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]

Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar Police[edit]

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

Rejected, contested draft. Moved back against advice of HD. There is no indication they meet N:ORG. A merger would be fine, but would likely need protected. Star Mississippi 00:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, India, and Maharashtra. Star Mississippi 00:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify then salt the page until notability enough referenced. -Lemonaka 01:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Zee Kannada[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST as references do not talk about the programming as a whole. In addition, these are not original programs, they are remakes or adaptions. WP:NOTTVGUIDE would apply. Possible redirect to Zee Kannada as an WP:ATD but would not suggest a merge unless any of these can be found to be original programming. CNMall41 (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yaare Nee Mohini[edit]

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

Rehashing my nomination rationale listed in Kalyana Vaibhogam (TV series) - The references are WP:NEWSORGINDIA all out of the same publication. A WP:BEFORE found no better references. Attempted a redirect as an WP:ATD but it was restored by an IP. CNMall41 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Yaaradi Nee Mohini (TV series). Everything of interest in this article can be summarized in a section of the original series noting that a remake was made. BD2412 T 18:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyana Vaibhogam (TV series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

With the exception of this (which is just a rehash of a social media post, the rest of the references are WP:NEWSORGINDIA all out of the same publication. A WP:BEFORE found no better references (note that this not the same as the film Kalyana Vaibhogam). Attempted a redirect as an WP:ATD but it was restored by an IP. CNMall41 (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vasa Denticity[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. The closest GNG appearing source is #1 which appears to be a copy of their self-bio. The others are just financial announcements etc. Creater is indeffed for COI promotional editing. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Tudu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The page was previously deleted because it fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG and it still holds true. Coderzombie (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Coderzombie (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and per WP:BIO. The subject does not meet notability and biography is not enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Poor sources with no WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply having a biography isn't enough for inclusion. If reliable sources can be found to establish notability, the article could be rewritten and resubmitted for review. Waqar💬 16:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @RangersRus:, @Iwaqarhashmi:, I found [1], [2], [3], [[4], [5], [6], [7], among many more English and Hindu sources (not to mention other Indian languages. Cleary was sigifnicant ifgure in Indian lower league football and was even called up to the senior India national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News9Live[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP as well as WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, Organizations, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looked for reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject, but was unable to find any. It fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Ping me if someone finds one. GrabUp - Talk 10:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Poor sources with no significant coverage on the channel. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very poor sources for yet another indistinguishable 'screen, shouter and L3 generator set to 135 pt font' Indian news-to-debate channel (do they even have quiet ones now?). Nate • (chatter) 04:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Frameworks[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Sources are trivial or non-independent. Ineligible for PROD. – Teratix ₵ 04:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and India. – Teratix ₵ 04:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete short-lived startup with no notability. Broc (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article, and product, doesn't seem to be notable enough. —Mjks28 (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NCORP, overly promotional article, also the company appears to be defunct as well. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page for promotional purpose. Fails WP:N and WP:NCORP. No evidence and sources on this company makes it not notable enough to justify an article on Wikipedia. RangersRus (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

District planning in India[edit]

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

Perfect example of WP:CFORK. Both District Planning Committee and District planning in India discuss the same topic. In India, district planning is done by DPC which is set up as per the Constitution of India. Gan Favourite (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom, the article is already sufficiently covered elsewhere.Spiralwidget (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor and unreliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and is a WP:CFORK. I would not even consider redirect to page District Planning Committee as this too is poorly sourced and fails WP:GNG. Nothing notable in either page. RangersRus (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article relies heavily on unreliable and poor-quality sources. Waqar💬 16:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kudumbashree National Resource Organisation[edit]

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

Not actually a separate organisation. MoRD recognised Kudumbashree as a National Resource Organisation (NRO). Kudumbashree acts as a nodal agency for executing several schemes of central government in Kerala. This is one among several of such. The article is a content fork of Kudumbashree as it can be integrated within it and also fails WP:SIZESPLIT as there is not enough size to justify article split. Gan Favourite (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GSLP Kudumbashree[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with lack of coverage. A content fork of Kudumbashree, not enough size for an article split. GSLP is only one among several programmes of Kudumbashree and this one is lesser known than the others. Gan Favourite (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gan Favourite (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Ajay Kumar Singh[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Subject isn’t inherently notable based on NPOL nor passes any of the other basic and general criteria. Sources are either routine converses or dependent on the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, becoming an Mayor does not pass NPOL. Sources are not strong and in-depth so fails WP:GNG. Also I question the reliablity of LiveHindustan. GrabUp - Talk 16:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:NPOL #2 on the amount of substance that can be written and the amount of sourcing that can be shown about their political impact — but this amounts to "he is a mayor who exists, the end", and is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mayor of an area with a population of 700,000 plus people suggests notability, but I don't find coverage of this person. If sources can be located, willing to revisit my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, becoming an Mayor does not pass WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ajay Kumar Singh (Uttar Pradesh politician): The mayor seems to be the same person as the member of the 17th Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Dr Ajay Kumar Singh is apparently some kind of doctor, and the member of the state parliament doesn't claim to be. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 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) 13:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. P. Sailaja Telugu Songs[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. According to S. P. Sailaja article, she sang over 10,000 songs. A full (and unreferenced!) list of them is completely unwarranted. Broc (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Broc (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to S. P. Sailaja -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for ALL. No sources on this page. It is just a simple listing without showing encyclopedic merit. RangersRus (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - The previous voter and nominator are correct, as these are simple lists without encyclopedic value or evidence of notability. Also, since nobody ever caught the fact that the articles should have "List of..." in their titles, they have probably gone unnoticed by readers looking for knowledge in Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All others related pages also as per the nomination.223.123.10.196 (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This type of database should not be hosted here. Azuredivay (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Keep and revert the recent addition of adding "Preethi" to the "Preeti" name page. Unless sources show these are the same name they should be treated as separate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most sources on the internet seem to indicate that Preeti and Preethi are related, though I'm not sure how many are reliable. In the instance that they are, I'd probably agree with Eastmain's proposal to redirect Preethi to Preeti. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that they're related, but my issue is that they're not the same name. For example, Thomas and Tomas are separate pages, as is Katherine and Katerine. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - If this is the case, let's have separate pages for "Preity" and "Priti". --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid concern although I'd say those pages are split because many more people have those names and there's a linguistic difference. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and replace text at Preeti#Notable people named Preethi with a {{main}} hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Preeti#Notable_people_named_Preethi. WP:CFORK. No need for separate page. RangersRus (talk) 14:01, 24 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]
Delete. I do agree with the conclusions for this article @Walsh90210 Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above. Bduke (talk) 23:40, 23 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]

Thank you for your careful work in checking all the sources. But I am not convinced that the single source (Ivy Dhar) that you mention can save the article. First of all, the source is a Master's thesis, which is normally not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Secondly, it is only a small section (4.04) that discusses the concept, and it does so in the context of Assamese nationalism and most of the section deals with ULFA, both of which already have their own pages on Wikipedia. I don't agree that this source establishes "Swadhin Axom" as an independent topic that merits its own page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes- I'm saying that it can be draftified and potentially reworked into an article actually about the specific idea- based on assuming good faith that maybe one of the 40 sources I didnt check have something useful. Not particularly opposed to deletion, and if there are no other sources this should be a section of Assamese nationalism as you propose.

A master's thesis is a reliable source- the policy you link to cautions against blimdly accepting since many theses do original research and are therefore sometime primary sources. But that's not the case here where the author is describing existing sentiment, not coming up the idea of Swadhin Axom outright. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright let me have a look a this article again, and try finding secondary articles on the idea. However i don't feel this should be merged with the ULFA page as its solely not connected to ulfa, and is something like Dravida Nadu Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:38, 23 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]
I would like to disagree, since the idea of "Swadhin Axom" (Independent Assam) deserves nuanced understanding and should not be exclusively linked to the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). While ULFA has prominently championed this cause of an independent Assam through armed struggle, the concept of Swadhin Axom encompasses a broader spectrum of historical, cultural, and socio-political aspirations that predate and extend beyond ULFA's formation. Also both Axom and Asom are used, you will find articles using both the terms.

Pre-ULFA Aspirations: The desire for a distinct Assamese identity and autonomy can be traced back to the colonial and pre-colonial eras. Movements and sentiments advocating for Assam's self-determination existed well before ULFA's establishment in 1979 (Guha, 1991, 56). Cultural and Ethnic Diversity: The idea of Swadhin Axom also reflects the rich cultural and ethnic diversity of the region. It includes the voices of various indigenous communities who have sought to preserve their unique identities and heritage (Baruah, 2005, 112).

Political Autonomy Movements: Throughout Assam's history, various groups and political entities have called for greater autonomy and recognition of Assam's distinct status within India. These movements have often been peaceful and democratic, emphasizing dialogue over armed conflict (Misra, 2012, 143).

Both of the 3 papers are important sources

Therefore, I propose renaming the Wikipedia article to "Proposal for Swadhin Axom" instead, because it is of relevance to the geopolitics concerning greater southeast asia as well

Ref:

Baruah, Sanjib. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Dutta, Anuradha. Assam and the Northeast: Development and Conflict. Guwahati: Eastern Book House, 2010.

Goswami, Priyadarshini. Ethnicity, Insurgency and Identity in Northeast India. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2001.

Guha, Amalendu. Planter Raj to Swaraj: Freedom Struggle and Electoral Politics in Assam 1826-1947. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research, 1991.

Misra, Udayon. The Periphery Strikes Back: Challenges to the Nation-State in Assam and Nagaland. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 2012.

Sharma, Monirul Hussain. The Assam Movement: Class, Ideology, and Identity. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2004. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3and @Walsh90210 @EmeraldRange Hey also wanted to point out 3 volumes of books that looked into this topic. Swadhinataar Prostab & Economics of Swadhin Axom. I feel these sources

You mentioned the following:

" If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state."

I was only looking at english sources, and there is a lack of literature when it comes to Northeast India.

There is one article from a newspaper that briefly talks about this idea, but does not elaborate on it: https://www-asomiyapratidin-in.translate.goog/assam/parag-kumar-das-memorial-lecture?_x_tr_sl=bn&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

I am offering a brief translation below from assamese :

However, the proposal or demand for independence is not limited to generations. After the Greco-Roman period, proposals for independence were raised. Buli commented that Tetia's memory is still alive today due to Dr. Mishra's agitation in the Indian freedom struggle. But that freedom was not real freedom, many people raised the issue of muklikoi quora during this period.

Teon Koy, 1947 The freedom that was gained in Chant country was not real freedom. That freedom was in political freedom. Without social freedom, there will be total freedom. Therefore, many of those freedoms are not complete freedom, many of them were promoting social equality and elimination of discrimination in order to achieve complete freedom.

The disillusionment was largely disillusioned with the passage of time after independence. All those who hoped for independence were disappointed. During the 60s and 70s, the common people were angry about the socio-economic inequality. About which the movement was started. Protests were held by university and college students. Around that time revolutions were starting in different countries of the world. Apart from political freedom, social freedom, social and economic discrimination, women's freedom was also raised.

This movement started in Europe and reached America. The Vietnam war was forced to end on the basis of this protest. In the next period, the black people's movement was influenced by this movement, which was the global judge. Kakat also made posters on this topic in Indian schools, and propagated about this movement through discussion.

Dr. Mishra thought that period of 60-70s was the golden age. Because there was a lot of hope in this demand or movement at that time. The literary majesty of that time was influenced by this movement. A new curriculum was being prepared with the support of intellectuals, college teachers and others who supported the movement to raise the demand for curriculum change. Slogans were being written for the liberation of poor women.

ofc the two books would be the primary source for this article, and there are several sources - secondary analysis done on these books which can be taken as the secondary supporting sources Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that "Swadhin Asom" (there is a misspelling) literally means Independent Assam, and this should be the article instead, an article that describes the motives for an independent Assam. as there are many different sources that describe this movement as a whole. — Karnataka 09:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon review, I don't think the sources in the article necessarily support an article on this specific topic - it does not mean that there should not be coverage of those wanting independence in Assam, but this appears to be possibly about a geographical region and the sources do not support that. WP:NOTESSAY also applies. Drafitfying is fine, but I'm not sure there's a clear topic here after a BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Assam separatist movements or United Liberation Front of Asom. These appear to be the appropriate places for discussion of the causes for an independence movement and related activism, but there doesn't need to be a separate page for the proposed state like this. Flyingphoenixchips's sources and some of this article's content belong in those articles.

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]
Agreed thank you. I wrote articles, about various organizations in NER region, to fill the gap between the region and Wikipedia. I agree that more sources would be needed Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Organization fails notability with no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:14, 24 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]
Delete. I can not find Wesea and any significant coverage in reliable secondary independent sources. Sources are poor to unreliable on the page. RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 24 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]
Delete. Organization fails notability with no significant coverage. Only 2 sources on the page and that are poor and unreliable. RangersRus (talk) 14:26, 24 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]
Redirect to Green_Gold_Animations#Television. RangersRus (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[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]
Delete: Failed WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 07:01, 24 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) 14:22, 24 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]
Delete. Poor sources and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:15, 23 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]
Delete. Same as other nominations for school, this page too has poor sources and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:21, 23 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]
Delete. Same as other nominations for school, this page too has poor sources and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 23 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]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, President of the student's union or a youth congress are not notable political positions. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: more bugs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neeraj Kundan and similar. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: There is some coverage in WP:RS but it is not WP:SUSTAINED and no SNGs apply here. C F A 💬 16:16, 26 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]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:51, 22 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 ([8]), Chennai Online ([9]), and BizHat ([10]) 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]
I, the nominator, withdraw, my nomination in light of a new production source. Thanks @Srivin:. DareshMohan (talk) 14:47, 23 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!} 05:20, 27 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]
Correct, that's why we've found at least 6 below that prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 26 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]
How are they not reviews/commentary? It doesn't matter if they're strictly delineated "reviews", provided they are significant coverage on the book. There is no evidence they are advertisements and fact-checking a book in a commentary manner would be significant coverage, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at them they are reviews. Why wouldn't they be? What do you consider a review? This is very far over both NBOOK and GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Book review cited in the article and this [11], should be enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 26 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review newly added sources to the article, especially the nominator
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: A triple fulfillment of notability guidelines (GNG, ANYBIO, and FILMMAKER). The subject person is the sole writer of six notable films, namely Tanu Weds Manu, Tanu Weds Manu Returns, Mr. Pellikoduku, Raanjhanaa, Zero, and Atrangi Re, fulfilling WP:FILMMAKER#3. He also won two National Film Awards, a Filmfare Award, and a Times of India Film Awards, fulfilling WP:ANYBIO#1. I have also found personal interviews with the subject person (see Times of India[12], The Telegraph[13], and India Today[14]), and media coverage on his personal life (see The Indian Express[15][16], Times of India[17], and NDTV [18]), fulfilling WP:GNG as well. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:11, 26 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]

Delete

Majority of the users pushing for “keep” seem to be POV pushers from newly created accounts. They didn’t even give any good reasons for its inclusion. As imperial mentioned, the Delhi sultanate was not a single entity. There’s no proof that all the dynasties(khalji, tughlaq, Mamluk, ETC) participated. Nor is there evidence of a supposed “Mewar victory”. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even read the previous discussion? And for your information I am active on Wikipedia for over 6 months which falsify your claim that Keeps are from newly created users. This is list of wars between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. I don't understand why are you even mentioning the dynasties. Kingdom of Mewar existed from 6th century till 1947 (now are titular monarchs under Constitution of India) and Delhi Sultanate from 1206-1526. This article deals with the List of wars (is not a single 300 year war) between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. And please point out where the article shows Mewar victory? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:34, 24 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 [19], [20], [21], [22]. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a perfect page that passes WP:GNG. These battles did happen and I don't think this page should be deleted. User:Hashid Khan
Delete: Yes, some of my concerns were addressed by MuA, but if this article is really just going to be a list of conflicts between the two states (who again were ruled by many different dynasties throughout these "conflicts"), there doesn't need to be an infobox, this much prose, (see list of wars between Russia and Sweden for an example) or any aftermath section, in which again it is treated as one conflict "The conflict ultimately ended after the defeat and death...". As it is this article is still too POV-pushy, and even if all of this is addressed, a good reason was never given why this article should actually exist instead of why it should not be deleted — we obviously don't have a list of conflicts between every two states that have fought more than one war between each other, so why do we need this article just for it to say "Mewar victory" 12 times in bold text? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, If there is a series of battles between two states for over Two centuries then a article can be made for that. Both Mewar and Delhi Sultanate were dominat states of medival era and these battles were one of many reasons of the decline of Delhi Sultanate and rise of Mewar as the most powerful state in the Northern India, for result section you can see List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs. Aside of that the "Khalji Victory" is also written in bold texts. It's just a style of writing because beneath the bold text, there is is a description of event as a whole. Hope your all points are addressed.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Seems definitely somewhat biased and all, should be reworded to fit WP:MOS... In general, does this information exist elsewhere on Wikipedia? If not, we shouldn't delete. If it does, we could maybe condense and merge. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.

Please do not move articles while an AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:15, 24 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. [23] 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 24 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect, or simply delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Per above arguments, redirect article to Legends League Cricket#Franchise tournament. —Mjks28 (talk) 08:39, 24 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]

Redirect to Green Gold Animations#Television: per nom, no WP:SIGCOV C F A 💬 16:10, 26 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review recently added sources to article to see if this satisfies the need for sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 26 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Murree#History. As noted by source #3 in the current article, ...Murree had played a small and insignificant role [in the Indian rebellion of 1857, and goes on to detail minor disorganized skirmishes. This seems appropriate to mention in the location's history as its local, minor participation in a major historical event (and it already is mentioned there), but it doesn't seem to be DUE for more than a sentence at Indian rebellion of 1857 and currently isn't mentioned there at all. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:13, 26 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 25 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the English sourcing is borderline-sufficient for GNG, and there appears to be Hindi-language coverage as well. It might be better to merge with Motu Patlu, but I'm not familiar enough to have an informed opinion. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:54, 24 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]