link I have provided, we don't look whether it is an IMDB like review; We are only considering whether the source is reliable or not. I hope you know Times of India is one of a reliable source here.. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 06:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found more sources: Kolma8 (talk · contribs), Since you asked me whether I can show sources, I took some time I dont have because this is clearly a disapppinting nomination for me. So please have a look at all of these. I found more than 5 sources. [34]. This one establishes the movie had theatrical release. And please see [35]. The article mentions that The actress Kavya has also revealed her penchant for comedy through movies like Meesa Madhavan, Kochi Rajavu and Paapy Appacha. See this one [36]. The opening sentence itself says this is conidered as one of the best comedy movies by actor Dileep. And if you want more, please see [37] This one says Veteran Malayalam actor Geetha Salam who has acted in several super hit films such as Gramaphone, Kochi Rajavu... And see this one [38], this one [39] and [40]. (Please have some time to read it or you wont find anything). All these sources confirms that the movie was a major blockbuster and is notable. I hope these ones satisfies you now. So I just want to say one thing to you. You may not get sources for old movies that covers entirely about that movie. But you will surely get lot of sources like this. WP:GNG says multiple sources can be combined together to establish notabilty. And in cases of old movies, this is a big point to consider. You will surely get sources like this if you are doing a very good WP:Before. And if you are short of time for this, then please dont nominate for AFD unnecessarily unless you are sure it dont have sources. Instead you can tag with some notability tag or something like that. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 06:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki (talk · contribs), thanks for your reply. I have reviewed the references above and in all of them the film is mentioned merely in passing. Again, although I respect your opinion, but reserve my right to disagree with you. Cheers, Kolma8 (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kolma8 (talk · contribs), You can disagree or agree with me. Thats your right and I have nothing to say with it. In my review, the film is notable and have been covered in multiple sources including a review from Time of India. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 19:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki, this movie does not have a review from Times of India. But, that's fine. Guud luck, Kolma8 (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2021 (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. Sandstein 10:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Calcutta Quran Petition

AfDs for this article:

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

A self published book by author owned publishing company, lacking third party RS coverage and critical reviews. Fails all the criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT. Article largely unsourced or linked to other self published sources. Some refs are discussing the incident, not the book. Tagged for notability issue for a month. Walrus Ji (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2011-08 no consensus

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given a lack of further comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep as the book (or the chain of events itself) looks to be notable. There may not be ready references available online as it happened in 1980s India. However, the article contains important information and I cannot think of a reason to delete it. The book seems to be there in quite a few libraries. Although religious conflicts are common in India, it is relatively uncommon in West Bengal compared to other states. This book/event seems to be a contrary example. At the moment, I would prefer to keep the article. Edit: I found a reference. There is also a mention here, but I cannot download the pdf.--DreamLinker (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bulundi

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM, only thing found is a book that appears to just be a database style publication. Tagged for notability since November 2014. Prod removed with edit summary "no PROD". Donaldd23 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable Hindi film by notable actors Raaj Kumar, Danny Denzongpa, Kim, Asha Parekh. This film was a blockbuster hit film of its time, so it passes WP:GNG Walrus Ji (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Walrus Ji, having notable actors means nothing when proving notability for a film, read WP:NOTINHERITED. As for the film being a "blockbuster", could you provide a source for that claim other than your word? Donaldd23 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He was a super star. It is rare for their films to be non notable. Even the business done by the movie at the rates of 1980 shows that it was a block buster. In addition the dialogues of that movie are even being published in newspapers of today [41] [42]. Passes WP:NFILM. Walrus Ji (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good case for keeping an article about the actor...but neither one of those articles mentions the film Bulundi. By my count, it still fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not forget that this is a Hindi movie. The two links I posted "DOES" mention the film. Just because you might not be able to read something, does not mean it does not exist. Walrus Ji (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ran them through Google Translate and the quotes in the first link are not attributed to any film, they are just quotes. The second one does attribute quotes to a particular film, but I do not see this one listed. Also, quotes do not, in itself, make a film notable. There needs to be reviews WP:NFILM. Can you find any? Donaldd23 (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Point 6 in my link 1 has the popular dialogue from this film along with the name of this film in Devnagri script. Even after forty years of its release the movie dialogues are quoted in newspapers. A good sign for WP:GNG Walrus Ji (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NFO: review reflecting on the film four decades later,^[1] film's poster included in text on Indian cinema posters,^[2] reflection on the film 40 years later,^[3] 14th highest grossing film in India in 1981^[4] (out of 750 films produced that year^[5]).

References

^ Chintamani, Gautam (13 November 2018). "Raj Kumar, Asha Parekh's Bulandi is a mainstream Hindi masala film with art-house sensibilities - Entertainment News , Firstpost". Firstpost.
^ Dickey, Sara. Living Pictures: Perspectives on the Film Poster in India. Open Editions. p. 188. ISBN 978-0-949004-15-4.
^ Shirke, Ulhas (21 January 2021). "Down Memory lane…. 40 years of Raaj Kumar starrer film 'Bulundi' | Magz Mumbai". www.magzmumbai.com.
^ "Box Office 1981". Box Office India. Archived from the original on 1 February 2009.
^ Sethi, Sunil (15 January 1982). "Year 1981 was for Indian movies what 1977 had been for Indian politics". India Today.

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Goldsztajn plus "When Bulundi was released , Shaan was the only new generation hero . But the success of that film and those that followed really got to his head." ([43]) --Soman (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided above. Dhawangupta (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion which shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view. The First Post retrospective review is particularly convincing imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2021 (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. Some early delete votes are based on issues that were later fixed. The remaining issue is notability. For notability, there is a weak consensus to keep. Considering the discussion has been relisted twice, has gone on for 27 days, and some people have been notified explicitly, closing it as keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 09:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North East Centre for Technology Application and Reach

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

Page on a new research institute created by an SPA that has disclosed on talk page a COI as an employee of the institute. The text of the page is an unambiguous copyvio of [44]. WP:BEFORE search shows passing coverage in The Economic Times and press release type coverage more broadly. Nominating because 1) I am skeptical that this meets the bar of significant coverage. 2) Any notability that there is looks to me to be very marginal~~, and the article is in such poor shape that WP:TNT applies~~. 3) The paid COI editor should anyway not be making the inclusion decision. Past institutions organized under the Department of Science and Technology (India) have not always been found to be notable. Pinging @Discospinster: who draftified another instance of the page; @Dan arndt and Gpkp: who declined AfC on that version; @Phil Bridger: who removed my improperly-applied speedy tag. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

strike TNT per improvements by RationalPuff, see my comments below. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Has too many issues to qualify as a Wikipedia article. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that someone with such a clear COI should not be allowed to bypass the WP:AfC process Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no categories, no evidence of notability, created by a COI editor, copyvio... This is not a Wp article.GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It seems that this is a clear copyright violation, so is eligible for speedy deletion under a different criterion from the one I contested. If this is found not to be a copyright violation then my recommenation is delete as non-notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is very problematic. WP:TNT applies per nom. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if not keep with Department of Science and Technology (India). Strong Keep This is a legitimate Govt. of India organisation. I feel the article is rather a stub which needs improving. Here's some link from quick search.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] RationalPuff (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "NECTAR is an autonomous society".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^ Singh, Bikash. "Cabinet clears setting up of North East Centre for Technology Application and Reach at Shillong". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2021-01-26.
^ "Saffron flowers debut on Sikkim soil as varsity project". www.telegraphindia.com. Retrieved 2021-01-26.
^ "North East Centre for Technology Application and Research (Nectar) Implementing Several Projects Sucessfully". Punekar News. 2016-03-10. Retrieved 2021-01-26.
^ "Saffron bowl of India extends to northeast". News Station. 2020-11-09. Retrieved 2021-01-26.
^ "Growing Saffron in Sikkim: How Jammu & Kashmir is helping". The Financial Express. 2020-11-11. Retrieved 2021-01-26.
^ Hazarika, Myithili (2020-11-11). "72-year-old Meghalaya woman revives Garo fashion with recycled material". ThePrint. Retrieved 2021-01-26.

comment Changed my vote as I improved the stub somewhat but I'm sure it cam be improved further. I urge all editors to reconsider their opinion and possibly also can help improving the stub further. Thanks. RationalPuff (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that redirect to Department of Science and Technology (India) could be a sensible alternative to deletion here. I'm not convinced that any of the sources you provided, most of which were glancing mentions, constitute WP:SIGCOV. I remain concerned about copyright: the license [45] does not appear to be compatible with Wikipedia licensing. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the statement, "this is subject to the material ... not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context", is compatible. But if enough has now been changed then the copyright issue is a matter for revision deletion, rather than deletion of the whole article. Of course we are still left with deciding notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~The text copied into the article by the COI editor is still there, although an interested editor could certainly rewrite it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)~~ Now fixed. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

potential copyright issue has been eliminated. I have no doubt about the nobility of the subject. There are 1000s of search results about the subject of which several are reliable and significant coverage. However, as I said before it needs volunteers to improve upon the content. It will be a loss to the project trying to delete or even redirecting. RationalPuff (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to change the delete vote implicit in my nomination to redirect per WP:CHEAP. I think that the case for keeping is still a bit weak, but I don't think TNT applies anymore, and there's room for reasonable people to disagree. @Cupper52, GhostDestroyer100, and JayJay: what do you think about the improvements and case for notability made by RationalPuff? (If you have time to glance through the article again; apologies for disturbing!) Phil Bridger, I guess you've already seen. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Russ Woodroofe: I have struck out my vote. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing the WP:GNG. I did consider merging but no great candidate. The ministry is too high up. Independent, not affiliated to a university. gidonb (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes the WP:GNG with the sources provided, moreover we are discussing a regional organisation (higher than state level) servicing a population of 45+ million people.--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2021 (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] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/15/world/asia/climate-activist-jailed-india.html

[2] ttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/25/young-people-resume-global-climate-strikes-calling-urgent-action-greta-thunberg

[3] ttps://www.vogue.co.uk/arts-and-lifestyle/article/activists-of-colour-environmental-racism

[4] ttps://www.fridaysforfutureindia.com/

[5] ttps://blueprintnewsonline.com/5962/feature/the-climate-movement-across-the-world-part-4/

[6] Chintamani, Gautam (13 November 2018). "Raj Kumar, Asha Parekh's Bulandi is a mainstream Hindi masala film with art-house sensibilities - Entertainment News , Firstpost". Firstpost.

[7] Dickey, Sara. Living Pictures: Perspectives on the Film Poster in India. Open Editions. p. 188. ISBN 978-0-949004-15-4.

[8] Shirke, Ulhas (21 January 2021). "Down Memory lane…. 40 years of Raaj Kumar starrer film 'Bulundi' | Magz Mumbai". www.magzmumbai.com.

[9] "Box Office 1981". Box Office India. Archived from the original on 1 February 2009.

[10] Sethi, Sunil (15 January 1982). "Year 1981 was for Indian movies what 1977 had been for Indian politics". India Today.

[11] "NECTAR is an autonomous society".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[12] Singh, Bikash. "Cabinet clears setting up of North East Centre for Technology Application and Reach at Shillong". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2021-01-26.

[13] "Saffron flowers debut on Sikkim soil as varsity project". www.telegraphindia.com. Retrieved 2021-01-26.

[14] "North East Centre for Technology Application and Research (Nectar) Implementing Several Projects Sucessfully". Punekar News. 2016-03-10. Retrieved 2021-01-26.

[15] "Saffron bowl of India extends to northeast". News Station. 2020-11-09. Retrieved 2021-01-26.

[16] "Growing Saffron in Sikkim: How Jammu & Kashmir is helping". The Financial Express. 2020-11-11. Retrieved 2021-01-26.

[17] Hazarika, Myithili (2020-11-11). "72-year-old Meghalaya woman revives Garo fashion with recycled material". ThePrint. Retrieved 2021-01-26.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]