Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

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

India[edit]

Preethi (name)[edit]

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

Same listing exists at Preeti. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and replace the section within Preeti to a see also. Alternatively. split Preeti between the article about the name and the disambiguation links. Or replace Preethi (name) with a redirect. The article should not be deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I have no objection to redirecting Preethi (name) to Preeti. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northeastern Centre for High School Research[edit]

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

Not a notable organization. Created by undergraduate students last year; no substantial coverage that is independent from the group. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swadhin Axom[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, India, and Assam. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete/Repurpose~~ Dratify EDIT: vote changed since one source shows potential, see below;/ @Flyingphoenixchips, moving the discussion here in the appropriate discussion channel. The movement for an independent Assam might pass WP:GNG and be worth an article. However, it should be an article about the movement, not a proposed state- and it needs to be supported by sources that talk about "Swadhin Axom" as an idea specifically rather than as an alternative name for Assam used by those who want independence. If you believe there are many sources in Google, then WP:DOIT and fix this article. We don't do original research on wikipedia. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks, the sources I mentioned do support it as an idea, and not as an alternative name. All sources are listed in the reference page. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In no way was the article I have written am original research. Additionally many such articles on proposed states exist, and a separate category in wikipedia exists as well. Will those pages be deleted or just this, since its against a particular POV Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swadhin Axom was never used as an alternate name for assam. Swadhin means Independent and the proposed independent state is just refered to as Assam or Axom- both are the same literals. Swadhin axom is used by academics to describe this proposed state. Ref: Prafulla Mohonto, Proposal for Independence. Would suggest you to read it Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To maintain neutrality, would suggest editing existing articles based on your arguments, using credible sources, instead of plain WP:I just don't like it. Wikipedia should never become a battleground of political ideologues. If you read the article its neutral, you can add additional pointers in the article, if you have sources for the same. Thanks Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't accuse me baselessly of just not liking it.

You mentioned a google search, another wikipedia article and its sources on the Talk page- that's not enough when the question is whether "Swadhin Axom" as a concept should be a WP:CONTENTFORK from Assam. Wikipedia's neutrality policy is not about giving equal weight to every political opinion. It also doesn't say that we should have a different article for every political way of looking at something.

Sources and GNG

Now let's look at the actual sources in this article:
Source 1 - Ivy Dhar has extensive discussion of the idea of Swadhin Axom, specifically in relation to the ULFA and nationalism

Source 2 - Nipon Haloi only mentions it once

Source 3 - Dutta & Laisram only mention it once

Source 4 - Udayon Misra only mentions it once

Source 5 - Not only does Santana Khanikar only mention it once (outside of the glossary), she proceeds to call the proto-state as simply the ULFA instead of Swadhin Axom.

Source 6 - Swadhin Axom is only mentioned as part of the title of a speech

Source 7 - Does not mention it

Source 8, 9 and 10 - Does not mention it- all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 11 - Does not mention it

Source 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 - Does not mention it, not even in the entire book of Source 17. These are all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 18 - cannot access myself but also looks like a book entirely about the Assam Movement

Source 19, 20, 21, 22 - Does not mention it

etc. etc.

Now, I couldn't keep going through the remaining 40+ sources but this is only to highlight one issue: the article doesn't really meet WP:GNG standards. Not every sources need to meet WP:GNG, but there should be at least one to establish that the article is notable. Source 1 is a good source for this article, and there may be more in the 40+ citations I couldn't get to.

However, I would still delete this article and draftify it (I changed my vote) because:

WP:V - Verifiability

Just from the first 20, I suspect a lot of these sources were thrown on there because they came up in the Google Scholar search for "Swadhin Axom". Wikipedia requires that the content be verified based on the content of the sources. We don't do original research by giving our own analysis of the source.

For specific example, let's take the sentence "Figures like Bishnu Prasad Rabha, a multifaceted artist and social reformer, Tarun Ram Phukan, a prominent political leader, and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, a key figure in the Assam Movement and a former Chief Minister of Assam, have played crucial roles in advancing the cause of Swadhin Axom" It's supported by Sources 14-18. If you will recall from my list above, these are all about the 1970s Assam Movement that don't mention the idea of Swadhin Axom. If Swadhin Axom is really not just a local name for the English phrase 'independent Assam', then you would need a source to connect Swadhin Axom and the Assam Movement, instead of providing the original analysis that the Assam Movement was an important part of the Swadhin Axom proposed state.

I will reiterate that I think that the article Assamese nationalism would make more sense for the sources you are using. If the article is just about providing more WP:NPOV perspectives about Assam- those should go in the Assam article. If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state. From what I see, it might be better focused on the ULFA explicitly, their governing structures etc. In its current state, this article is not fit for mainspace. And it's not because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article is WP:SYNTH. United Liberation Front of Asom could be a redirect target ... but this title is misspelled (Axom instead of Asom). Walsh90210 (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wesean Student Federation[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Asia, and India. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; not a notable organization. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wesea (Western SouthEast Asia)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, Asia, India, and Manipur. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify The sources here don't really talk about ""Wesea"". For example, the page uses a lot of content broadly about Zomia, which passes WP:GNG. I can assume good faith on some of the paper sources, but I know a few of them don't mention "Wesea" at all. There needs to be a lot more work to make a page about the idea of Wesea using reliable sources and this article just isn't ready for wikipedia mainspace yet. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, it should be moved to Wesea, as the base title does not exist and the current title misuses the parenthetical for an acronym. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_21#Category:Wesean_National_Leaders is related to this AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence that any of the sources use this term. It is not made up by the article creator, but all the sources I can find are referring to rebel militant groups (Times of India discussing a group). Walsh90210 (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Cause Foundation, Bangalore[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Non-notable organization. SL93 (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. SL93 (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kicko & Super Speedo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. It lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. The references cited are mainly announcements and TV schedules, which do not provide the necessary independent verification of the show's notability. It has "additional citations needed for verification" tag since May 2023. M S Hassan (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Sony_YAY!#Former_programming - Not opposed to Keep, see User:Eastmain's comment during 1st Afd.My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC) (the tag " It has "additional citations needed for verification" tag, even since May 2023, indicates more a cleanup issue than a notability one).[reply]

ఐ 20[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. 2 of the 3 sources appear to be copies of each other (I couldn't access the third), and no reliable sources were found online. Does not meet WP:NFILM. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: I have the feeling that this wasn't released on the announced date (14 June), so let's wait for release and reviews. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could the article title instead be the English translation? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 12:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chimpoo Simpoo[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. It lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. It lacks in-depth analysis or substantial coverage from reputable publications. The references are primarily primary sources or basic descriptions, which do not provide the necessary independent verification to establish the show's notability. M S Hassan (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Sony_YAY!#Current_programming -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Kundan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL where the article itself claims the subject person as a politician. WP:GNG can't surpass WP:NPOL criteria. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sibpur Hindu Girls High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Asia, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jagadbandhu Institution[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:GNG. Relies on WP:PRIMARY. Sources are passing mention only. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santragachi Kedarnath Institution (Girls)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL as well as WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fairoz Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I wonder how it passes WP:NPOL to exist here and that a WP:AUTOBIO by user @Fairoz22khan. If this to be here then why we are declining Draft:Varun Choudhary. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. There is no in-depth significant achievement notable. RangersRus (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: President of the student's union or a youth congress are not notable political positions. Being accused of sexual crimes doesn't add to notability. I don't see the notability for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Prasad Kanaujia[edit]

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

On the face of it, this is a politician who should pass NPOL. But, I couldn't find any reliable source online that shows that he won the 2017 election in Uttar Pradesh. The results from the Election Commission of India show that a different person (Ashish Kumar Singh) won the Bilgram-Mallanwan Assembly constituency seat in 2017. My searches online didn't find any sources that would show that the subject passes GNG. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Strange that it was created in 2018 with blunder. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singara Chennai[edit]

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

No reliable reviews or other sources other than a single production source. A search in Sify ([1]), Chennai Online ([2]), and BizHat ([3]) proves futile. Please find the Kalki and Cine South reviews or redirect to Chennai as all online sources prove to be a description for the city. A WP:BEFORE found a fleeting mention here (சிங்கார சென்னை). DareshMohan (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chennai: Per nom. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Kalabhavan_Mani#Tamil_films. Poor sources with no significant coverage and reliable critic reviews. RangersRus (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger (2007 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

2007 film hasn't got any more notable in the seven months since the last AFD. Speedy G4 removed without comment, so here we go again. As in the last AFD, couldn't find a single reliable source in English or Bengali (টাইগার 2007 মিঠুন). The only source cited so far that actually mentions the film is a copy of the film posted to Dailymotion. Recently declined twice at draft by same article creator. A case can be made for salting it now, I think. Wikishovel (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and West Bengal. Wikishovel (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current sourcing is inadequate to satisfy WP:NFILM, no good sourcing came up when searching and none was found during the first AFD either; given the age of the film and elapsed time since the last AFD it is unlikely new sourcing would be available anyway. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:1823:FC07:8CDE:1454 (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swapan Saha#Filmography: director (verifiable: TOI, TV Guide). If the claims on the page are verified, not opposed to keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC) (that was my !vote in the 1st AfD, more or less)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Surinder_Films#Films. Poor sources with no indepth coverage and reliable critic reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All current sources are passing mentions. The film released during the Internet era and should only be recreated with reliable reviews. DareshMohan (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chacha Chaudhary (2002 TV series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. It only has two ref. M S Hassan (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and bioth are dead links to TV listings. - Altenmann >talk 16:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chacha Chaudhary] - Altenmann >talk 16:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chacha_Chaudhary#Adaptation. Poor sources with no indepth coverage and reviews. RangersRus (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ksolves India Limited[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are largely earning reports and announcements, considered trivial coverage. Others fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing more than a business directory listing. This might even qualify for A7 speedy deletion: there is nothing currently in the article that even remotely suggests notability, just that it exists, it has products (but none are described), it works with the same tech products that every tech company works with, and it's publicly traded and reports earnings. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Ciudatul (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:LISTED guidelines, a publicly traded company is deemed notable if it has received independent press coverage and is cited in analyst reports. The article under discussion meets these criteria by including three credible analyst reports [4], [5], [6] and sufficient independent press coverage.Artyomolga (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources meets the criteria of WP:NCORP. Sources also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because of no independent subject matter. RangersRus (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Era Tak[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Current references are mostly primary or from YouTube. There are a couple to Amar Ujala, but they don't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV. There doesn't seem to be much improvement in terms of references when compared to the previous afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Era Tak. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and India. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, still not yet notable per WP:CREATIVE. Couldn't find SIGCOV in RS in English or Hindi (इरा टाक) - apart from what's cited here already all I could find was a typical WP:NEWSORGINDIA softball interview on News 18. Wikishovel (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. The article seems to be more promotional. Ciudatul (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor unreliable sources on the page. Page reads as publicity WP:PROMO. Fails notability with no significant achievement or influence notable by the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Agree with others that this is a poorly ref-bombed WP:PROMO. No significant coverage. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nizam's Carnatic campaigns (1725-27)[edit]

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

This article is solely based on author's own research and is not supported by any reliable source. Even the sources which the author has used in this article contradicts his claims for example author has used New History of Marathas Vol2 by Govind Sakharam Sardesai in his article and that book's Pg 85-90 (here is the link for book) [7], says there were two campaigns one from 1725-26 and second from 1726-27 both led by Bajirao called "Bajirao's 1st Carnatic Expedition" and "Bajirao's 2nd Carnatic Expedition" the author simply combined those two conflicts kept a name as per his choice which violates Wikipedia guidelines. Also result section has a problem; the same source stated above gives a Maratha victory see Pg 85, quoting 1727 April: Karnatik Chiefs submit to Bajirao, so Nizam victory is also inappropriate.Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A separate article is not warranted for this much content. Capitals00 (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above-mentioned comments.Rawn3012 (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Constructive45 (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you provided no counter to my comment for which I nominated this article for deletion. I am assuming it's because you simply can't. Also, I see your talk page is full of edit disputes with other users where you are constantly trying to push your narrative. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chorr Police[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. The article lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. It does not offer in-depth analysis or substantial coverage in reputable publications. The references cited do not provide the necessary independent verification of the show's notability. M S Hassan (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green_Gold_Animations#Television: No time to check possible existing sources but this ATD seems at least warranted. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bunty Aur Billy[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. It has only one ref which is most likely unreliable. M S Hassan (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: I could not find any coverage online or in books/newspapers besides the one already in the article, which is hard to call reliable (no author). Fails WP:NSERIES. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mushy Yank as a WP:ATD. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Discovery_Kids_(India): No time to check possible existing sources but at least this WP:ATD seems warranted. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chacha Chaudhary (2019 TV series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. It only has one ref. M S Hassan (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chacha_Chaudhary#Adaptation: Obvious WP:ATD. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the article in question doesn't include anything that will be missed if moved into Chacha_Chaudhary#Adaptation. -Mjks28 (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity[edit]

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

Book from conspiracy theorists that failed to attract any coverage or reviews. At best it has only received little coverage over disinformation it spread. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, India, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage in the Kansas City Star and The Historian, as well as from other authors, makes it notable. Critical coverage is still coverage. Astaire (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage books that are written specifically for getting attention should attract coverage from more than just 2 twenty years old sources. If this book was published today it would be best fact checked on a fact checking website and we wont count it as coverage towards notability. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBOOK does not require sustained coverage for a book to be notable, so the comment about "20-year-old sources" is not relevant. The comment about "garbage books" is also not relevant according to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There have now been three journal reviews found, which is more than enough to meet NBOOK. If these reviews are critical of the book, then the article should make note of that. Astaire (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It passes NBOOK and is therefore notable. The reviews seem to adequately address the book's fringe claims. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: How does it pass WP:NBOOK? Ignore the misleading claim above that there is coverage from "Kansas City Star" because it simply not verifiable. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArvindPalaskar On proquest, there are:
- review in Choice, proquest id 225800157
- a review in Free Inquiry, proquest id 230077014
Above NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also a review in The Humanist, proquest ID 235297768. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've verified that the reviews in Choice and Free Inquiry exist. Those two reviews, plus the existing sources in the article, are enough to more than meet the NBOOK threshold. Astaire (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best we have only 1 review that meets WP:V. I agree that special care should be taken over a fringe subject but even without that this book easily fails all points of WP:NBOOK. Azuredivay (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, one review doesn't prove notability. Artem.G (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed there is only 1 review and that too only tells why this book is faulty. NavjotSR (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Steger, Manfred (2005). "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". The Historian. 67 (4): 781–782. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6563.2005.00130.x. EBSCOhost 19009759. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The review notes: "If the author had managed to present credible evidence for both theses, his book would have been nothing short of a scholarly sensation, not only invalidating diametrically opposed assessments emerging from nearly eight decades of academic “Gandhiana,” but also dismantling the Mahatma’s popular image. In addition, Singh’s study would constitute a valuable contribution to the existing social science literature on Indian politics. Concerning G. B. Singh’s first thesis, however, this reviewer could not find hard evidence for the sinister manipulations of the “Hindu propaganda machine.”"
  The review notes: "Numerous criticisms of Gandhi’s moral flaws do exist; one only needs to consult pertinent works authored by Ved Mehta, Partha Chatterjee, Joseph Alter, or this reviewer. Yet, out of fairness, these authors balanced their critiques against Gandhi’s impressive moral strengths. By launching a one-sided attack without offering the larger, more complex picture of Gandhi’s ethical and political engagements, the book under review turns into a strident polemic, thus diminishing the considerable value of some of its criticisms."
2. Clark, Thomas W. (July–August 2006). "Gandhi in Question". The Humanist. Vol. 66, no. 4. pp. 45–47. ProQuest 235297768. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The review notes: "G. B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity subjects Gandhi the saint to death by a thousand cuts. The man is portrayed as an impostor who harbored racist attitudes toward South African blacks and whose efforts on behalf of Hindu "untouchables" were misguided half-measures, designed merely to build his own reputation and political influence. Using dozens of quotes from newspapers, letters, and biographies, most of which actually show Gandhi in a positive light, Singh aims to deconstruct what he calls Gandhi's pseudo-history. ... Singh also offers an unsubstantiated hypothesis that Gandhi, in cleaning out files, deliberately destroyed some incriminating documents sometime after 1906. But he has no evidence as to what the missing documents contained. That their content was racist and their destruction part of a coverup is simply speculation on his part."
3. Terchek, R. J. (February 2005). "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". Choice. Vol. 42, no. 6. p. 1077. doi:10.5860/CHOICE.42-3580. ProQuest 225800157.
  The review notes: "For career military officer Singh, Gandhi's character and record are dark and troublesome. He finds his subject a racist, "macho," a propagandist, beholden to special interests, a liar, a "superb manipulator," a "witch doctor of the worst kind," the "most bribable of all Congress Party leaders," and the list goes on. The book lacks balance and refuses to acknowledge that people can grow and develop, learn from mistakes, and try to move forward."
4. Narisetti, Innaiah (October–November 2004). "A Critical Look at a National Hero". Free Inquiry. 24 (6): 55–56. ProQuest 230077014.
  The review notes: "Mr. Singh's book attempts to expose the racial prejudices of Gandhi and his followers in South Africa and the sometimes violent nature of his satyagraha movement there and asserts that facts from that period were concealed as biographers, in years to come, relied primarily on Mr. Gandhi's own writings rather than independent research. The author provides a lifeline for Gandhi and a select bibliography as appendices. The book also comes with three unusual caricatures of Gandhi: "Dawn of the New Gandhi," "The Hindu Face of Gandhi the Avatar," and "The Christian Face of Saint Gandhi.""
5. Volin, Katie (2005-01-02). "Gandhi as a racist doesn't add up". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Although changing people's notions of history can be done, it would take a strong argument to convince many people that Gandhi was racist. Establishing the book's incendiary premise becomes the Achilles heel of G.B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. ... Singh's failure to first define racism and second to demonstrate how Gandhi's behavior with regard to other races was socially aberrant in his lifetime weakens the author's argument irreparably. It is rather difficult to market one's book as a scholarly work if basic definitions and sociological conditions are not even given mention."
6. Xavier, William (October 2004). "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". Reviewer's Bookwatch. Midwest Book Review. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The review notes: "The mud slung at Gandhi by G.B.Singh only adds to the greatness of the Mahatma. (Mahatma means large minded)."
7. Less significant coverage:
  1. "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". Reference and Research Book News. Vol. 19, no. 4. Copyright Clearance Center. November 2004. ProQuest 199666401.
    The review provides 78 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "A career military officer and student of Indian politics, Hinduism, and Gandhi, Singh tries to make some sense of the widely divergent images of the Indian leader by various interests appropriating him for their cause"
  2. Sudeep, Theres (2021-08-17). "Rediscover Gandhi this weekend". Deccan Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. B. Singh (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination. Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple reliable and in-depth published reviews (possibly as many as six) is enough for WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK for me. It may be partisan junk but that's not the question; the question is whether it's notable partisan junk and I think this demonstrates that it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They are not really "reviews". The book absolutely does not meet WP:NBOOK, let alone WP:GNG. There is a big difference between advertorials and reviews. The sources mentioned above are either advertorials or fact-check. Orientls (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Himanshu Sharma[edit]

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

Failes WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCER. Nothing special found any search engine! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fairly meets WP:CREATIVE with at least 8 credits as writer of notable films. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC) +significant awards that have him meet WP:ANYBIO + coverage that seems to have him meet GNG....[reply]
The current sourcing is not very good, though. All that's there are two or three short articles with maybe two paragraphs describing him between them, a social media announcement, and an IMDB profile. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you count the IMDB profile as one source, and one/multiple of the news articles as another? Mrfoogles (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This writer has received at least 2 nationally significant awards, which is sourced + meets WP:CREATIVE for his multiple credits as writer (also sourced), so I am leaving it at that, as I consider the requirement for notability is met. two or three short articles with maybe two paragraphs describing him between them may be considered a description of significant coverage. Thanks. Just added 2 sources. Feel free to remove ImDb. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. C. Janardhan Reddy[edit]

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

PROD contested without improvement. Does not meet WP:NPOL as a district level official. Only 1 source, which does not have WP:SIGCOV on him. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a member of an Indian state legislature he definitely does pass NPOL and as he’s also a state minister there’s really no question about it. Mccapra (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boyina Naga Navadweep Sai (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page about a person took Oath as Cabinet Minister of Andhra Pradesh on 12th June 2024^[1]^[2]^[3]

Wikipedia & other editors , this not illegial matter, it is very useful to the viewers. They can know who is this particular Minister

The photo of this person is already existed in Wikimedia commons. So I created this page.

So Wikipedia and editors please don't delete this & please don't nominate for deletion.🙏

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Andhra Pradesh is an Indian state with a population larger than the average country, or of any US state. This chap is a lot more than a "district level official". Ϣere SpielChequers 22:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is the member of Andhra Pradesh legislative assembly, so he passes the WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a council of minister for the state of Andhra Pradesh he is one of the important persons of the state and I believe people should be able to learn about him. Shannu Nadh (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars[edit]

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

The article is nothing but a complete product of original research. There is not a single WP:RS that treats the conflicts between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as involving all the Sultanates (Mamluk dynasty, Khalji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, and the Lodi dynasty) allied together against Mewar. Ironically, the timeline of the war/conflicts presented in the article is completely fabricated, and no sources support this notion. There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. The article is completely a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment:Note for the closer: Please analyze the background and contributions of the voters, as meatpuppetry is common among Indian military-history articles. Do not consider the votes of newly created users or common PoV pushers as valid, whether for Delete or Keep. Ironically, I noticed that the author of this article supported the deletion of a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha–Nizam wars, yet surprisingly promotes this article by linking to other articles. --Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have named the article "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate" but a user named Flemmish changed it to the current name. I suggest the name of the article to be changed to the previous one, "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate", and this is a list where as your article Maratha-Nizam was a conflict which is entirely different from this one. Both articles can't be compared, use common sense at least Imperial. Also, I did not remove the dynasties (Guhila, Sisodiya, Khalji, etc.) another user named Padfoot2008 removed it so you better have this discussion with him. Also when did I add Mewar victory in the article, if some editor adds it (which nobody did you could see page history), you could simply undo that edit, nominating the article for deletion isn't appropriate. And there are several similar articles in Wikipedia like List of wars involving the Delhi Sultanate so why can't this be? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the title to Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars because all parts of the actual text were portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic rather than just a list of conflicts between the states — changing the title back wouldn't fix anything, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict rather than whether it is called a "list" or not. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which line of the article portrays this as a single conflict? It seems you have a problem in understanding English. Better work on it. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one with an English problem here — I did say portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic — obviously this was not one 300 year war and by the latter saying of "treating it as a single conflict" I mean, as I and Imperial said, that you are treating these wars between non-unified entities as a series of conflicts, and thus one topic rather than just different conflicts between polities which happened to be located in the same region. You can't take multiple wars between any two states and treat it as one topic if sources do not treat it as one. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you simply don't want to understand what is meant by a list. I m saying that this is a list of wars between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. When am I saying (when is the article saying) this is a single conflict? And what do you mean by non-unified entities? Clearly you are the one who is having difficulty in understanding English or even your own comments. See what you wrote, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read Imperial's initial reasoning? Non-unified means, in addition to a lack of centralization, that the "Delhi Sultanate" was not one single country and was ruled by four different dynasties. Quoting Imperial's reasoning, which it seems you can't comprehend, Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. As I said, you're taking the fact that there were multiple wars between the "Delhi Sultanate" and the "Kingdom of Mewar", both ruled by different dynasties throughout their history, and, as a quote from your writing on the article, claiming that the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century with a set victor. I changed the title from a list because by your writing, it wasn't a list; you claimed in the lead, before the page was moved, that there is something called the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" which is clearly just a made up name of conflicts between different entities; I was simply adjusting the title to more accurately reflect the outlandish claim your POVish article is trying to make. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, You want me to change just first line of the article that is "The Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century"? And even if multiple dynasties are involved that does not support the deletion as it is a list. And what is my POV push in the article, all wars are supported by multiple reliable sources (WP:RS). Also, list of wars articles are perfectly suitable for inclusion in Wikipidea. And different dynasties ruling Mewar and Delhi doesn't make any sense for deletion of the article, for example you could see Afghan-Sikh War. If you changed the title for first line of the article you should have consulted me first as I was the author of this article rather than having this discussion now. Besides where did I mention a set victor in the article since the day it was accepted?Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These battles did happen between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate over a long period of time as both vied for control in northern India. What did u mean by this:

There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties.

How Mewar wasn't a unified entity? Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty are not distinct, Sisodia are a sub-clan of Guhila. Krayon95 (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single WP:RS that treated the conflicts between Sisodia+Guhila vs Mamluk+Khalji+Tughlaq+Lodi as a single war. So, a clear synthesis is presented here. And your user talk page history is full of clearing warnings and AFD notices on caste-related issues? Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado Well, indeed, battles took place between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as they were both powerful entities, particularly Mewar as it was going towards its peak, but as explained by you, there is no source mentioning the war overwall, or, in a better way, an organised millitary standoff. Hence, I would request to rename the article to its older name, which is "List of battles between the Kingdom of Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate," or another name, which is Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Conflicts. Let's have a consensus.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the Closer : I have addressed all concerns which users Flemmish and Imperial had regarding page name, some sentences of the intro para and the dynasties of the involved belligerents in my recent edits of this page. Please see these links [8], [9], [10], [11]. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Kahuta[edit]

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

Pure fancruft created for POV pushing. All of the sources are nothing but invented claims of Pakistani officials not supported by any third party sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian, Israeli, American, British and Irish sources are included Waleed (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite them here. I don't see any which can establish WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3,4,5,8,9,10,16,17 are non-Pakistani sources which include the aforementioned sources including Israeli and Indian but also third party sources including the American air university Waleed (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : article lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. The existing sources are primarily from partisan perspectives, failing to establish the article notability. Nxcrypto Message 05:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non beligrent sources are also given as mentioned above Waleed (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the subject but there does appear to be reliable sources covering it e.g. [12] even if it's a fabricated plot it's still arguably notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Pakistan, Israel, and India. Owen× ☎ 10:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've concerns about articles created by M Waleed, as they often include WP:OR and rely on questionable sources. Despite my advice to use drafts instead of creating articles directly in the main namespace, it appears that my suggestions were not followed- hence this AFD nom. Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable one-sided claim does not need a separate article. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zakaria1978, the existing sources include indian and Israeli sources so how's this one sided Waleed (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israel–Pakistan relations. Article on a non-event that is already mentioned at Israel–Pakistan relations. A redirect per CHEAP and ATD is the only correct solution. gidonb (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Devarakonda[edit]

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

Couldn't find a single reliable source mentioning a battle called the "Battle of Devarkonda." This makes it clear that the article is fabricated. It was created and modified by socks who were disrupting articles related to Indian military conflicts. The article lacks notability, and no sources cover this conflict in detail or refer to it as the "Battle of Devarkonda." Created by socks/continuous disruptors for self pleasure. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment- The repeated mentioning of "Muslim" in the lead itself is enough to identify the the target of the creator (ofcourse, the user is blocked).Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being unsourced is a not a reason for deletion because it can be fixed through editing. In this case, however, notability does not appear to be established. C F A 💬 15:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think this is a hoax. It is briefly mentioned in some pages online, like this blog/article. Regardless, it certainly doesn't meet WP:NMIL with this little coverage. C F A 💬 15:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clearfrienda We have seen numerous unreliable sources that discuss rewritten and inaccurate history, often contradicting well-established sources. I do not consider those blogs and write-ups to be credible, especially since such biased South Asian blogs are widely available online. The site linked above itself contains praise and many biased writings. Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Source by Dr. M.A. Haque, lecturer in history, Regional college of Education, Bhubaneswar, Orissa on page 33 talks about the battle at Devarakonda. Page needs to be fixed with background where Bahamanis sieged Devarakonda. More reliable sources will be helpful. 2 other sources, I was not able to verify. RangersRus (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for notability. The first source is a paper book that I cannot access online. The second ref (Subrahmanyam 1957) links back to the article. The third source, a book from 1980, looks legitimate but only mentions the battle on one page (which you can access by entering "Devarakonda" into the search function provided). So we have enough accessible sources to show that the battle took place and a few basics about who fought and who won. I say draftify if even one person volunteers to make improvements. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Border 2 (film)[edit]

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

Planned film that does not satisfy film notability guidelines or general notability, and in particular does not satisfy future film notability guidelines. Unreleased films are only notable if production, that is, principal photography, has begun, and production itself is notable. This film has only been announced. The four references are all nearly the same, simply announcements that the director plans to make the film.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	India Today	Announcement of plan of film	Yes	No. Future existence is not significant coverage.	Yes	No
2	NDTV.com	Announcement of plan for film	Yes	No. Future existence is not significant coverage.	Yes	No
3	Indian Express	Announcement of plan for film	Yes	No. Future existence is not significant coverage.	Yes	No
4	Times of India	Announcement of film, with discussion	Yes	No, even if somewhat more detailed.	No	No

This stub does not speak for itself, and there is nothing here that approaches significant coverage of a film or its production.

Draftify as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Checked for in-depth coverage, but I can't find any. These sources are just announcements, release date but not significant coverage. Additionally, the shooting of the film has not yet started. The film obviously fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. The first part of the film was very famous in India, so it will surely get more coverage in the future and will meet notability, but it is currently not ready for mainspace. GrabUp - Talk 19:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Border (1997 film)#Sequels -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. WP:TOOSOON. Just announcements and the film has not begin production. It needs to pass post production stage for a warranted page. RangersRus (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Currently, the article does not meet WP:NFILM and WP:GNG guidelines due to the lack of coverage and the fact that filming has yet to begin. However, by moving it to draft space, its editors can add to it and build its content. The content may meet Wikipedia's standards as the film is made and more details become known.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meridean Overseas Education[edit]

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

I think this article fails WP:NCORP. Most sources are based on PR releases, thus inherently not independent. Churnalism. It is likely that this is a result of WP:UPE as the creator Zehnasheen has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion. A dime a dozen edutech company. Recommend deletion. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, Technology, and India. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page reads as advertising and promotion. Fails WP:NCORP. The sources do not meet the criterias to be counted towards establishing notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Promotional article with PR sources. Ciudatul (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zubeen Garg live performances[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While the addition of subsequent live performances since the deleted version keeps this from being a G4, Discographymen essentially created the same article that was deleted. The factors that led to the deletion do not appear to have changed as there's no indication the performances were notable. While I would not be opposed to a redirect (protected, to stop re-creation) I am opposed to a merge as this information isn't encyclopedic in addition to not being notable. Star Mississippi 17:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Events, and India. Star Mississippi 17:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. Give me some time to reconstruct the article with better citations and removing social media links. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you. Discographymen (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would not even consider merge to Zubeen_Garg#Discography because of how poorly sourced the page is for all performances. Most of the sources are Twitter and blogs from a quick Overlook. Page fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His live performances are not so many, nor so notable as of yet that it will require a separate article. ❯❯❯Pravega^g=9.8 20:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhilwara Kings[edit]

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

Non-notable cricket team taking part in matches not having official T20 status. Couldn't find independent coverage about the team, to pass wider requirements of WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The highest to SIGCOV are the sources which says about the announcement of the teams, launch of jersey by the team owners- with all of these belonging to WP:ROUTINE. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and India. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Too many of these trivial nonsensical articles appearing of late! AA (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Poor sources and many are just announcements and hold no significant notability to warrant a page. Fails WP:NORG. RangersRus (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legends League Cricket#Franchise tournament No way near enough coverage of GNG quality to warrant an individual team article, but can be redirected to the league page, which just about has enough coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legends League Cricket#Franchise tournament as a sensible WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun – Prince of Bali[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails all notability guidelines. While the before search turned up nothing useful, the existing four sources in the article are not reliable. The first source in the article which does not appear reliable is just two short paragraphs and it is about a game developed to popularise the the series. The other three sources are from a single publisher with lengthy quotes from the producers themselves without an independent review. Piscili (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. Owen× ☎ 13:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Redirect to Chhota Bheem and the Throne of Bali for example if sources on the page are not judged sufficient, and for example, also see https://www.afaqs.com/news/media/44417_game-for-disneys-new-show-arjun-the-prince-of-bali ; (https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tv/chhota-bheem-gets-musical/articleshow/63977507.cms (brief mention)); 3 years on Disney Channel... Opposed to deletion -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green_Gold_Animations#Television. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Raat[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. search only turns up a song of the same name and the phrase "kali raat". ltb d l (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. ltb d l (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hindi films of 1977: notable cast and musicians, is verifiable (see Books) not opposed to keep if sources can be found to expand this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see it has an entry in Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema. It needs expansion, not deletion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand it? There are no reliable sources. What exactly will you use for content? Meanwhile, why don't you cite that enclopedia article somewhere so we can all read it. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Shahid, notable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List_of_Hindi_films_of_1977#A-Z. No sources with enough coverage and reviews. Fails WP:GNG and fails to warrant a standalone page on the film. RangersRus (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hindi films of 1977 or Delete. The only source I've seen is IMDb, which is as questionable as the current wiki page. I'm not even sure how one would be able to appropriately expand the article, given the lack of WP:SIGCOV. I'm pro-redirect given the notability of those involved in the film. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Keeping it is out of the question. Google finds no reviews, no interviews, no box office, nothing - fails WP:GNG with knobs on. There isn't even a reliable source to establish cast members or release date. I find a monochrome movie poster (VHS box? idk) that names the production company and five members of the crew but no cast and no year. There is no way to write a "reasonably balanced article" without sources. Redirecting to List of Hindi films of 1977 isn't an option. There's no reliable source that confirms it even belongs in that list. I find a movie poster (VHS box? idk) that names five members of the crew but none of the cast or the release date. Without support that entry will be removed sooner or later, the proposed redirect will then redirect to a page that doesn't mention the topic, and we'll waste some time at WP:RfD disposing of an ill-considered redirect. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless more or better coverage at WP:Library or elsewhere convinces us otherwise, redirect to List of Hindi films of 1977. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Entries exist in six books. DareshMohan (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@dareshmohan: where??? ltb d l (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, you added them to the article. but entries are not remotely significant coverage. ltb d l (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murree rebellion of 1857[edit]

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

Well it has needed more sourcing since 2014, much of the content seems to be about other events, and there is no real; evidence of notable coverage.

As well as some of the sources being a bit iffy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that more sources should be added, maybe also an infobox to sum everything up since it's a pretty long article. However I could find multiple reputable sources with a quick google search such as articles by the University of the Punjab, the Pakistan Perspective, the United Service Institution of India, and a book titled Murree Rebellion of 1857 by Barnabas Crist Bal. I think it's important that we expand on this article instead of deleting a piece of history. Thomas Preuss Harrison (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the article needs improvement but the event recorded was not an insignificant one in the context of the chaotic developments of 1857. Saul David's 2002 history The Indian Mutiny records the concern expressed by Sir John Lawrence as "disaffection and mutiny spread" during August of that year and that this included the Muslim tribal unrest in the Murree Hills. Buistr (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor, unreliable sources and many fails verification. Some of these unreliable sources are WP:RAJ era and primary sources. The event was not significant and if reliable sources with coverage is to be found, it can very well be merged to Indian Rebellion of 1857. RangersRus (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Anantnag encounter[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, counterterrorism/counterinsurgency such as this are not uncommon in the long running Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir (part of the broader Kashmir conflict). I am not seeing from the sources how this is notable as a standalone or any lasting significance of it. Gotitbro (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Pakistan, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Gotitbro (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not disputing what the nominator says, but our threshold for acceptance is not commonality or lasting significance but widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With events, lasting significance is very much a factor, which I think this fails. An event can get a lot of reliable coverage at the time, but without lasting significance, it is usually deleted at AfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine news coverage of Insurgency in Kashmir region are not sufficient basis to warrant this page. No significance of this newsworthy event to qualify for inclusion. RangersRus (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was notable at that time and it is notable today as well. The article has to be updated and content about NIA charging the individuals involved in this incident on 16 March 2024 should be included. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mostly routine coverage, and it appears the article has copyvio problems (as per my tagging today). Maybe needs a more general page with the history of this and similar insurgency operations? Mdann52 (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Hawkeye7, also article need to clean up! Thank you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the several opinions above. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subjects seems to have widespread coverage which makes it notable, maybe it needs to be improved but not deleted EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector Chingum[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added a few things. If judged insufficient, redirect to Motu Patlu#Recurring. Again, I am inviting the nominator to PLEASE slow down nominations of Indian animated series or to directly and boldly redirect them to obvious related articles if they think apparent notability issues need to be addressed urgently. THANK YOU. Taking a page to Afd with a minimal rationale may take some time but checking sources, improving the page, verifying potential targets, etc, also does. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to boldly redirect articles to other articles because I believe in the significance of discussion and reaching consensus. M S Hassan (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! Thank you for your comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would not redirect to Motu Patlu#Recurring because that page segment too has no sources, no inline citation and possibly contains original research. I would have redirect to the production company if they had a page with this spin-off in the list of production. Reviewing the sources, the indepth coverage is insufficient and fails general notability guideline. RangersRus (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Liberal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Years ago this term was circulated once on social media by right wing trolls, but there is no significant coverage of this non-notable term in any reliable sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Internet celebrity. Although, that seems to have a potential move afoot to rename it "Influencer". IMO, "Influencer" and "Adarsh Liberal" have a lot in common - they're both flash terminology of the moment, used to define any number of personalities. — Maile (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Popular culture, Internet, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Article cleary fails WP:GNG. Written in POV and fan voice.च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Message 12:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't merge, the term is too area specific to be known outside the area. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The term gained some traction online [13] and [14]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable term from social media and memes. WP:DICDEF. RangersRus (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term has gained traction in the mainstream media and passes WP:GNG News Laundry ,Hindustan Times ,India Today ,BBC ,The News Minute,The Indian Express,Deccan Herald,The Economic Times ,NDTV ,Scroll ,News18.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently, all of the sources listed above come from the same time when the meme was trending. No evidence of lasting coverage. CharlesWain (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Pharaoh of the Wizards, passes WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out a couple of sources that ensure the subject meets WP:GNG? Ratnahastin (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sustaining coverage, just another Twitter war only cared about by a small group of people who need to go outside. Nate • (chatter) 20:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prasads Multiplex[edit]

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

Borderline G11, no indication of notability or significance for this IMAX theater, Sourcing isn't of WP:ORG level depth Star Mississippi 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Organizations, and India. Star Mississippi 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Independent coverage in rather reliable sources, significant and in depth, about this multiplex, and backing the claim that it houses the biggest screen in India! (other sources claim it is one of the world's largest 3D IMax). So, yes, there are various indications of significance and notability and it seems to meet WP:GNG. A redirect to Culture_of_Hyderabad#Film is imv absolutely warranted anyway. Opposed to deletion. (G11? "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." So basically, borderline G11 is not G11, if it was just that the tone and content may have been partially promotional, Afds are not for cleanup and given existing coverage, this potential issue was easily fixed; added 2 refs and trimmed the page but this can evidently be improved and expanded, thank you) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Before closing this as no consensus, I'd like to try one more relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:ORG applies to a building, I did remove some of the promotional stuff but it does appear this meets notability due to the sustained coverage of it. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Files for deletion[edit]

Category discussion debates[edit]

Template discussion debates[edit]

Redirects for deletion[edit]

MFD discussion debates[edit]

Other deletion discussions[edit]

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

[1] ttps://ntvtelugu.com/news/andhrapradesh-cabinet-ministers-taken-oath-today-613936.html

[2] ttps://ddnews.gov.in/en/tdp-supremo-chandrababu-naidu-sworn-in-as-andhra-pradesh-cm-in-presence-of-pm-modi/

[3] ttps://www.ndtv.com/andhra-pradesh-news/andhra-pradesh-pawan-kalyan-among-25-ministers-to-take-oath-with-chandrababu-naidu-5871149

[1]

[2]

[3]