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

Principality of Pataliputra

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

"Principality of Pataliputra" is an unsourced term and the content of this article is about the city for which we already have an excellent article Pataliputra. This article appears to be a POV fork of that article, primarily designed to push the idea of a continuity between mythology (the Magadha kingdoms described in Hindu mythological texts) and history (the Mauryas) RegentsPark (comment) 16:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. RegentsPark (comment) 16:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , all your argumetns are wrong

*The article is not about the city

*The article is not about any mythological kingdom

*The article is not a POV fork, as i took nothing from city article and it is not related to it JingJongPascal (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magadhan Empire

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

Redundant POV fork created after merging content from Magadha, without any discussion or consensus, this article stayed as a redirect for over 18 years before too. Nxcrypto Message 11:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The topic certainly has notability and large coverage in scholarly sources to have a separate article on it (see Scholar or Books). Scholars describe the entity that existed from Bimbisara till the Kanvas as the Magadhan Empire. The article was not forked per se; it is a new article mostly, as the content about later dynasties and the lead are new, while the content about the Haryankas were moved from Magadha to this article. Historians make a distinction between the Magadha and the Magadhan Empire as seperate polities, with the latter being founded by Bimbisara and the former being a Mahajanapada of the Vedic era, as well as region based in it. PadFoot (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No scholar describes or conflates two different polities which existed in the same region with a break of at least 300 years between them as the "Magadhan Empire" . This article appears to be a pseudohistorical narrative created solely to promote nationalist POV. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin, I, the creator, had not included the Guptas in this article, it was included without consensus by the nominator, it is clearly the nominator who is POV pushing. He has been edit warring for the inclusion of the Guptas into this article and created a GIF showing the two together. See revision history of the article itself. PadFoot (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin, the Gupta mentions have been removed. PadFoot (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly has sources supporting it's legitimacy and is not a POV fork in anyway.

"Mahajanapada" clearly means a kingdom during the Vedic and post Vedic period, Magadhan Empire exceeds this period and hence should not BE merged within "Magadha" article. The article's header clearly has sources mentioning the dynasties which ruled the empire and hence justifying it's legitimacy. JingJongPascal (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JingJongPascal Read WP:POVFORK, It says "In contrast POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." There was no consensus for creating this separate article. Creating it only for pushing a POV is not allowed. Nxcrypto Message 15:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'POV' here. The article is about the Imperial entity of Magadha.

But the 'Magadha' is the article about the Mahajanapada.

A Mahajanapada is a kingdom which existed in india during vedic period, and hence should/ does not extent much.

Other than that PadFoot has provivded source the 'empire' in the first Paragraph of the article only. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POV Fork would be when he makes two articles about same things with minor differences on his POV.

This ISNT POV fork. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nindu Noorella Savaasam

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. First two sources are about the remake and I can find no significant coverage to establish notability for the original here. Creation by UPE and redirect edit warred by IP so I would not recommend a redirect as an ATD unless it can be fully protected to avoid disruption. CNMall41 (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zee_Telugu#Fiction: had 400+ episodes, relatively notable cast; each episode is covered in bylined articles (with a lot of synopsis, true) in the Hindustan Times (in Telugu) see https://telugu.hindustantimes.com/topic/nindu-noorella-savasam-serial/news; or on News18. https://telugu.news18.com/news/movies/bhagamathi-strong-warning-to-manohari-in-today-nindu-noorella-savasam-serial-nv-2567568.html?agreed=5?agreed=5, Opposed to deletion, given it was remade in Tamil and a redirect would keep history and facilitate navigation. -Mushy Yank. 02:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 02:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

War 2 (2025 film)

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

Moved to draft based on AfD discussion. Multiple attempts at recreation since that time with several of them being moved back to draft space. Now another SPA creating it in mainspace. Nothing notable about the production and not scheduled for release until a year from now. References are mainly announcements, but again, nothing notable about the production so falls under WP:TOOSOON. Recommend delete and protecting the title at this oint. CNMall41 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to War_(2019_film)#Sequel: but given filming has begun and production has received coverage, not really opposed to Keep. Opposed to deletion. Mushy Yank (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Mushy Yank (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. Likely to become notable in the near future.4meter4 (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON per above reason TheSlumPanda (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utkarsh Gupta

AfDs for this article:

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

Still fails WP:NACTOR, so fails WP:GNG. One ref, questionable, was added after the previous AFC decline, and it isn't WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page was previously deleted, created by sock account, and created again by IP likely same sock and after AFC decline, it was submitted for AFC review again by sock account User:Aloo92. From 14 srcs on the page, 8 are unreliable sources and the other 6 have no significant coverage on the subject to pass WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "I came across this page on AFC and was about to reject it after seeing the record of the previous 8 deletions and the poor references cited. But, after some web research(which I do for all pages I reviewed), I found some reliable sources, (i.e: [1], [2], [3], [4],[5] and [6], I believed it met WP:NACTOR and convinced me to grant it a chance for improvement and a notability banner is all that's required, let's wait for the votes. ANU^writes

Source 1 and 2 are not independent, source 3 has mention about subject quitting mtv show, source 4 and 6 are unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES and Source 5 is passing mention about the subject about being first choice for the show. RangersRus (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How's source 2 not independent in entertainment category? Reminder, it's ruled out as not entirely independent in politics because of it's Political Alignment with the current indian regime.^[1] Source 2 isn't the passing mention as it covers the subject who's quitting the show also source 5 covers two actors who were competing for some film role, the subject is among them, how's that the passing mention? (Reminder: Article titles usually tell readers what/who the article is going to cover/who's the subject). source 4 and 6 which are from the same website are indeed ruled as questionable in most cases but looking at it's discussion here, you have to choose what to source as it's still trusted by majority, also we are required to read any questionable context to see whether there's any sign of WP:COI, these articles (4&6) which are said to be of 2015 have some quality and reliable information in them plus less or no promotion. I still think the article should be kept. ANU^writes 12:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 4 and 6 are unreliable for all reasons and that is why by consensus it was listed under unreliable Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Generally_used_sources. You can discuss about the source on WP:ICTFSOURCES talk page. When I mentioned about source 2 not independent means that the article is not independent of the claims (interview) made by the subject himself. Sources are recommended to be secondary independent. Source 5 is just passing mention and nothing significant that is needed to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A WP:NACTOR pass with at least 2 lead/main cast roles (ergo significant) in notable productions; existing sources (some presented here) allow to verify it. Mushy Yank (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Maharashtra. Mushy Yank (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source Analysis. Note that in show "Kaisi yeh yaariaan" the subject was not a lead but played the character of best friend of the main lead.
Source 1 writes about the subject quitting the show by sharing subject's Twitter message.
Source 2 is unreliable WP:IBTIMES
Source 3 is promotion and advertising the subject by sharing his Instagram.
Source 4 is passing mention.
Source 5 is passing mention about the subject being one of the contestant on the MTV Splitsvilla Season 8
Source 6 is unreliable WP:IBTIMES
Source 7 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
Source 8 has videos of different episodes of a show "Pyar Tune Kya Kiya" and the subject was in episode 1.
Source 9 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES.
Source 10 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES.
Source 11 is not independent with interview of the subject talking about his role in the upcoming TV show.
Source 12 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
Source 13 is dead 404.
Source 14 is linked to jio cinema and suppose to show overview info on fuh se fantasy web series but quickly jumps to another screen but nothing significant on the subject.
Source 15 does not even have an entry about the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yagyavalkya Institute of Technology

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

Hardly to meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Rajasthan. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any SIGCOV Bernie Clay Bear (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I noticed some media coverage for this topic available on their website here. However, as the article has been unsourced for several years, I attempted to add references and make improvements. If the consensus leans towards deletion, I suggest moving the article to the draft space instead. This would preserve the work done so far and allow for potential future updates, especially if significant coverage emerges later. Alternatively, the draft could be moved to my sandbox for further development.
Delete, per others. I'm also unable to find any WP:SIGCOV. Svampesky (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant football

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

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources that shows WP:SIGCOV Demt1298 (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Football, Nepal, Thailand, and India. Demt1298 (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be some coverage of the topic of elephants playing football, e.g. Newsweek, Reuters, The Independent, AS, News9, as well as some books, e.g. [7] & [8]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Elephants are sadly abused in many ways, but the fact that this happens doesn't make it a specific notable topic. If anything there can be a sentence at Elephant polo saying they are forced to play other sports, but these sources don't justify an article here. Reywas92^Talk 21:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or perhaps find a suitable WP:ATD such as a merge to Captive elephants. There is coverage on this (both as an event and people protesting it) in secondary sources: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Captive elephants as above. Giant Snowman 08:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshata Krishnamurthy

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

Page does not seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC, reads more like a self-promotional page, and focuses more on what the subject's projects have achieved rather than the subject themselves. Tammy0507 (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Spaceflight, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per half agreement with nom. Although we can rewrite the article, if NACADEMIC is not met, there is no point Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject could meet GNG and not PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it interesting when a user's first edit on Wikipedia is to nominate a page for deletion, as is the case here. DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added Fortune India's Most Powerful Women List reference, and other interview references. Subject passes WP:GNG as there seem to be sufficient WP:RS. Shiv989 (talk)
Comment. I don't believe WP:PROF is met by citations; if one removes the heavily co-authored papers the highest cited on GS is 13. I am concerned that this nomination is brought by a new editor, and that a previous prod was made by another new editor. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - four of the sources are actually from one issue of Forbes India. Bearian (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2024 (UTCIpigott (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient coverage to meet general notability. Probably much more in the Indian press.--Ipigott (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E. Kumaril Swamy

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

Article is almost wholly unreferenced, affected by significant COI editing, and not at all neutral. I am unable to find evidence of WP:SIGCOV anywhere. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in to note that the article states that there are supposedly over a thousand articles about the subject, including over 70 interviews. Perhaps these could save the article if found? Haven't been able to find anything though. Jornmann32 (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I had the same experience when I went looking. The most good faith interpretation would be that these articles only exist in non-digitised archives, but in that case we would need the COI editor (who says he is the grandson of the subject) to get specific about citations for them. So far he's just been adding Pinterest links. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding any sources online to verify any of the claims made in this article. Two of the three citations fail verification. The external links are not about E. Kumaril Swamy. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only can’t I verify key facts, I’ve found at least one piece of evidence of a hoax: the official India Post website has no definitive stamp on or by him. Bearian (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources on the page and with no possibility to verify any significant coverage on the subject and his career. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adamas International School

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

This article about a school has been tagged as unreferenced since 2019. I have carried out WP:BEFORE but cannot find independent, reliable references to add to the article. I do not think it meets WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL or WP:NCORP. The school was established in 2004 so it may be WP:TOOSOON for notability to be established. No obvious redirect target - the one for the locality is a stub. Tacyarg (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Tacyarg (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As per their website the school is affiliated with Indian Certificate of Secondary Education and Cambridge International Education. Maybe a redirect to one of these will be better per WP:ATD. GrabUp - Talk 15:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is not even a single reference.--Indian Agent (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. WP:PROMO. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. No significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nirantara Ganesh

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

I don’t see significant coverage of the subject in the cited sources and those I searched; hence, the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. Additionally, the subject is not an elected MLA or MP and therefore fails to meet WP:NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 14:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Politicians, and Karnataka. GrabUp - Talk 14:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia and I don't have too much editing knowledge or anything. But I came across this article. This guy is a very famous social worker. Damn famous. I'm not sure whether this has to stay. But he's every famous. Wholeddadawgsout (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wholeddadawgsout: Being Damn famous does not inherently make a person notable per our guidelines. Please read WP:NOTABILITY. GrabUp - Talk 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. However, I’d like to clarify a few points. The subject meets WP:GNG as there is significant coverage in reliable and independent mainstream sources. These sources discuss the subject in depth, not just passing mentions.

Additionally, while the subject is not an MLA or MP, notability on Wikipedia isn’t limited to holding public office. The article doesn’t contain any promotional content or unverifiable claims; it simply presents factual information based on reliable sources.

I believe the page meets Wikipedia’s guidelines and provides valuable information. I’d appreciate reconsidering the deletion Anandrajkumar0000 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anandrajkumar0000: Please provide those significant coverages here so others can evaluate them. GrabUp - Talk 16:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pet WP:MILL - every three weeks, I served two 12- hour shifts as an EMT and also ran for village trustee, in beautiful New Paltz, New York. That doesn’t make me notable, and neither is this doctor/political party jumper/ social worker / damn famous guy notable. Bearian (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reeshma Nanaiah

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources in article, and all sources found during BEFORE, are either passing mentions or interviews. Subject doesn't meet either NACTOR or GNG. StartGrammarTime (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. StartGrammarTime (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 3 significant roles in notable productions (as even the coverage cited on the page allows to verify very reasonably) have her pass WP:NACTOR, which is the applicable guideline. (The assertion by the nominator that she does not meet the requirements of that specific guideline does not seem to be accurate). Mushy Yank (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:HEYMANN. Baffled by the nomination. A well known actress in Kannada's article is being nominated for deletion simply since it wasn't well written? @Mushy Yank: Thanks for your work. Found an additional source in Kannada: [16]. DareshMohan (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Ek Love Ya, Raana, Baanadariyalli, UI and KD – The Devil. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheema Y

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

Likely to fail WP:NMUSIC KH-1 (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

any reasons to delete it ?

i can show you wikipedia pages that have no reference at all that people are not even famous.

but rightnow in north india this singer trending on number one.

give reasons to delete it mr.editor.

thanks. 2001:56B:3FFA:2FFE:C955:65B4:E1FE:305F (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That response comes across as quite immature. Are you really suggesting using other articles as justification for keeping this one? That’s not how we determine whether an article should be deleted. This is Wikipedia, and popularity alone doesn’t equal notability. I suggest familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines before making such arguments. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Punjab and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This musical artist is very popular in India. I have noticed a general trend over both wikipedia and wikidata, that artists who are popular in countries outside of the USA are often deleted due to not meeting "notability criteria" despite them often being in the top 10 of popular artists in their own country, especially for artists from India or Africa.

There are lots of articles on the internet showing his popularity from independent well respected sources e.g.

Please consider keeping this entry. Thank you. QWER9875 (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chamars

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

The article lacks proper citations and references to support the claims made. Also, some of the member may not belongs to Chamars. Nxcrypto Message 02:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No WP:RS and even fails to meet general notability guidelines.

Edasf (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe it’s premature to nominate this article for deletion since it’s only a day old. A more constructive approach would be to add the relevant issue tags (one which already there), which will inform readers of the areas that need improvement and give the article a chance to be enhanced per WP:AQU, WP:POORLY.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. Wikipedia articles have no grandson clause. This could have been created in draft space, and it wasn't, so now it's meeting its fate as it must. Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, not mine, not that Wikipedia's either. "That's not how it works," keep in mind there are many ways it can work, and what I suggested is one of them. Draftifying is not a thing of the past, it’s still an option. Also, "delete" is not the only possible outcome in nomination discussions. There are other paths to consider. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article would probably fail NLIST. Per WP:CASTEID, there needs to be self-identification of caste which needs to be reported by reliable sources. It will likely be difficult to find relevant reliable sources that discuss the list topic as a group, especially when many may be discounted due to a lack of self-identification. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moplah sword

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

This is not notable and fails notability. Article has almost 0 or bare minimum name citations from some museum name and content written is no where cited or source . Should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hajpo (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has four sources below it, they aren't used in inline citations, but that's a formatting issue, not a reason to delete the article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Invalid deletion rational per WP:NEXISTS. McYeee (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Before proposing deletion, it’s important to consider other relevant notability guidelines specific to the subject matter, not entirely depend on GNG. The article is WP:POORLY, citations need to be properly formatted and placed where they belong. Improving the article's structure and tidying up the formatting will significantly enhance its quality. That's said, I don't see a reason to delete.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no particular rationale for deletion provided; [17] is a good reference. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note I've blocked the creator of this AfD as a confirmed sock. This can probably be snow closed.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no ground to delete. Sources are ok and the formatting on the page can be improved. RangersRus (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parents' Worship Day

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:INHERITED, this subject has got little coverage only because of its creator Asaram. The coverage of this subject is nil since Asaram's own image is going through a deep crisis for many years. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Parents Worship Day is a widely celebrated festival in India. It is well recognized by government officials. As stated in the article: It is officially celebrated by the Chhattisgarh Govt in schools and colleges as ordered by the Chief Minister. State government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party made it an official celebration. In 2017 the District collector in Madhya Pradesh issued a notice for schools to celebrate it and so on. There are a lot of independent and reliable references which prove the validity of these statements. This article must not be nominated for discussion just because the image of the initiator i.e. Asaram Bapu is under crisis. Wikipedia is a platform that depends on facts and notability of an article and this festival is being celebrated since more than 10 years in India and it's a compulsory program to attend for thousands of school students all over India. SukritiVarma (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shradha Sharma

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:NBIO, most of the references are extremely poor or straight up paid articles about her company. [18][19] - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG Lullipedia (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 15:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sahiba Bali

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

There is no lead role of her as an actor. Fails WP:NACTOR Lordofhunter (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record WP:NACTOR is not about lead roles only, but significant roles. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination, all coverage is in poor WP: NEWSORGINDIA sources which cannot be used to establish notability. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The majority of the references focus on viral moments or provide limited career context, rather than in-depth discussions of the subject's career and achievements. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she is big internet personality and actor like how samay raina is shes very notable bros shes pop with genz. 106.195.69.169 (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Big Personality is not the criteria. Please share notable sources. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweta Singh

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

Fails WP:NBIO, all coverage is sourced to WP:NEWSORGINDIA , the wire source only makes a passing mention of her that too for making false claims [20] - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This page was created by a sock account and has been around since 2013 with almost no reliable sources. It doesn’t meet the WP:NBIO, as the nominator pointed out. But, also it fails WP:ANYBIO. Charlie (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of coverage in third party sources. Orientls (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: wide coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lullipedia (talk • contribs) 16:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom

Edasf (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chitra Tripathi

AfDs for this article:

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

Among the Godi media anchors who get routine coverage for spreading disinformation but they are overall not notable. Totally fails WP:NBIO. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. I am also unconvinced by the last AfD. CharlesWain (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:ANYBIO. Sources indicate persistent reliability issues. Charlie (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many of the news sources have in-depth mention of her rather than only passing mention and the subject seem to qualify WP:GNG. Also, last Afd attempt failed.Adamantine123 (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what are those sources that establish WP:GNG? The last afd was not valid because there was no rationale at all, therefore it's pointless to bring it up. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a regular Tv anchor doing their work, the references doesn’t indicate notability. majority of the sources mentioned are just about a list of boycotted anchors for spreading hate and misinformation, and I noticed there’s one biography article as reference which is an unreliable source. No independent in depth coverage is available from the Wp:RS.

Zuck28 (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I think it would be good to keep it only (non-admin closure) Edasf «Talk» 13:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Magadha

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

Unnecessary article doesnt needed already mentioned very much on List of wars involving India.Such type of articles should be for present day entities. Edasf (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Mughal Empire exists

List of wars involving Ottoman Empire exists

List of wars involving the Kingdom of France exists

List of wars involving Holy Roman Empire exists JingJongPascal (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All wars are properly sourced.

The Magadhan Empire and Second Magadhan Empire is seperated by 200 years

This article will help a user to view all of them in one go

While on List of wars involving India

One will have to switch time periods. JingJongPascal (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some exceptions do exist and all above article like for Mughals have issue the Mughal one is functioning even more like a disambiguation page.Another thing The first or second Magadha empires separation canT give a valid reason for a separate article.There arent that much wars for Magadha majority here dont have a separate article and some even looks like created by OR. Edasf (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do Holy Roman Empire & Kingdom of France exist ? JingJongPascal (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions exist They have several wars Edasf (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

they are already included in List of wars involving Germany, yet they exist. JingJongPascal (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JingJongPascal They have many Magadha doesn't have that big to have a separate list. The list itself looks Original Synthesis. Edasf (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Unnecessary," "not big enough to have a separate list," or "looks like Original Synthesis"? Under what context are you nominating and proposing a discussion for this article? It seems like the nomination is based on your personal viewpoint rather than Wikipedia's guidelines. You need to provide sufficient evidence to justify taking an article to deletion discussion. Personal opinions should not be the basis for judging an article; any proposal for deletion must be grounded in WP:DEL. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give why should there be separate article there's already wars involving India original synthesis is a part of WP guidelines read guidelines correctly first. Edasf (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short List of Wars involving India quite enough by going this we need to create a dozen articles like this. Edasf (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe step back a little bit now? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? Edasf (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have a wrong understanding of what "Original Synthesis" is! As long as you are not adding unsourced interpretations or inferences to the data like claiming something that is not directly supported by the sources, this type of comparison is within the acceptable range of Wikipedia's guidelines and does not violate the original synthesis rule. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a separate list looks unwarranted. Agletarang (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd prefer the title "List of wars of the Magadan Empires" but see no reason why such a list is worth deleting. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's unnecessary and original synthesis. Edasf (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Most of these wars ,a article page exists JingJongPascal (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The references offer substantial and reliable academic coverage of Magadha’s historical conflicts, indicating the wars' historical significance. Passes WP:SAL.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No per WP:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion Edasf (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edasf "why should there be separate article there's already wars involving India"–Both articles deal with wars in India over time, but they focus on different scopes. The two articles are not the same in content, although they partially overlap when discussing ancient history/war. The article in question is a specific subset of the India article, focused on a particular kingdom during a particular period in Indian history and India article is much broader in scope involving all territories that eventually became modern India, including the broader Indian subcontinent (modern-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and other regions), covering a wider range of periods, regions, dynasties and also, the British colonial period, post-independence India, and modern conflicts. That's said, this article is not "Unnecessary". — MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your points arent accurate there are other kingdoms who had different wars we some even more than Magadha, we wont make article for each. Edasf «Talk» 14:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, but it’s not reflective of Wikipedia’s policies. There are no restrictions on creating articles as long as they meet the established criteria. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting critrea doesnt guarantee article like WP:Verifiability#Verifiablity does not guarantee inclusion Edasf «Talk» 15:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the answer to this circles back to what I’ve already mentioned about why this article isn’t “unnecessary.” And also, your concern about "there aren't that much wars" being mentioned multiple times is irrational. Articles, whether they’re lists, stubs, or have limited content, shouldn’t be proposed for deletion simply because they’re short, WP:TOOSHORT. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How? Why isnt? Its to you to prove conclusively this article is necessary to me and even two other editors India one is quit fine and this isn't necessary to have an specific article for a single kingdom and just ignoring others. Edasf «Talk» 15:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What an immature argument to make! This is a discussion, and reviewers are entitled to form their own opinions and vote accordingly. My vote is to keep, and I’ll stand by it unless you can provide a solid, rational reason for why this article should be deleted. Just because you and other editors share the same opinion doesn’t mean I’m obligated to agree or consider it valid without proper justification. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not forcing you well.Take example of Macedon there were atleast 20 wars involving it will you come create another article? Such types of articles are generally for present entities. Edasf «Talk» 16:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not familiar with Macedon or its wars, but relating that to the article in question, to support your argument that such articles shouldn’t be created is weak and all the questions about "Why should this be kept?" have already been answered, and I’m not going to keep repeating myself on that. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again and do you have source which states a synthesis between these? This article is an Original synthesis part of WP:OR Edasf «Talk» 16:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t wish to continue the discussion, as it keeps circling back to the same point "OR". About the references, it's quite extensive, and my apologies, but I can’t go into all the details right now, it would take more time to elaborate that here. The references listed in the article could be considered. Additionally, I’m just pointing out some similar articles to show that your proposal, claiming "such articles should not exist separately," is not valid. These examples are only meant to challenge the subjective reasoning behind your suggestion and are not relevant to evaluating the article based on the guidelines. List of wars and battles involving the Principality of Smolensk, List of wars involving the Principality of Tver, List of wars involving the Principality of Moscow, List of wars and battles involving Galicia–Volhynia, List of wars involving Kievan Rus', List of wars involving the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, List of wars involving the Inca Empire, List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs, List of battles involving the Sikh Empire.— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again I won't repeat myself points. Edasf «Talk» 17:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dont compare medieval empires here Edasf «Talk» 09:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why not? JingJongPascal (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because List of wars involving India is enough. Orientls (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @JingJongPascal. On an additional note, the article seems to be extremely well-made and kept, and seems to be extremely useful. Also @JingJongPascal, you do not need to provide citations on the article, simply providing a link to battle/war would be enough. In case, a separate article for a particular battle/war doesn't exist, then you shoulda adad a citation. PadFoot (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Miss You (film)

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

This is about an unreleased film which does not satisfy film notability. Unreleased films are only notable if production itself has received significant coverage by reliable sources. A review of the sources shows that they are all announcements or press releases about the film or its songs. The first five references, in four different media, are essentially identical, which is best explained that they are the same press releases to different media.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	The Hindu	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
2	cinemaexpress.com	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
3	thesouthfirst.com	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
4	www.business-standard.com	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
5	The Hindu	Same as 1	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
6	timesnownews.com	States that movie will be filmed.	Probably.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
7	Times of India	Passing mention of a song.	Maybe	No. Passing mention.	No	Yes
8	cinemaexpress.com	Press release about a song.	No.	No	Yes	Yes
9	cinemaexpress.com	Another press release about a song.	No.	No	Yes	Yes
10	news18.com	An announcement about the film.	Probably.	Not for this purpose.	Yes	Yes

There is also a draft; the draft and the article are by different authors. The information in this article and in the draft can be merged in the draft, and the draft can be submitted, with reviews and other quality sources, when the film has been released and reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because release is announced for late November, I would normally have suggested to keep this and I would have merged the draft into it .....but there are TWO drafts Draft:Miss You Movie (created yesterday, just before the article, same creator) and Draft:Miss You (film) by User:Gowthamaprabu (created 21. 10); the latter was declined by the nom. Read the following comment: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Miss You (film) instead.", said the nom of the present AfD when declining the page.....which, if I was the page creator, would make me think, the page discussed here is not concerned by deletion! Still as Gowthamaprabu's Draft was the first page to be created, I consider it should be the starting point so I suggest a merge of all three pages into Draft:Miss You (film). Premise is known, actors are notable, coverage for verification exists, so even if it's the other way around, I won't be shocked but declining the Draft and inviting its creator to expand a page and, an hour later or so, taking the said page to AfD is a bit confusing.Mushy Yank (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Robert McClenon and @Mushy Yank! Hope you're both doing well! I wanted to provide some context regarding the article Miss You (2024), which covers the upcoming film set for release at the end of November 2024. As mentioned transparently, I have been commissioned by the producers to edit and create content for this article, ensuring accurate representation of the movie. I’ve Confirmed that the official release date is November 29, 2024, though due to a lack of publicly available citations, I haven't specified the date in the article itself. I’ve included all available information with relevant citations, and I believe the content is accurate and complete as presented. If possible, I'd suggest we retain the article and continue to improve it together. We could even consider merging it with Draft: Miss You (Film) by User:Gowthamaprabu to consolidate information. Meena1998 (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Draft:Miss You (film) since the film's release is near, let's wait. Once it hits theaters, it is expected to get more coverage and critical reviews. You can then update the page and publish it through the AFC route. For now, let's merge its content into the declined draft:).Chanel Dsouza (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daveed (2025 film)

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

Unreleased film, nothing especially notable about the production, therefore does not meet WP:NFILM, specifically WP:NFF, as an as yet unreleased film. Should have remained in draft space but has been moved back to main space, so deletion is required. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see many upcoming movie articles on Wikipedia, and as an editor who enjoys creating and editing movie articles, I’m particularly focused on the Indian film industry. My goal is to reach 10,000 edits and become a strong contributor to Wikipedia. Recently, I encountered a deletion nomination for an article on an upcoming film, even though its release date has been announced. I removed the "unreleased" category and added the "upcoming films" category since the shoot and post-production are complete. I’ve verified all the data through news articles, and everything seems accurate. This is the first time I've faced a deletion nomination for a film article, and I’m feeling a bit helpless. Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Arjusreenivas (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the notbaility of prodcution, The film was distributed by Century Films which is the distributer of Malaikottai Vaaliban, Perumani and John Luther etc. These are the details I got from the producers social handles. Arjusreenivas (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability" would rather be established through sources independent of the subject. (Not saying that what you are saying is not true nor that it is not interesting) Mushy Yank (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thank you for your Participation in this Discussion, Please Check sources, I think the article have more than enough sources. Arjusreenivas (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the production, as stated, is notable. Everything is very, very standard. WP:NFF is clear: Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Basically, you should not be creating articles in main article space about the vast majority of films that have not yet released. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This article covers a film that's set to release in the next two months. Regarding production details, I can only reference publicly available news articles and interviews. Given the popularity of this film in India, I believe many people here are already aware of its production background. I kindly request someone from India to assess the notability of this article, especially regarding its production and other key details.

I welcome everyone to expand the article and contribute with verified information. I’m also sharing data I’ve gathered from media sources to help make this a comprehensive and accurate article. Please feel free to edit for clarity, correct any English errors, and improve. Arjusreenivas (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Antony_Varghese#Films: listed there; given existing coverage, the fact that filming is wrapped, the cast, notable and details about productions are verifiable, I am not opposed to Keep if other users agree it can be kept (opposed to deletion, not necessary in the present case). Mushy Yank (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mushy Yank. Yes, I believe this article is relevant to keep on Wikipedia because the release date has been announced, and the film has already wrapped. Therefore, deletion would not be the right decision. Thank you for your comment. Arjusreenivas (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would be fine, until the film has released. I mean, draftifying would have worked, too, but... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, The article meets 4 out of 5 of the WP:NFF production guidelines. Enough information is available to support article. Also it can be classified under the "2025 films, Upcoming films, Upcoming Malayalam-language films" category. Arjusreenivas (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "5 production guidelines" are you talking about? There is nothing unclear about WP:NFF: films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me finish the sentence you're referring to, as it seems you might have missed it. The guideline states: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Out of the five guidelines of production: Development, Pre-production, Production, Post-production—four have been covered. The only stage not fully met is Distribution. That's why 4 out of 5 criteria for an unreleased film to qualify for an article have been fulfilled. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 21:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The film has successfully completed its production phase, and reliable sources confirm that it is currently in the post-production and marketing stages, with only the final release pending. The project meets 4 out of 5 of the WP:NFF production guidelines. Sufficient information is available to justify an independent article, and it can be classified under the "2025 films, Upcoming films, Upcoming Malayalam-language films" category.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 07:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I believe there are no notability issues with this article, so it should be retained. From my review, the movie is scheduled for release in two months, and it’s not from a new production or featuring unknown actors. Thank you for your contribution. Arjusreenivas (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We have the typical general announcements, churnalism, NEWSORGINDIA, etc., but no significant coverage such as bylined reviews. Nothing notable about production. Draftify would be a good WP:ATD. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The article was draftified once, and so shouldn't be draftified again, but WP:IAR. The danger, of course, is that it would just be moved back to article space again. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742)

AfDs for this article:

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

First of all, the article is written in the form of a fan-made story, attempting to villainize an entity (or perhaps show off? There are numerous instances in articles about Indian military history where users have included shocking or vulgar acts committed by militants).
WP:CITEKILL has made source analysis more complex, but once unreliable sources were cleared, the analysis became much easier. The article clearly fails to meet WP:GNG, as well as old sources falling under WP:RAJ and WP:AGEMATTERS have widely been used (caused the reason for the put down of the last proposal, and i was on a break)

Analysis:

The New Cambridge Modern History Vol. 7 (1713-63)* by Lindsay, J. O., Ed:

The book only mentions "Murshidabad" once, with the context found in the parent article on Maratha invasions of Bengal.

The same applies to *The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4)* by Stewart Gordon;

It mentions the event alongside the "Maratha invasions of Bengal," which, indeed, should also be referenced here. A separate article is not warranted for this event, as it is a minor occurrence within a larger conflict—specifically, a plunder. Such events do not meet the minimum notability standards. In fact, an entire page from a reliable source is missing in this case. Additionally, the use of a military conflict infobox is unnecessary here, as it follows the same problematic pattern seen with articles like "Battle of X" or "X-Y Wars" in Indian military history. This approach has caused numerous issues. In conclusion, the article fails to meet notability standards and is poorly written. The content could easily be integrated into the parent article instead. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

note to the closer: Please review the background of the voters as meatpuppetry is common among these topic areas.-Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The pillaging of an undefended city doesn't warrant an article and cannot be described as a "Maratha victory" (as claimed in the infobox). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to low participation and because of a prior AFD appearance, this discussion can't be closed as a Soft Deletion. So far, I see no meatpuppets participating here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Gana Parishad

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this meets WP:NORG. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Haryana. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, political party that had representation in the national parliament of India. Not impossible to source, and as per the number of references it is worth noting that there isn't a lot of 1999 material from Indian press online but WP:NEXIST more sources will exist offline in Indian national news media. --Soman (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of WP:NEXIST is "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface". This article has been tagged as having no sources since December 2009. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading NEXIST. Here is a party in national parliament, so it is reasonable to assume that there would exist offline sources available in addition to the available online sources. And lack of sourcing is not a deletion criteria in itself (apart from BLP articles). --Soman (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pranav Adani

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

Non-notable individual. Sources are promotional and cited to WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Only known for being a relative of Gautam Adani. See WP:INHERITED. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted above, infomercials have taken over previously responsible media there, so sourcing about business in India requires better quality sourcing. Bearian (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:BEFORE, subject passes WP:BASIC. And this article has persisted since 2018. AFD Nomination seems intentional or any paid agenda. B-Factor (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INHERITED. Nothing shows he is notable outside his relationship with Gautam Adani. Lorstaking (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject holds multiple notable positions in notable organizations, and the sources are reliable enough. Citations can be implemented.Lalu Faizy (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Holding positions in notable organisations does not make one notable by association, see WP:INHERITED. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources India.com, Business Standard, DD, DNA India, Business Today Fugoja (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are very poor sources for establishing notability, as all of them are Indian news organisations, which are known to release press releases or paid articles without any disclosure, as outlined in WP:NEWSORGINDIA.

Your first source is sourced to india.com which is written in a promotional language. Same thing with the second source, your third source is only a DD footage of his speech at Uttrakhand GIS 2023, your fourth source also appears to be a paid article given the promotional tone, and your fifth source is only a coverage of the speech he made at GIS 2023. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INHERITED. None of the references above establish WP:GNG. Dympies (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is live since 2018, and the article has maintained a certain level of notability over time. Since it's creation, the article has been developed with reliable sources, and although it may have room for improvement, its longevity demonstrates to met WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE when it was initially published. Regemoso (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles that have existed for far longer than this get deleted regularly at AfD, keeping an article only because it has existed for some time has no basis in policy. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we have a possible WP:ATD here? A redirect to Gautam Adani? Or would that be irrelevant to that article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close as No Consensus. I think its time to close this as WP:NOCONSENSUS. The problem with the whole WP:NEWSORGINDIA argument is one is never sure whether the coverage is paid or independent, and it essentially means that anybody living India who draws national but not international news coverage might become the target of such an AFD. To my mind, this kind of reasoning is a shot in the dark because it could be legit, and it might not be. What is certainly does is reinforce WP:SYSTEMICBIAS against article on Indian people which is problematic. With people on both sides of the issue, and with no definite proof that the coverage isn't independent I'm not seeing a strong consensus to delete at this time.4meter4 (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. There isn't one source that has significantly provided coverage to this person. The sources only give him little importance because they are discussing Gautam Adani. CharlesWain (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undoubtedly fails WP:GNG. Not opposed to creating a redirect. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As relative of a notable Gautam Adani does not make the subject notable. WP:INHERITED. Not opposed to Redirect. RangersRus (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per the following three reliable references; South China Morning Post, Financial Express, and Business Standard. If there are more such citations, the page could meet the criteria outlined in the Heymann Standard. However, we should keep in mind that WP:THREE and WP:HEY are essays, not an established guidelines. Charlie (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Annu Patel (via WP:PROD on 6 November 2024)
Medha Sharma (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)

Files for deletion

Category discussion debates

Template discussion debates

Redirects for deletion

MFD discussion debates

Other deletion discussions

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]

^ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-india/

[1] ttps://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-india/

[1]