Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to India.
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.

Purge page cache watch

India[edit]

Akshay Bam[edit]

Akshay Bam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Another case of a politician who got involved in the upcoming election and withdrew or defected to another party and stuff like that. Sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, some are unreliable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician and entrepreneur is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Again another article created solely for the general election which fails of WP:BLP1E. It also fails WP:NPOL, as he was never elected as an MLA or MP, nor does he meet WP:GNG because the sources are not significant. These sources cannot establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 12:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal conquest of Baglana[edit]

Mughal conquest of Baglana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another WP:OR because there's no mention of "Siege of Baglana" or "Mughal conquest of Baglana" in the sources. Also it lacks notability as only found a line around this event, that "Aurangzeb easily overran the kingdom". Based Kashmiri (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the deletion request for this article, as I couldn't find any sources on the internet. I think that this article should be deleted unless there is more sources. Eason Y. Lu (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Shah_Jahan#Early_military_campaigns. Two reliable sources from John F. Richards and Munis Faruqui, also a historian but these two do not have any coverage on the battle or siege. One line that says that an Expedition was sent to Balgana and the kingdom was easily ran over and the kingdom became a vassal and this is not enough to warrant a standalone full fledged page. Maybe best for merge under military campaigns of Shah Jahan. All other sources fail reliability as they are translation of primary sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stun Siva[edit]

Stun Siva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No valid reliable sources. Fails WP:SIRS and so fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Tamil Nadu. UtherSRG (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The subject fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG, as no reliable sources were found after my investigation. The Times of India cannot establish notability according to WP:TOI. Additionally, citing YouTube in the article is entirely pointless when it comes to establishing notability. GrabUp - Talk 12:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poor and unreliable sources that do not have coverage on the subject's biography. Few words on turning from stuntman to director to getting opportunities to movies he is associated with. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article fails WP:GNG & WP:NBIO and is full of unreliable sources. Based Kashmiri (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharti-Bharat-Kamdi[edit]

Bharti-Bharat-Kamdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Never elected to any political office that can make them inherently notable, and being a candidate from a political party for the upcoming election does not make them notable either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Once again, a non-elected individual, this article was created solely due to the general election 2024 in India. The person does not meet WP:NPOL criteria as he has never been elected as an MP or MLA. Furthermore, he does not meet WP:GNG standards as the sources only provide passing mentions of his candidacy. GrabUp - Talk 10:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contesting for a candidacy is not notable. 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. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pratikur Rahaman[edit]

Pratikur Rahaman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. This is also written promotionally. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Source 1 is fine, but I can't find anything else in RS we can use. I don't see any other sources in those used that are reliable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. TheWikiholic (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For those claiming the subject does not meet WP:GNG, here is the source assessment table.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/cpm-next-gen-who-is-pratikur-rahaman-9256427/ Yes Yes WP:RSPS Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. ✔ Yes
https://hindi.news24online.com/india/pratikur-rahaman-who-cpim-candidate-contest-election-against-abhishek-banerjee-in-diamond-harbour-seat/660274/ Yes Yes The source is a major news channel. Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. ✔ Yes
https://eisamay.com/west-bengal-news/24pargana-news/diamond-harbour-left-candidate-pratikur-rahaman-know-details-about-her/amp_articleshow/109069775.cms Yes Yes The source is a major Bengali newspaper. Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. ✔ Yes
https://www.moneycontrol.com/elections/lok-sabha-election/lok-sabha-elections-2024-who-is-pratikur-rahaman-the-cpm-candidate-taking-on-abhishek-from-diamond-harbour-article-12594511.html Yes ? The source is a well known financial news website run by Network18, which has partnerships with CNN. Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. ? Unknown
https://indianexpress.com/elections/diamond-harbour-lok-sabha-constituency-two-time-sitting-mp-abhishek-banerjee-to-face-challenge-from-cpims-pratikur-rahaman-and-bjps-abhijit-das-9317741/ Yes Yes WP:RSPS ~ The article has a paragraph on the subject. ~ Partial
https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/how-young-leaders-are-spawning-a-generational-shift-in-cpi-m-1927728-2022-03-21 Yes Yes The source is the highly regarded magazine India Today. ~ The article has a paragraph on the subject ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Not just WP:GNG but there is also WP:NBIO for biographical articles. The guideline mentions these conditions too.
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"
To this end the last 2 sources meet the requirement too. Therefore with these conditions and with the availability of these sources, mere handwave arguments with guideline links asserting the subject is not notable should not be made. MrMkG (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With your source analysis above, it becomes obvious that you do not clearly know how GNG works or what a reliable independent significant coverage is. Don’t worry, that’s the essence of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is in essence another handwave comment and now in a patronising tone. Are you trying to say that major newspapers, news channels, etc are not reliable independent sources? Are you even familiar with Indian sources? Or are you trying to say that the coverage is not significant, that there is something inaccurate in my description? MrMkG (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The subject does not meet WP:GNG. These sources before 2024 election only provide passing mentions with a bunch of new sources because of the candidacy, wrote about him in some or single paragraph about him. Additionally, these sources merely announce his candidacy against TMC leader Abhishek. I've already voted against many articles created due to the 2024 General Elections Which fails WP:BLP1E; these candidates are not elected as MPs yet and do not meet WP:NPOL. Being a vice-president of a student organization does not meet NPOL criteria either. Furthermore, this coverage cannot justify notability. We can wait to see if he wins and becomes an MP or, in future elections, an MLA; then he will automatically become notable. GrabUp - Talk 10:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC) edited 20:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Now I understand what the problem is. There is a blind knee-jerk reaction to delete any article on the 2024 election candidates with whatever reason one can word out, if they don't pass WP:NPOL even if they pass WP:NBIO and WP:GNG because there is a rush of new article creations with many presumably having little substance. I must also point out that one of the sources is from 2022 and has nothing to do with the candidacy.
The claim you make that the sources are making "passing mentions with a single paragraph" is grossly false, no other way to put it (a paragraph is also not just a "passing mention" but let's set that aside for a moment because it's more than one paragraph). Let us just randomly pick out one source from them and quote the entire part on the subject.
"Pratik Ur was the state president of SFI. He came to the center of discussion during the Panchayat elections. Left leaders alleged that opposition candidates and agents were not allowed to enter Fakir Chand College. After that Prateek Ur Rahman protested by sitting on the local streets. Prateek Ur was arrested at that time.
Prateek Ur's wife Shireen Sultana contested from Zilla Parishad seat number 59 of South 24 Parganas in the panchayat elections. He also became the Left-Congress-Indian Secular Front candidate for the Diamond Harbor Assembly constituency in Ekush assembly elections. Prateek Ur handled the responsibility of SFI for long 6 years. This year Srijan-Pratik Ur duo was released. This time a bigger responsibility is on his shoulders.
After announcing his name as a candidate, Prateek Ur Rahman said, 'I think the people of Diamond Harbor are average. Average against corruptionists. Means in favor of a healthy culture.' Also, Prateek Ur said that he does not believe in 'adversarial politics'. He said, 'I think the common people will unite against those who talk about dividing people on the basis of religion without talking about bread and sustenance.' Along with this, he has fired cannon at Trinamool. Prateek Ur said, 'We will talk about bread and rice, we will talk about the mill factory.'"
Under no logical way understanding of the term can this be called a passing mention. Most of the sources in the table are about him as the subject. I must remind those people droning about the obvious WP:NPOL failure, that at the end of WP:NPOL, it is said "An unelected candidate can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." MrMkG (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a lot of articles are going to be created especially in this election and many of them may not be notable. But that doesn't mean any and every candidate is non-notable.
Many wikipedia-notable people don't have articles and when they are made candidate, those articles get created due to the attention. I have created dozens of articles of current and former MLAs and even MPs.
They met WP:NPOL for years even decades but their articles were created now. Same applies to WP:GNG and WP:NBIO passing people. This bias is very disconcerting. MrMkG (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eisamay doesn't seem reliable to me; it's owned by The Times of India's BCCL, which itself can't establish notability for its promotional content as per WP:TOI. I never considered this a reliable source. When I mentioned sources only provide passing mentions, I was only referring reliable sources, not these unreliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 12:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you were correct, you could have chosen other sources like The Indian Express or India Today, which you mentioned in your analysis as providing in-depth coverage of the subject. However, you chose this unreliable source just to counter my argument, you can’t choose these reliable sources as these only provided passing mentions. GrabUp - Talk 12:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ei Samay isn't Times of India, completely different paper. The list you linked to has outlets from the same company with completely different ratings. Just because it's owned by the same company doesn't mean they're all the same. BCCL probably has close to a hundred outlets. I have never seen Ei Samay being accused of promotion.
But ok, you don't like Ei Samay, then there is Indian Express. (WP:INDIANEXP) You can randomly pick from them. These articles are literally about him. It is titled "CPM next-gen: Who is Pratikur Rahaman, tasked with taking on Abhishek Banerjee?".
Pratikur Rahaman, the CPI(M)’s pick, is a local. At present, the 33-year-old is a member of the CPI(M) state committee and is the national vice-president of the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), the party’s student wing. Rahaman, who studied at the Fakir Chand College in Diamond Harbour, lives on the outskirts of Diamond Harbour with his parents, brothers, wife and daughter. His family, according to party insiders, runs a construction material supply business.
“I am not fighting against any individual. My fight is against the policies of the TMC and BJP,” Rahaman told The Indian Express after his candidature was announced.
This will not be Rahaman’s first time in the poll fray. In 2021, he contested from Diamond Harbour, finishing third after Pannalal Halder of the TMC and Deepak Halder of the BJP.
“I got associated with the SFI in 2011 following which I have been assaulted by TMC goons many times. They cannot stop me with violence. I will fight back hard,” Rahaman said
Terming the TMC’s “Diamond Harbour model” as a bluff, Rahaman accused the TMC and BJP of being anti-farmer. “The prices of fertilisers are increasing while the farmers are getting poorer. We are against this policy,” the CPI(M) candidate said.
It's all similar level of coverage. You will also find more if you search and some of them will be much before the candidacy too. There is no real reason to delete the article. MrMkG (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s what I said. The reliable sources just gave passing mentions, and one paragraph of coverage is not enough to establish notability. His words mean nothing. I don’t know why you are sharing his quotes. GrabUp - Talk 13:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not one paragraph even if you ignore the quotes and again in no logical understanding can this be called "passing mention". Even if we accept this extraordinary standard, can you explain what "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" means? It is part of WP:NBIO. MrMkG (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that other reliable sources provided passing mentions, but this particular source (Indian Express) lacks depth covarage—it's just one paragraph. The main subject of these articles is the election, not this person. These sources can't establish notability because they don't provide in-depth coverage of the subject. GrabUp - Talk 13:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main subject is him as a candidate in the election. And are you unable to count? It's 5 paragraphs and ignoring the ones with quotes, it is 2 paragraphs. MrMkG (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrMkG, The consensus is nearly reached, as I can see from the comments of other editors. Your counting won't help to keep this article. Its just you the author of the article who want’s to keep the article. GrabUp - Talk 14:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know WP:CONSENSUS is determined by quality of arguments and their basis in policy not votes. But yeah I understand it might still get deleted because in actuality many admins dont follow this and only really look at votes.

Sure I am the author but your argument has no leg to stand on which you yourself can clearly understand it seems, which begs the question why do you want to delete it so badly for no apparent reason?

Btw back to the actual point. Were you saying the two which I quoted aren't passing mention but the rest which I haven't quoted yet are? Lol. Do I really have to do this? It's all similar level of coverage.

Title: Who Is 33 Year Old Pratikur Rahman? Will Contest Elections Against Abhishek Banerjee ~ About him as a candidate.

Pratikur Rahman, 33, is currently a member of the CPI(M) State Committee. He is also the national vice president of the party's student wing, Students Federation of India (SFI). He studied at Fakir Chand College, Diamond Harbour. He lives on the outskirts of Diamond Harbor with his parents, brothers, wife and daughter. His family is involved in the business of construction material supply.
Pratikur Rahman is not contesting elections for the first time, but he had also contested the assembly elections from Diamond Harbor in 2021. TMC candidate Pannalal Haldar had won that election. Pratikur Rahman was at third place with 38,719 votes, while BJP candidate Deepak Kumar Halder was at second place.

Title: Who is Pratikur Rahaman, the CPM candidate taking on Abhishek from Diamond Harbour? ~ About him as a candidate.

Rahaman, 33, chosen by the CPI (M), is a local candidate. He serves as a member of the CPI (M) state committee and holds the position of national vice-president within the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), the party's student wing. Rahaman completed his education at Fakir Chand College in Diamond Harbour and currently resides on the outskirts of Diamond Harbour with his parents, brothers, wife, and daughter. Reports say, the Left leader's family is involved in a business specialising in the supply of construction materials.
Rahman is no stranger to electoral contests, having earlier contested the assembly elections from Diamond Harbour in 2021. During that election, TMC candidate Pannalal Haldar clinched victory. Rahman secured the third position with 38,719 votes, while the BJP candidate, Deepak Kumar Halder, secured the second position.
Rahaman clarified to The Indian Express that his candidacy is not aimed at any specific individual. Instead, it represents a stand against the policies advocated by both the TMC and BJP.

How young leaders are spawning a generational shift in CPI(M) ~ About a group of young leaders in his party, he is one of the subjects of the article (2022).

Of the new young faces in CPI(M) state committee, several have shown promise, such as Minakshi Mukherjee, Srijan Bhattacharya, Mayukh Biswas and Pratikur Rahaman—all in their twenties or early thirties. Pratikur Rahaman is a good orator and has been raising his voice for the youth, particularly the unemployed who are forced to depend on the TMC government’s doles. His house in South 24 Parganas was allegedly vandalised and his family tea-stall damaged in the post-assembly poll results violence in May 2021. 

Title: Two time sitting MP Abhishek Banerjee to face challenge from CPIM’s Pratikur Rahaman and BJP’s Abhijit Das ~ About all three candidates in the election, he is one of the three subjects of the article.

The most successful party from this seat, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), has fielded the young Pratikur Rahaman as their candidate for the Diamond Harbour Lok Sabha Constituency in a bid to regain their dominance over the seat they have dominance in historically. This will be Rahman’s first attempt in mainstream politics as he has earlier served as the national vice-president of the Students Federation of India and a member of the state committee of the CPI(M) in West Bengal.

Not one of them can be called "passing mention" by any logical understanding of the term. In 2 of them it is one paragraph long and the other 4 are articles on him and multiple paragraphs long.

Let us assume, taking as strict a standard as possible that none of them individually help meet significant or substanital coverage part of WP:GNG. But it is impossible to escape the part of WP:NBIO that says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

So what is your justification? MrMkG (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said these are just routine public announcments for election, these don’t establish notability. To establish notability it require more in-depth covarage of the subject. Also, BLP require strong sources. GrabUp - Talk 15:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new thing you're saying. What is routine public announcement about them? Public announcement is what parties make, this is coverage of a person by independent newspapers, magazines and channels. Look at any other politician or political articles, the same kind of news sources are there.
Also again "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" according to WP:NBIO (section ~ WP:BASIC) which you're ignoring since you can't give an answer to it. MrMkG (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already told you, these sources are just some paragraphs and are only about one event, the election candidacy. They all report the same information such as his name, age, candidacy, and about his wife; nothing more to establish this person as notable. Even you combine them, they just talk the same thing, what is the point to combine? GrabUp - Talk 15:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should have read what other editor said before, read this WP:BLP1E which says :
We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
  1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
GrabUp - Talk 16:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to interject. I seldom make arbitrary nominations for deletion on AfD. Prior to proposing an article for deletion, I ensure that I have conducted extensive research on the subject of the article. I am confident in my understanding of our policies and would not nominate an article for deletion if the subject, under any circumstances, meets any of our notability criteria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces, Thank you for the comment. I acknowledge your good-faith nomination and research. However, this editor doesn't understand WP:BLP1E. These sources are solely because of the candidacy, nothing more. GrabUp - Talk 16:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup You are right, that was part of the reason I nominated it, after my evaluation. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup and @Vanderwaalforces. How would you combine them? Many of them are similar but each has some unique detail or the other (for example, his family business is mentioned in just one source).
I have seen other AfDs and in any other case, these articles would have easily been called "significant coverage" for WP:GNG, afterall you can't exactly get more coverage from an article than the article being about the subject itself. And what does "just some paragraphs" even mean? Articles are created with paragraphs. What do you want? A book? You will even find some CMs who don't have chapters in books.
This is effectively just based on a feeling that the article shouldn't exist, jumping from one justification to another and seeing whatever sticks on the wall while applying an unusual and unreasonably strict standard which most notable articles wouldn't meet. From vaguely mentioning policies to claiming the sources are "passing mention" when that's obviously false to claiming sources aren't reliable and now ultimately coming up with WP:BLP1E. There is no "research" behind it, it's an after the fact attempt at justification.
BLP1E gets the closest to reasonable (and I can only thank you for that finally) and that wasn't mentioned at all before except by a different user, ignored by everyone else. But even that's not really applicable. Admittedly his coverage is heavy around the candidacy but not solely about it. Out of the six articles, one of them is from 2022 about new leaders including him in the party and has nothing to do with the candidacy. Had there in fact been research one would have found more. There is an article from 2023 about a protest led by him and his arrest. There is a page linked to WP:BLP1E called WP:BLP1ENOT, it talks about exactly this situation.
"An exceptionally common misinterpretation of BLP1E is that subjects notable primarily for one event are notable only for one event. If the article's subject has done more than one notable thing, even if the rest of it is far overshadowed by the primary event, BLP1E does not apply."
Even if we take the surge of election coverage as one, we can combine them with these and we have again met WP:NBIO's WP:BASIC criteria. Individuals don't easily have full articles written on them (most candidates don't) and the NBIO criteria is laxer than GNG seemingly by design because of this.
Also @Jeraxmoira who had actually mentioned BLP1E. MrMkG (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrMkG, I have been mentioning to you from the beginning that 'These were created due to the 2024 General Elections,' which I was referring to as WP:BLP1E. Your analysis is can't exempt this article from WP:BLP1E, as you mentioned WP:BLP1ENOT mentioned "An exceptionally common misinterpretation of BLP1E is that subjects notable primarily for one event are notable only for one event. If the article's subject has done more than one notable thing, even if the rest of it is far overshadowed by the primary event, BLP1E does not apply."
  1. Joining a political party is not a notable thing. This can't exempt this article from BLP1E.
  2. Peoplesreporter.in is not an reliable source. As there is no editorial details found on their About US or any other pages.
GrabUp - Talk 18:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. It's not about joining a party. It's about leaders in a party and it is talking about a generational shift highlighting people in the new leadership which includes him. In it there's a mention of him joining the state committee of the party.
2. We are back to claiming sources are unreliable when nothing else works now. 🤦 What you see there is what any website of a Bengali (or even Indian) news outlet looks like. Anandabazar Patrika/About Us looks the exact same, I hope you consider that reliable because if it isn't then no Bengali news outlet is. Indian news outlets very rarely if at all have anything like "editorial details" on their websites. MrMkG (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw you just changed the meaning of your first comment in this edit. Had you meant BLP1E, you would have mentioned it far earlier than you did and not made the arguments you made. But whatever it doesn't matter but mentioning it since you change makes my later comment not make sense. Don't edit comments after they are replied to. MrMkG (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't compare a mainstream Bengali media outlet with an unknown website. There are thousands of Bengali news websites on the web. Can we start to accept them as reliable? Also, there was a discussion that took place at the RS Noticeboard about its reliability, and a consensus was reached that the source, Anandabazar, is reliable. I don't think there has been any discussion about this source before considering it reliable. GrabUp - Talk 19:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that standard you just set for the website that isn't even met by Anandabazar.
Not being discussed before doesn't mean it is presumed unreliable. It's not an unknown website. It's a new but well regarded news website. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, who is the highest acclaimed Bengali journalist active at present publishes in there. The WP:RSPS list has similar ones like Newslaundry and The Wire, so there is no reason such a website shouldn't be considered reliable. MrMkG (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Active at present? According to the link provided, he never published anything on the website, only a video on YouTube published back in 2023. I edited my initial post to clarify that I was referring to WP:BLP1E, which you reverted, no problem. Even I assume that the source is reliable, it lacks in-depth coverage. The article itself is quite short and contains quotations from the subject. This source cannot elevate this event to notable status, which would exempt it from WP:BLP1E. GrabUp - Talk 20:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There maybe others like him historically, just being on the safe side. Publishing a video on their channel is still publishing.

Anyways, the source is sufficient to be contributing coverage for WP:BASIC, it's a short article but he is the central figure in it.

WP:BLP1E itself says that "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event". It isn't only in the context of a single event, there are at least two other articles which cover him in different contexts.

WP:BLP1ENOT mentions it too and on a complete reading of the page, "more than one notable thing" just looks like poor wording to mean anything more than that one notable thing rather than two or more notable things. The purpose of BLP1E is described as "more a courtesy we grant potentially unwilling article subjects than anything", says the criteria is very narrow and describes situations where even related minlr events can make BLP1E not applicable.

Both the pages say that two other criteria must be met besides being only covered in one event. One of them is that the person has to a "low-profile individual" (WP:LOWPROFILE) which practically no politician or political activist would really be. The subject here is involved in active public life, in protests and is an MP candidate.

Nevertheless, the interpretation you're giving would contradict WP:BASIC too which allows articles on the basis of multiple events with just less coverage. It can't be that one person who gets only multiple low coverage events can have an article and one person who gets one high coverage event and other low coverage ones can't have an article. MrMkG (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the amazing discussion, but I am not convinced that this source is reliable. I told you that there are thousands of Bengali news websites like this. Can we start to accept them as reliable? I don’t think this discussion is going to end. Let's let others and the admins decide what they think is right. Have a nice day. GrabUp - Talk 02:53, 17 May 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. Sources are poor to unreliable. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore Front[edit]

Lahore Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is basically a collection of several separate battles fought, for which wiki pages exist. These include the Battle of Burki, Battle of Asal Uttar, Battle of Phillora and Battle of Chawinda. If at all there is a need for consolidation of this data, it has been carried out on the more relevant Indo-Pakistani war of 1965. None of the sources call it the Battle of Lahore. >>> Extorc.talk 18:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramjas School, Anand Parbat[edit]

Ramjas School, Anand Parbat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Suggest deletion on the grounds there is virtually nothing online about the school other than the 2017 allegations and the 2019 overturned removal of the chair. However, Ramjas School, Pusa Road also has a controversy (over fees) and Ramjas College seems notable. All three are run by Ramjas Foundation. So it might be worth creating a Ramjas Foundation page to link to all three (and any other Ramjas operated establishments). Newhaven lad (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Fifth Indian Expedition to Antarctica[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Thirty Fifth Indian Expedition to Antarctica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply a list of people, with no sources, or literally anything else other than a list of people. An XfD was attempted in the past, with no consensus. Trying again since there have been literally no edits to the page since the XfD was closed. Sadustu Tau (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if relevant, but there were no participants in the last XfD. Sadustu Tau (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: The article should be speedy deleted under A1 as it lacks context. A normal reader would not be able to understand this article at all. GrabUp - Talk 15:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge, most sources that show up when looking up the subject seem to talk about India in Antarctica as a whole. ✶Quxyz✶ 16:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no (coherent) context, no sources, no article. I imagine if it had been draftified rather than AfD'ed originally, it may well have been naturally deleted anyway as no improvements have been attempted, as the nom mentions. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the listed people have links. I take that to mean that none of them have articles. Thus none of them are notable. Athel cb (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a list of non notable people going on a non notable expedition. Ajf773 (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources on the page and there is nothing on the page for it to pass the general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This article Fails WP:GNG and has no sources cited. Based Kashmiri (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput Mughal marriage alliances[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rajput Mughal marriage alliances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR written to promote a POV. The topic itself is not notable that it would need a separate article.Ratnahastin (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It isn't well written and could use a more analytic overview, but the large number of sources is more than enough to establish notability. Marriages were an important aspect of diplomacy in many countries, as shown in Royal intermarriage. Zerotalk 09:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are comparing a GA article with a poorly written article that mainly relies on outdated unreliable sources and fails to establish notability. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Poorly written" is totally irrelevant at AFD. Also only a fraction of the sources are primary and more than half do not date from the RAJ. The fact that you link "unreliable" to PRIMARY suggests that you don't understand either. This article needs a good clean-up, that's all, as the topic is obviously significant. Zerotalk 12:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrikayilaliyunna Chandrakantham[edit]

Chandrikayilaliyunna Chandrakantham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are routine mill news, listings, annoucements, promo, nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  01:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Asianet News Malayalam is somewhat associated or connected with the subject as the series is airing on Asianet but doesn't provide in-depth coverage. Times of India contributes zero to establishing notability. Other sources, such as Indian Express Malayalam, don’t provide much coverage of the subject, and lastly, Mediainfoline and KeralaTv seem unreliable to me. No critical reviews found. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILM. Grabup (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NTV. Serial is not played for broader regional or national audience and airs in only one local media market that does not make it notable. RangersRus (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Badal Sesher Pakhi[edit]

Badal Sesher Pakhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  02:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No coverage found other than the announcement of the series. ABP Bengali provides some coverage, as does Etvbharat, but I'm not sure about Etv’s reliability. Both of them are just announcements of the series; no other coverage found. Grabup (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of coverage available. See for example Hindustan Times. ABP and ETV are pretty major outlets as well, for what it's worth. --Soman (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Hindustan Times article only talks about marriage and doesn't provide any information regarding the series at all. Additionally, when you said "ABP and ETV are pretty major outlets as well," you should know that Republic World is also a major outlet, but it is considered unreliable. Similarly, there is no consensus that ETV and ABP are reliable sources at WP:ICTFSOURCES, but I personally think that ABP should be considered reliable but I question ETV's reliability. GrabUp - Talk 11:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Sun_Bangla#Currently_broadcast. Per nom fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. The series is an individual television program and is far less notable as it likely airs in only one local media market and not to a broader regional or national audience. Sources are poor with not enough coverage. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venus International school[edit]

Venus International school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find anything online except the school's own website - a facebook page with limited information - an impressive YouTube promotional video - and listing in various 'school finder' websites. No indication of the roll of the school although there appear to be only 16 staff suggesting it is small. No third party references. Need to find third party information - or question notability. Newhaven lad (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revera (event)[edit]

Revera (event) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced with no notability per GNG or EVENT. Google search returned no reliable independent coverage on the event. Promotional tone with no denotable notability. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I couldn't find anything about it on the web except for Facebook posts. This topic doesn't seem notable at all; it appears to be promotional and fails to meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Grabup (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it appears to be promotional, fails WP:GNG or WP:N(E) ~~User:Spworld2 (talk) 2:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sources on the page and this page seems like promotion of an event held by student union of a college. WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources are provided, event do look like some promotion. Hookiq (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dauwa Ahir[edit]

Dauwa Ahir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article based on unreliable sources that only make passing mention of the subject.Ratnahastin (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 15 of 16 sources are poor, unreliable and WP:RAJ era. One source is reliable by Ravindra K. Jain, a former Professor of Sociology from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India, but this too has no coverage on "Dauwa Ahirs" from the link given. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notability is missing. Agletarang (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Victim (2012 film)[edit]

The Victim (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The film seems to lack notability, as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The current sources in the article are mere announcements of its release and rely solely on statements from the film's producer. Despite being released in 2012, the film failed to garner any reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. GSS 💬 19:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Milroy Goes#Filmography. CharlesWain (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash Sirohiya[edit]

Kailash Sirohiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a publisher, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for publishers. The main claim of notability stated here is that he exists, which isn't "automatically" notable in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him and his work, but two of the four footnotes here are a directory entry and his company's own contact information on its own self-published website, neither of which are support for notability -- and the other two are both dead links whose former content is unverifiable for the purposes of figuring out whether they supported notability or not, and even those were just jengastacked onto a statement of his existence rather than being used to actually expand the article with content.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to say more than "he exists", or having to cite more and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Nepal, and India. Bearcat (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 3 of 4 sources are failed links and one is a source with stock value and this is not enough to pass general notability guidelines. Simple search did show couple of sources but they are about questions on his "two citizenship certificates", a "press statement made in response to the allegations made by Rastriya Swatantra Party President Rabi Lamichhane" and these are local political problems, and these allegations or incidents are not noteworthy. The subject is not well known and materials are not relevant to the person's notability. Fails WP:BIO. RangersRus (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hexaware Technologies[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hexaware Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tone seems improved but there does not seem to be any ORGCRIT eligible sources since the previous AFD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The previous version was deleted in 2020. This is quite a different from previous. I can see here significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. And a listed company at National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange. MeltPees (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, if all you're going to do is past a few specific articles from draft to mainspace and then show up at several AFDs eventually you're going to attract scrutiny like an SPA. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some sources are reliable but still do not help with notability, lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Wikipedia is not a business directory. RangersRus (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PES PU College, Mandya[edit]

PES PU College, Mandya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The references do not indicate that the subject passes the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for organizations, and a quick search for sources turned up nothing to disprove that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPM Govt High School, Adavimallanakeri[edit]

MPM Govt High School, Adavimallanakeri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a contested draftification. The references do not indicate that the subject passes the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for organizations, and a quick search for sources turned up nothing to disprove that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Karnataka. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: None of the sources meet WP:SIGCOV, and the single sentence of article barely makes grammatical sense. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources found (outside the ones provided by the article). No prejudice towards a redirect to Advimallanakeri as well. Sohom (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reliable sources have been found to establish the notability of this government school. Generally, there is limited reporting on government schools in India, except in some special cases. Grabup (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Again, this page too has poor sources and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Greek wars[edit]

Indo-Greek wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a mess; it consists largely of unattributed copy-pastes from other articles, and purports to present a topic, the 'Indo-Greek wars', that is in reality a sequence of isolated and unrelated conflicts between different polities at different times. Alexander's campaigns take up half the article, but the other conflicts, which took place decades or centuries later, are dealt with far too briefly, and no attempt is made to weave all of this into a coherent narrative (which in itself is evidence this is an artificial topic). THe very name itself is scarcely used anywhere (cf. Gbooks). Constantine ✍ 11:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Problematic editor who created a number of very poorly written articles. Qcne (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On its face, it appears to both duplicate other article content and be an inappropriate synthesis. And, on the offchance it is notable and just not written about in English language sources, WP:TNT GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' - Not in line with Wikipedia's standards and policies.Sameeerrr (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOV, this article contains a biased perspective, focusing solely on Indian victories while neglecting Greek achievements. The article's content consists of copied material from various unrelated articles, defying Wikipedia's standards against Original Research WP:OR and Synthesis Content WP:SYNTH.Based Kashmiri (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poor page with implication of a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by the source. The creator of the page inserted opinion in a circular bit of logic. RangersRus (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election[edit]

2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to 2027 when we have actual sources discussing the election. Soni (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Goa Legislative Assembly election[edit]

2027 Goa Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to 2027 when we have actual sources discussing the election.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries for a similar recent AFD Soni (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now noticed a series of articles under the Template:Next Indian elections. I was not aware of the remaining articles, and the standard to call them "Next". I'm not now unsure if there's a broader consensus at play; if not, one should be established. Either will make deleting all early "Next articles" easier, or we could add talk page notes to not nominate any of them for deletion. Soni (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the template also got tagged for deletion separately, here's all the next election articles from the template; these may need revisiting if this AFD closes as Delete - Next Assam Legislative Assembly election, Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election, Next Manipur Legislative Assembly election, Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election
The articles this probably does not affect are -
Next Bihar Legislative Assembly election and Next Delhi Legislative Assembly election (probably in 2025), Next Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election (probably in 2026). All of them already have RS discussing them Soni (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santoshi Maa – Sunayein Vrat Kathayein[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Santoshi Maa – Sunayein Vrat Kathayein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP: Notability and clearly doesn't meet the criteria of WP:GNG therefore should be deleted}} Sameeerrr (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aurat (TV series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aurat (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The articles doesn't cite WP:RS and doesn't meet WP: Notability, hence should be deleted Sameeerrr (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati[edit]

Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tried to improve the article but I failed to improve it per WP:SNG as well as others. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of reliable sources and qualifies for WP:GNG. It have both WP: PRIMARY and WP: SECONDARY sources mentioned as references. It also has historical importance as it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region. -AjayDas (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was also not in favor to delete it. But I couldn't find sufficient references to establish the WP:GNG. If you can demonstrate the notability with sourcing, please do it. Otherwise, just a! vote and " it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region." is not helping it anyhow.
Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati[edit]

Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a religious leader lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. There may be sources in other languages, in which case it would be good if someone could add them. Mccapra (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mangal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Mangal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extreme reliance on WP:RAJ sources, no reliable/good secondary sources. Noorullah (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Michni[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Michni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero sources/references at all. Noorullah (talk) 02:16, 11 May 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Vivian D'Costa[edit]

Albert Vivian D'Costa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced article which fails WP:NBIO. Redirect to List of people from Goa as an WP:ATD since subject is mentioned there. CycloneYoris talk! 21:37, 10 May 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.

Bhagyavidhaata[edit]

Bhagyavidhaata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn't cite any WP:RS and doesn't meet WP:GNG, hence should be deleted

Priyanshi Arya[edit]

Priyanshi Arya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Being a the general secretary of a students' union does not inherently makes one notable. There's also generally no SIGCOV anywhere. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Potentially notable as the first Dalit general secretary in 30 years. This article from the Deccan Herald looks like SIGCOV: "Who is Dhananjay? All you need to know about JNU's first Dalit president in nearly 30 years". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 2024-03-26. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eastmain I’m surprised to how you interpret SIGCOV. Is Dhananjay the same person as Priyanshi Arya? Obviously not and the only mention of this person there is
    In addition to Dhananjay's victory, Avijit Ghosh from the Students' Federation of India (SFI) secured the vice-president's post, while Priyanshi Arya of the Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students' Association (BAPSA), supported by the Left, won the general se..
    Where’s the SIGCOV here? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have added a reference from mainstream Indian media which is reliable, secondary source and independent media outlet. It passes WP:GNG as it has WP:SIGCOV, an exclusive full length article and at least one other article with about five paras written about her from mainstream media. I request Editors to look at all the cited references and take a call. May be, if some feel it does not pass, request that it may be draftified. thanks and regards! Davidindia (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Meet Priyanshi Arya, The Newly-Elected JNU General Secretary Who Was Raised In Middle-Class Family The article from Zee News. There is another full-length article, in The SportsGrail, which I am not taking here as SIGCOV, as its main domain is sports. Davidindia (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON, SIGCOV, WP:PROF, and potentially WP:BLP violations. As a university student she is not notable, absent significant coverage in Chronicle of Higher Education or the equivalent. One reliable source by definition fails SIGCOV and WP:OR. We very rarely keep any academic who has not gained tenure with at least an associate chair. There's also disputes in the sources about whether she's dalit or middle class - a real BLP violation if you're an Indian reader - and very likely to be the subject of an edit war. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All the sources given like Indian Express, Hindu, Deccan Herald, Times of India, Economic Times are major reputed newspapers in India and the three news websites, News Minute, News Laundry and Wire are equally reliable and reputed news houses. Except Sportsgrail all the sources cited are secondary and from mainstream news industry as reputed as Chronicle of Higher Education or much more. All are highly respected news outlets. The article about the subject is not for an academic, per say, but for a political leader in student politics. I could not understand the dispute of the subject being a Dalit. Anyway, I leave it to the editors. If possible, it can be put in the draft space. Thanks and regards, Davidindia (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between Keep, Delete or Draftify arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete University-level student leader is inherently nonnotable unless some national level achievements. - Altenmann >talk 23:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With due respect to the senior editors here, who have been doing great work on Wiki for years, I am just curious to understand if there is a wiki guideline or policy that prevents student leaders from having a BLP page. I saw that many student leaders in Europe from Digby Jacks to Malia Bouattia to Shakira Martin to Zamzam Ibrahim, have articles. Many BLPs on student leaders were created on Wiki with just a reference or two, when they were first created. Here in India, a leader from JNU|Jawaharlal Nehru University is not just a university-level student leader... any leader from JNU gets ten times more visibility and recognition in India than a state university, say Bangalore University. Many from JNU have become National leaders later on. The subject is also notable because she is the first queer dalit student. But this bit was removed to make sure there were no BLP violations and to protect the confidentiality of the subject, as there were not many sources and it was not clear if she was “out” I feel this subject BLP passes the WP: GNG. But I leave it to the editors to decide. Thanks and regards! Davidindia (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manini (1979 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Manini (1979 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, interviews, nothing that addresses the subject indepth meeting WP:SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  08:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different Redirect target articles suggested. We need to settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muni Mohjit Vijayji[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Muni Mohjit Vijayji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced article about a niche religious figure. Only one in-depth reference – a 2003 press article in the Gujarati language (a copyvio scan is on Commons); all the remaining references are at best passing mentions of the subject. The disciples / religious community he left behind doesn't appear too numerous or active, either, at least judging from its Facebook page. All in all, this looks like one of a myriad of gurus found across India at any time who preach to their small following; and not a person with an encyclopaedic notability. — kashmīrī TALK 20:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and India. — kashmīrī TALK 20:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Poor and unreliable sources. One or two reliable source do not have coverage to warrant notability. Sources that cover younger generation or an IITian who gave up their career for Jain vow of renunciation does not help either. The religious figure is minor to unknown even in media and simple search on Google. RangersRus (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Soft Deletion is not an option here due to a previous AFD on this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha–Nizam wars[edit]

Maratha–Nizam wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article clearly fails WP:GNG & full of WP:SYNTH mess and WP:OR. Maratha–Nizam wars? More like every war against Marathas (as it is mixed up by Anglo-Maratha wars and French conflicts with Marathas) and there's no source for the timeline of this event (1720-1819), clearly fabricated by the author of the page. Neither I found any source explicitly referring to it as Maratha–Nizam wars nor did I find sources for its fictional timeline of 1720-1819. Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!!
I have noticed that there is a discussion happening about the articles on the Maratha-Nizam wars. I am eager to participate and cast my vote for the article. After thoroughly reviewing the content, I have concluded that it comprehensively covers all the necessary information, supported by reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.I think that all the paragraphs in the article accurately depict the context and are verifiable according to Wikipedia guidelines WP:VERIFY.
Here is one source that mentioned it as maratha nizam wars:
•Britannica:[8]
•Britanicca(for further details):[9]
  • I think britannica is a better and clearly citing source for the article.It's verifiability and reliability can be checked at ->
•[10]

Timeline isn't mentioned in the heading of article but it is mentioned in the infobox.If there are any doubts some some sources are definitely needed for a better understanding about the timeline with the citation.But if article is undergoing deletion because of it's heading than the Britannca is one of the sources that cites it as 'Maratha -Nizam War' not as 'Anglo-Maratha War'.[11]

  • Suggestion:It is recommended that the editors and administrators involved in this matter thoroughly examine all sources and make decisions from a neutral Favourable Renaming the article to 'Maratha-Nizam War' instead of 'Maratha-Nizam Wars' would be appropriate as the Britannica source also refers to it in the singular form, given that the article primarily covers individual battles rather than overarching conflicts.
Thanks!! Kemilliogolgi (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, but the source you shared doesn't cover the Maratha-Nizam war in its body instead it spun around the Anglo-Maratha wars. If you'll search "Maratha-Nizam war" under Britannica's sort searching then you won't find any article on Maratha Nizam war through filter searching under Britannica again I don't know how you concluded that it covers this topic while we don't find a single article on it. We know that Britannica is WP:RS but as I said it doesn't even cover this topic so kindly provide sources for Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
Timeline isn't mentioned in the heading of article but it is mentioned in the infobox, that's the issue we don't find this particular timeline in any source. The author too is clearly aware of this therefore they didn't cite any source for this timeline. It's clearly a mix of several hostilities between Nizam, Marathas, Anglos and French and represented as "Maratha Nizam war". Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nominator clearly lacks an understanding of what WP:GNG entails, and I strongly suspect that this action is against me as the author because I nominated their articles for AFD. Please specify the section on the talk page where the sources were synthesized. Neither the Anglo-Maratha wars nor the French-Maratha conflicts are included; technically, it's feasible to add them since the article's scope covers conflicts between two parties: the Nizam and the Marathas, regardless of whether they were supported by the British East India Company, the French, or any other entities. I am listing the sources that explicitly state "Maratha-Nizam War(s)".
  1. [12]
  2. [13]
  3. [14]
  4. [15]
  5. [16]
  6. [17]
  7. [18]

822 results in JSTOR [19] almost 3,000 results in ProQuest[20]. and we have several other sources that do not explicitly mention "Maratha-Nizam wars" but provide detailed descriptions of the entire conflicts (a lot in the article itself). I will await the nominator to post the synthesized part on the talk page. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a platform for someone to boast their ego.--Imperial[AFCND] 16:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator clearly lacks an understanding of what, then why don't you show us a single source covering this event as Maratha-Nizam war (1720-1819)?
Neither the Anglo-Maratha wars nor the French-Maratha conflicts are included; technically, it's feasible to add them since the article's scope covers conflicts between two parties be sure. Is it conflicts or wars? It's clearly noticeable from the artificial timeline of this event (1720-1819) that it's heavily synthesized.
the Nizam and the Marathas, regardless of whether they were supported by the British East India Company, the French, or any other entities. I am listing the sources that explicitly state "Maratha-Nizam War Now that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH you're mixing Anglo Maratha wars and French conflicts with Marathas just to get a fictional timeline so it can be "Nizam victory", Now I'd say it's also WP:POVFORK and please WP:DONTHOAX. Now let us look at the sources provided by you. The first two sources are identical.
  • [21] only gives insights of Maratha-Nizam war of 1751-52 but there's no Maratha nizam war 1720-1819 as currently the timeline decided by the author.
  • The third one [22] only talks about Maratha-Nizam hostilities of 1785-1787 again there's no mention of Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
  • Fourth source [23] is not accessible so it'd be helpful if you provide a quotation for the Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
  • Coming to the 5th source [24] again not accessible so provide a quotation for Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819
  • Next [25] only found a topic of "Maratha-Nizam relations" I wonder if this led you to the conclusion of Martha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
  • At last, [26] this also can't be accessed so provide a quotation for Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
Now coming to filter/sort keyword searching through JSTOR and ProQuest. Anyone can see that, It gives NO result for even the "Maratha-Nizam War" as a whole forget including timeline, all we see is individual results for Maratha and Nizam. So that's how you concluded that it has almost 3800 results (from both JSTOR and ProQuest)?
You have yourself yelled that we have several other sources that do not explicitly mention "Maratha-Nizam wars" but provide detailed descriptions of the entire conflicts hence proved it contains synthesis. And above too the sources provided by you don't give insights of Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado Indeed Wikipedia is a collaborative project therefore we have to make sure that an article shouldn't exist in mainspace as long as it doesn't pass general notability, and contains synthesis, original research and POVFORK. And No one is being egoistic here. Why do you think so?Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Based Kashmiri, you're just increasing the volume of discussion with no improvement. You still haven't provided the synthesised part in the talk page, failed to prove it's not notable (waiting for others to make thier comments). There is a thing called WP:UCS. The "Maratha–Nizam wars" basically ends with the fall of the Marathas, as their conflicts lasted till then. The article body covers the contributions of the Nizam for the fall of the Marathas. Cheers. Imperial[AFCND] 07:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally showed how the sources provided by you (most of them don't even cover "Maratha-Nizam war" but cover some relations and hostilities). We just need a single source for the specific Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819 and I'll pull off the prod with myself. Maratha–Nizam wars" basically ends with the fall of the Marathas, as their conflicts lasted till then. At least provide a source to back your statements, this is WP:OR and no WP:UCS doesn't give you waivers for extending the timeline on your own. We're still waiting for you to provide sources for your defined Maratha-Nizam war (1720-1819).Based Kashmiri (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominators arguments are nowhere found in the article. I don't understand how this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Suggesting the nominator to keep personal bias away, as it seems to be the problem here.--DeepstoneV (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Nominators arguments are nowhere found in the article. I don't understand how this doesn't pass WP:GNG." You also didn't understand that a screenshot from YouTube video is not a reliable source (at Gupta empire talk page), I already replied how this article is fully based on WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, POVFORK and it doesn't passes general notability. Feel free to reply to my response below. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, you're taking everything personally. What was the reason to drag another discussion here? Please don't continue this thread, or use other talk pages. Imperial[AFCND] 07:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ImperialAficionado it'd be better if you give this advice to DeepstoneV as at first they accused me of having Personal bias. Based Kashmiri (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article appears to amalgamate various wars without citing any reliable sources that acknowledge such a conflict by this name. The timeline presented (1720-1819) seems implausible, and the outcome is equally questionable. Even if the Nizam’s actions in Anglo-Maratha Wars contributed to the Maratha downfall, that could be the subject of a separate article. It’s not appropriate to include it in a comprehensive conflict spanning over a century. This inclusion could distort the narrative and lead to misinformation. A MUST DELETE ONE! --Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, we might also have to delete Ahom-Mughal conflicts, Roman–Persian Wars, Roman–Parthian Wars....etc. Imperial[AFCND] 08:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And probably Ghaznavid campaigns too! Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ImperialAficionado kindly refrain from pushing WP:OTHERCONTENT you should go through WP:AADP. I'd not extend it because of WP:OTHERCONTENT but since you already gone off topic so I'd respond to it.
    In Roman–Persian Wars and Roman–Parthian Wars the dates and timeline of the wars are already cited in the lead but that's not the case in Maratha–Nizam wars you have not cited any source in the lead or even in the article body to support your preferred timeline of 1720-1819 neither you're providing sources here for this timeline.
    Similarly we can't do the same with Hundred Years' War and Seven Years' War because its timeline is affixed by scholars. Based Kashmiri (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There was no prolonged war but the wars that happened time to time with each of them taking years of years. The article is misleading also because it was the British Empire who caused elimination of Maratha Empire, not Hyderabad State. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, As per above comment Rawn3012 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find any source for this war either which is almost a hundred year timeline conflict. WP:LOTSOFGHITS and WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE proves nothing (Considering that no such protracted war ever happened in South-Asia). The above Keeps are more like WP:BUTITEXISTS and WP:EDPN.

Recommended: I'd suggest WP:SPLIT for a particular war/conflict/hostility (of course, only ones which are notable). --Jonharojjashi (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harish Kumar Gupta[edit]

Harish Kumar Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Resume vanity BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Appears to be mainly sourced from a LinkedIn resume and government bio page (both fail WP:IS, WP:RS), with other refs being routine mill news and name mentions. Government service awards are routine, not meeting WP:ANYBIO.  // Timothy :: talk  15:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Page reads as resume for job application. Things he did or delegated as correctional officer and none of it is a significant achievement and widely known to warrant a page on the subject. Fails WP:BIO and notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Head of the police of Andhra Pradesh, a major state of India. For those used to state police forces having a limited role, state police forces in India are huge and provide all policing in the state. Clearly notable and sources satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bannu[edit]

Battle of Bannu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The battle is not historically accurate and the page is littered with various passages which are not correctly cited and the references cited are inaccurate, and the page itself requires deletion.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gandgarh[edit]

Battle of Gandgarh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The battle is not historically accurate and the sources are unreliable and relies heavily on WP:Raj sources. The page requires deletion.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hoshiarpur (1711)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Hoshiarpur (1711) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The battle is not historically accurate and when and where the battle took place does not appear in any historical work, printed, or in manuscript and thus it is required for the deletion of this page

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 6. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have repaired this somewhat malformed nomination, which initially proposed deleting the nonexistent Battle of Hoshiarpur article. (That this indicates possible overdisambiguation is a matter not necessarily relevant to AfD.) No opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources are RS; published by university presses or historians. The article can be expanded upon with existing and other sources. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Southasianhistorian8
    None of the sources allude to this battle taking place at Hoshiarpur, with Ganda Singh outright stating the battle's location is unknown. One of the sources cited (Muzaffar Alam) doesn't even provide an account of this battle. Just because the sources come from reliable historians doesn't automatically justify the page being kept, especially considering none of the sources make mention of a battle taking place at Hoshiarpur. The same critiques and issues you raised on the Battle of Rohilla also apply to this one aswell. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Thanks for repairing this nomination by User:Festivalfalcon873 (who didn't leave their signature). I think we need to hear from more editors on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noted this page was created by sock account and is good for WP:G5 speedy deletion. RangersRus (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 3 sources on the page and all of then are poor and unreliable sources. One of the source is repeated twice that is from William Irvine, an administrator of the Indian Civil Service from 1863 to 1899 and is a WP:RAJ unreliable source. Source by Grewal and Habib is a translation of primary source from Persian to English. Source by Alam is a Google snippet that has no coverage on the battle the subject is on. The page fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the sources allude or mention of this conflict taking place at Hoshiarpur. Considering the location itself is unknown, the page does not warrant an entire wikipedia article dedicated to it. Maybe some of the info can be merged with a larger page such as Isa Khan Munj or Banda Singh Bahadur, but this page alone does not warrant an entire wikipedia article as it's not notable enough.
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and contains unreliable sources. Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hasan Abdal (1813)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Hasan Abdal (1813) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is littered with unreliable sources to promote ethnic heroism and its statements are not fully cited and there is no contemporary proof of the occurrence of this battle and the page requires deletion.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'd like more review of sources and whether or not this small "battle" was, in fact, notable. Nominator, who didn't sign their statement, was User:Festivalfalcon873
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kashmir (1814)[edit]

Battle of Kashmir (1814) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is littered with unreliable sources and relies heavily on WP:Raj sources to promote ethnic heroism and the events do not indicate a victory for the Afghans. This page requires deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festivalfalcon873 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Three of the sources are WP:RAJ which can be removed as they are only passing by sources attributed by other secondary sources. Not sure what you're referring to as unreliable sources here, would be nice for you to identify, because historians like Hari Ram Gupta are more then WP:RS. Also pages 124-126 clearly show the expedition was a failure and an Afghan victory: [27]. Noorullah (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further adding from the source: "It took Ranjit Singh four years to overcome his defeat and disgrace suffered in the Kashmir expedition of 1814."[28] (page 128) Noorullah (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:
Only the sources from WP:RAJ mention any defeat occurring and are clearly required for the final result of this article but do not pass the standards of Wikipedia. Historians that you noted such as Hari Ram Gupta are specific on page 125 that , “Aghar Khan joined Ruhullah Khan. They spread the rumour that the Sikh army had been defeated.” There was no battle against Wazir Fateh Khan mentioned as noted in this article nor any defeat in battle against Wazir Fateh Khan. The article itself is littered with errors as it mentions this is the third campaign or invasion of Ranjit Singh. This is incorrect as there was no campaign in 1812 as noted by Hari Ram Gupta and in 1813 the campaign was a joint collaboration with Wazir Fateh Khan where the former was to give a tribute.
Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The expedition ended in failure, Hari Ram Gupta made this clear on page 126 [29] when he clearly identifies it as a Sikh defeat. The WP:RAJ sources can be removed as I said because they are only passing references while attributed by other secondary sources (such as Hari Ram Gupta). Also the article is being cleaned up, and thus can stay per WP:HEY. Noorullah (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The initial issue of the outcome of this so called battle is not being referenced correctly is still present & or the outcome is using  WP:RAJ source which doesn’t meet requirements of Wikipedia. Two WP:RAJsources are still there in the article in order to present a victory which are not reliable. Therefore it is factually incorrect to say it is passing by reference. The expedition ended in failure, but Gupta makes it clear that any battle taking place was just a rumor on pg 125 that , “Aghar Khan joined Ruhullah Khan. They spread the rumour that the Sikh army had been defeated”in book History Of The Sikhs Vol. V The Sikh Lion of Lahore and does not mention any battle taking place. The author G.S Chhabra you referenced on pg 115 does not mention any direct defeat or battle by Azim Khan either , neither has it been referenced that the losses were heavy. Any mention of any battle taking place in the article is unreliable , Captain Amrinder is not a historian but a politician is thus not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
So to point out that the article has significantly improved is inaccurate as the initial concern is not fixed and no improvements have been done to fix it. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:RAJ sources on the page as per your most recent comment. Gupta clearly states Ranjit Singh was defeated as mentioned above. Noorullah (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet[edit]

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poor attempt of the author to keep Pala Tibetan War from AFD. Same content with different title. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War.Imperial[AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Devapāla came into conflict with Tibet, there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Raja Dharma- pala to submit. Devapāla also may have come to clash with them and defeated them.[1]
  • Devapāla might have come into conflict with Tibet; there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-Srong-Ida-Btsan and his son Mu-teg-Btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharma- pāla to submit. Devapāla also may have clashed with them and defeated them[2]
Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop listing down this big {{tq}} here. It was already a mess at the earlier discussion. Comment down if you've any possible arguments that could potentially save the article. I am pretty sure you haven't read what WP: NOTABILITY, and this reflects everywhere in the AFD. Long paragraphs are not the factor that determines whether it passes GNG or not. And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here. Imperial[AFCND] 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This event is notable and has received significant coverage in Reliable Sources (WP:RS) and it passes WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV and this isn't WP:OR since reliable sources mention the event as Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet.
Also what do you mean by "And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here."?? I gave you two reliable sources which mentions the event in a similar way. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Based Kashmiri, what you've done is exposed plagiarism. They mention the event in a similar way because one source plagiarized the other, not because this is a conventional way to write about this. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per the WP:DEL-REASON guideline, there is no reason to delete this article and I have provided multiple reliable sources about this event here in the replies below. Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is obviously a recreation of the previously deleted article. It does have a better title, in that it is no longer claiming there was a "Pala Tibetan War", but this is the same issue. We can write about this hypothetical conflict (one of the sources you list above even says "might have"!) on Devapala (Pala dynasty). If eventually we find sources to justify a separate article, we can spin out out from Devapala (Pala dynasty). But we did not find those sources in the last AfD, so I doubt we will find them here either. While I'm looking at that article, I note that we also have the sentences There is nothing impossible as the Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharmapāla to submit. Therefore, Devapāla must have also clashed with and defeated the Tibetan kings. Not only does this not follow the sources (our article says "must have", while neither source says so), it is obviously plagiarism. -- asilvering (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a recreation of the previously deleted article, also this article doesn't have any issues like that article, if you think there is any issue in this article then list them down.
    The previous article had issues with the "Dharmapāla's Conflict with Tibetans" section and the "Conflict with Nepal" section, which is excluded from this article. This article focuses on the conflict between Devapala and Tibet, with reliable sources mentioning the event as "Devapala's Conflict with Tibet." The main problem with the previous article was the uncited title, but this article provides reliable sources to support its claim.Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean "it literally contains the exact same words as the previous article". If that were the case, it could just be nominated for speedy deletion. I mean "it is in effect the same article with the same problems", which is true. At least one of the two reliable sources you brought up above appears to be plagiarized, so not only is this not two separate sources with in-depth coverage, it's only one source with very brief coverage. This can easily be written about on Devapala (Pala dynasty) if necessary. (But I'd advise against plagiarising a plagiarised source to do so.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article cannot be deleted for the reasons you've provided, as per the Wikipedia deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON.
    Additionally, here are some additional reliable sources about this event:
    Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources do not support your case. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then explain how? Also you still haven't given any reasons to delete this article from as per the Wikipedia's deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per asilvering and Imperial Okmrman (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They do not have any valid reason to delete the article, Please provide a valid reason from WP:DEL-REASON.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Okmrman And I just checked your User contributions and noticed you have voted for deletion for every single AFD you had discovered EVERY MINUTE, without even reading anything.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both @Asilvering and @ImperialAficionado haven't provided any valid reason to delete this article from WP:DEL-REASON, how can you agree with them? Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas[edit]

Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A copy of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala invasion of Kannauj. Same content, fails WP:GNG, poorly found in reliable sources. Part of Tripartite struggle, can be added to it. Imperial[AFCND] 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No results for "Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas" in Google scholar, JSTOR [30], and literally zero result from Google keyword searching. Hardly found few sources (including what present in the article), that barely mentioned no more than two or three lines about the so called "Campaign". And passes GNG? See WP:SIGCOV. Imperial[AFCND] 15:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is very notable and has been given significant coverage in reliable sources therefore it passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.
  • The Gurjara lords against whom Devapāla fought must have been the Pratīhāra rulers. It is possible that Nagabhața II tried to assert his power after the death of Dharmapāla and if, as some scholars believe, he transferred his capital to Kanauj, he must have achieved some success. But Devapāla soon re-established the Pala supremacy, and it was possibly after his (Devapāla's) successful campaign against the Pratihāras that he advanced to the Hūņa and Kamboja princi- palities. Nāgabhața's son, Ramabhadra, probably also had his kingdom invaded by Devapāla. The next Pratihāra king Bhoja also, in spite of his initial success, suffered reverses at the hands of Devapāla, and could not restore the fortunes of his family so long as the Pala emperor was alive. Thus Devapāla successfully fought with three generations of Pratihāra rulers, and maintained the Pala supremacy in Northern India.[3][4]
Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It is notable because I said so." Industrial Insect (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore WP:RS which has significant coverage about the topic of the article and just say "It is notable because I said so.", wow.
The article is notable for several reasons. First, it has significant coverage from WP:RS. Second, It passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I hope this helps clarify why the article meets the notability criteria. Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article appears to be successfully meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia's Notability guidelines and the issues raised in the nomination do not appear to be evident within the article itself.
Khotanese26 (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two mundane keep votes so far, one from the creator and another from a very new user (?!). For my money, I'd say to delete, as the sources presented in the article, and with my own lookups, led to nothing of substantial use that can justify a rigid keep. X (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2.
  2. ^ Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages.
  3. ^ Majumdar, R. C. (2009). History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume 04, The Age Of Imperial Kanauj. Public Resource. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. pp. 50–51.
  4. ^ Others, Muzaffar H. Syed & (2022-02-20). History of Indian Nation : Ancient India. K.K. Publications. p. 287.

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742)[edit]

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTABILITY. The event is a part of the Maratha invasions of Bengal, and the prelude of First Battle of Katwa. Not much coverage in WP:RS, except some scattered lines. Not enough coverage in reliable sources for an article; and "Plunder of Murshidabad" is WP:OR as such an event is not named by any Historians. Imperial[AFCND] 09:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. The nawabi had since 1740 been ruled by a Turkish adventurer, Alivardi Khan, who had, from the abundant treasury at Murshidabad, sent two crores of rupees to Delhi to secure his nomination as nawab. The British found him ready to sustain the conditions in which business flourished, but he was no match for the Marathas, who swept into Bengal in April 1742 and plundered Murshidabad. Their outfliers caused panic in Calcutta where the Company began to dig the Maratha ditch to keep them out. For the next seven years the golden province of Bengal was afflicted by roving armies, until Alivardi Khan bought off the Marathas by paying chauth of 12 lakhs of rupees a year. The merchants of Calcutta trembled, but one merchant in Bengal saw only advantage in the weakness of formerly powerful Mughal princes in the face of Maratha attack.
3. <ref>{{Cite book |last=Cavaliero |first=Roderick |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BxKJDwAAQBAJ&newbks=0&hl=en |title=Strangers in the Land: The Rise and Decline of the British Indian Empire |date=2002-06-28 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-0-85771-707-8 |language=en}}</ref>
4. There are already articles on Wikipedia which are based on the place name where the event took place and this doesn't violate WP:OR. Akshunwar (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vinegarymass911's findings. Courtesy mentioning @ToadetteEdit as you reviewed the draft at AFC, you could probably provide some thoughts. X (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – passes notability guidelines, per above !votes. ToadetteEdit! 23:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aboli[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aboli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Recreated by likely SOCK after prior deletion discussion. CNMall41 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Previously deleted at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:NTV. There is no notability here. Source like News18 are reliable but has no indepth coverage on the series and the series did not garner significant media coverage. This TV series does not satisfy the notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bajirao's Konkan Campaign[edit]

Bajirao's Konkan Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is entirely based on original research and the synthesis of multiple events involving various states. It discusses military conflicts labeled as "Bajirao's Konkan Campaign," incorporating entities such as the Siddis, Nizam of Hyderabad, the British East India Company, and the Portuguese Empire. However, no reliable sources consider all these entities as belligerent allies against the Marathas during Bajirao I's campaign. The creator has conflated conflicts involving Bajirao with those of other kingdoms/states/entities and inserted "Maratha victory" in the infobox, despite the differing outcomes recorded in historical records. It's unclear what the author intended, but the content of the article largely duplicates information already present in numerous parent articles. This attempt seems to glorify an entity through the use of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, combining unrelated conflicts. Imperial[AFCND] 16:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or draft I have spent days in it so please I would request the closer to draft this page if not keep, I have added reliable sources covering this campaign, if there are possible OR and SYNTH then I'd fix it.
Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:If articles of this kind fall within the scope, we could also maintain an article titled Alexander the Great's Punjab Campaign, alongside Indian campaign of Alexander the Great and Battle of Hydaspes. Ironically, this would involve including both the Achaemenid Empire and the Pauravas in a single infobox!! That would afford everyone an opportunity to express their creativity, but this isn't the appropriate venue for it.--Imperial[AFCND] 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. 6 sources on the page. 2 strong sources are from historians Sinha and Sardesai. 19 page coverage from Sinha and 4 page coverage from Sardesai. I can not verify other 4 sources but with two reliable sources that the page took its help from, is enough for keeping the page and it passes the general notability guidelines. Page does need improvement too. RangersRus (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gauda–Gupta War[edit]

Gauda–Gupta War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If the article focuses solely on the conflicts between the Gauda kingdom and the Guptas, it lacks WP:RS and historians do not consider these mutual campaigns as a single state of war, known as the "Gauda—Gupta War(s)". If we include the mutual conflicts between the Guptas and Gaudas in the article's scope, it becomes a result of original research and the synthesis of multiple conflicts. The conflicts involving Ishanavarman, Jivitagupta I, and Gopachandra are mentioned, but figures such as Kumaragupta III, Dharmaditya, and Samacharadeva are not addressed in the War section, but in the infobox. Upon reviewing the sources, authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus. In essence, the article combines non-notable military conflicts, cited by low-quality sources, involving different kingdoms—the Maukhari dynasty and the Later Gupta dynasty—against the Gauda kingdom, and labels it as the "Gauda—Gupta War". It adds minor conflicts to create the impression of significance, which is not justified. The article fails to meet GNG and contains original research. There are significant issues to address, AFD is limiting the discourse. Imperial[AFCND] 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep @ImperialAficionado There's no synthesis and OR, every cited source comes to the conclusion that Maukharis and later Guptas fought against Gaudas on behalf of the Gupta emperor.
  • It's quite likely that the war of Ishanavarman against the Gaudas whom he had forced to take shelter on the sea shore and the victory of Jivitagupta I over the enemies who stood on the sea-shore, refer to the expeditions launched by the Maukharis and the Later Guptas, separately or jointly, against the kings of Bengal discussed above who had declared their independence of the empire and had assumed the imperial title. Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers undertook these campaigns in the name of the Gupta emperor who was their nominal overlord, though their success increased their own power, and not of the emperor. From Goyal (1967).
  • The people of Gauda (W. Bengal) also achieved prominence, and a Maukhari chief claims to have defeated them. The Later Guptas also fought against some enemies who lived on the sea-shore. The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above, and the military campaigns of the Maukharis and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly or severally, on behalf of the Gupta emperor, their nominal overlord. Majumdar (1970).
Quoting these two should be enough. The other sources are right there, you should have thoroughly verified it before proposing AFD for this article. According to nom it's cited with low quality sources seriously? As far as I know the works of S.R. Goyal, R.C. Majumdar, K.K Dasgupta, H.K Barpujari and others are qualitatively reliable. If nom has any doubt for the cited sources then they should verify those at RSN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi (talk • contribs)
@Jonharojjashi, cited with low quality sources is referring my earlier statement in the proposal authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus, take the time to read the whole proposal reason. The weakness of the statements from the sources are evident from the above quotes, presented by yourself above. It's quite likely that...Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers un... from Goyal and The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above...and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly or from Majumdar. Keeping this weak statements aside, surprisingly I couldn't find any latest records about the event(s).--Imperial[AFCND] 17:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the issue then the article body should reflect the sources whether they have "weak consensus" or not. And that is what I have done in The War section. From what I have seen, many articles are made after being based on even less consensus, like Sasanian–Kushan Wars, you should also see my question regarding this at the help desk [31], and here the sources do say "possibly" so I can do the same in Infobox and article body (basically I'm reflecting what the sources say). Again I don't get what the problem is, just because sources hold weak consensus thus they are of low quality? And you didn't answer where does it contains synthesis and OR. Looks like you didn't even read the article and verify it with the cited sources and stuck to the possilikely words. -- Jonharojjashi (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear. That's why I said AFD is limiting the discourse, I need a bigger space to expose the whole mess within the article. And no need to drag Sasanian–Kushan Wars here. Take that to the respective talk section if you have any problem with it. Imperial[AFCND] 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No that should not be a reason, AFD is what exactly for highlighting all the cons of the article, there's no limiting discourse. Just say you can't show where this article contains synthesis, OR and weak sources. You're free to expose any drawbacks of this page. There's no need to be in the grey area. I'd assume that you're either procrastinating or failing to prove your points.
I'm not dragging Sasanian–Kushan Wars here instead, I cleared your doubts regarding "weak consensus" through it. Don't just throw away it by saying no need to drag.
For other voters: Note that there's an AFD discussion going on their own page [32] and also note that the nom hasn't clearly provided anything to show this article holds any OR, synthesis and weak sources. Jonharojjashi (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Two reliable sources that I can verify the content on the page are from historians R. C. Majumdar and K.K. Dasgupta. Some other sources though are from historians like Sailendra Nath Sen but I can not verify them. Taking the two reliable sources that help with verification, I feel this page passes the general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup[edit]

India at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles are unnecessary WP:CFORKs from the main article 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup, and are not required. We have never created articles for teams at Cricket World Cups before, as they are wholly unnecessary, and just copying content available on other articles, such as 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup and 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup squads. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Australia at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
England at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pakistan at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
South Africa at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The following articles would be suitable as in the T20 World Cup, many matches will be played and in these articles, the readers can read the per match summary, team's tournament progression, tournament kit, scorecard, per team statistics and many more of the respective cricket team at a single article, which is not possible to mention at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup article. Any articles which haven't been created earlier doesn't mean it is unnecessary, there should be an article to record any team's particular tournament edition journey. Wowlastic10 (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tournament summaries should be in the main article anyway, which would cover the important matches and information, so a split out for match summaries for every match including the WP:ROUTINE coverage ones is not required. Tournament kit would be WP:TRIVIA, team statistics sounds like it would violate WP:NOTSTATS/WP:TRIVIA. None of this sounds like encyclopedic content, and just because people create these articles for e.g. IPL teams (which are questionable to do anyway), that doesn't mean they are valid WP:CFORKs for this tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we keep it until first week of T20 World Cup? If you feel it useless then also, then you're free to delete it. What say? Wowlastic10 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be against this, as the onus is to prove that they are valid articles, not keeping in the hope they might be, against any evidence that they'll be anything other than a WP:CFORK with trivia and stats obsessions (like the IPL season articles). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The concept is basically like India at the 2020 Summer Olympics, where pages like India at the Cricket World Cup are split for every edition. This is infact a very important addition to wikipedia and should be made for all teams having played every ICC tournament. Like the IPL teams, county teams; this is a very valuable addition as each page will contain stuff others cant.
I have been working on similar articles in my private space, but havent published them yet as I want to properly finish the thing before publishing.
@Wowlastic10 I would encourage you to make similar articles for all editions of the T20 World Cup. Do remove the words ICC Men’s and make it like India at the 2024 T20 World Cup; following the common name process. Furthermore, include national stats such as viewership, tournament stats of players of that country, pictures, quotes, squad information and match details with some description. Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename these as suggested without WP:RM consensus, as the main article is at 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Also this comment doesn't address WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc
  • Proper matchwise description - not there on any other page
  • More information about reaction of said mactches and tournament in the country
  • Place to add pictures
Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Information on individual players as well. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc - can be added to squad article, as has been done for some 50 over World Cup events.
Proper matchwise description - only needed for notable matches, not those with routine coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a fandom site.
Reactions are mostly trivial and unencyclopedic, and any events/reactions that are actually important can go in the main article.
Lots of pictures violates WP:NOTGALLERY
So none of these are a good reason to create these WP:CFORKs. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup I agree with the nom. I don't see these as being necessary as content for these forks will just be re-hashed details for the main article, and then lists and stats that violate WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS as they will just be random indiscriminate. If a particular team has a 'special' tournament, or gains significant coverage for another reason, then perhaps a fork can then be made, but one for each team is unnecessary, and the comparison to the Olympic articles doesn't wash given how much bigger an event (with loads more events and athletes) than a cricket tournament. We don't have forks for Football World Cup articles for example. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia, and these lists provide extra information about the playing nation than the main article. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per @Wowlastic10, this can be more than a list, and it warrants an article for each country. If the article does not have unique info it can be merged back. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's what I'm saying, thanks for explaining it on my behalf. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia- true, but putting information into various sub articles so people can add stats trivia isn't the best way of displaying it. We have an article on the events and squad articles, and those are the main 2 things about each team anyway. WP:CFORKs are still not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I can see these becoming unnecessary, poor quality, content forks consisting of minimal prose and just scorecards... nothing which can't be included in the main tournament article. AA (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let this discussion end, i'll again start including all the necessary details Wowlastic10 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont mean to bludgeon, but this has high chances of not ending up as a mere stub; per my reasons stated above. Each ipl team gets an annual page for its tournaments, as do the english county teams. This will only broaden and improve wikipedia's scope on the matter, considering the quality of cricket articles on here is way down compared to other sports. Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OSE, just because other events like the IPL get articles like this every year (which I don't agree with anyway), that doesn't mean these should too. Nobody so far has demonstrated why this isn't an unnecessary WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many times a player has played in the tournament - how many matches a swuad member played
    • top 5 batting and bowling averages in the team etc
    • catches and dismissals
    • reaction / outrage / media coverage of tournament and team in said country
    • prizes and awards won by players for performance in tourney
    • explicit knockout stage performances
    I respect your opinion wholeheartedly, but ipl and county teams have existed for long, with some of them featured and good articles. This is an opportunity for editors, who will add more valuable info and like i said, simply broaden wikipedia’s scope. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these things are encyclopedic enough, and no article with them will be a GA or FA if the process for GA or FA is applied properly. County teams don't have season articles and most IPL teams have tables and no prose, which is what these articles are and likely will always be. This is an encyclopedia and not a fandom site. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's easy for a visitor to get all the details about their desired team at one place. I'd say we keep the Teamwise articles and should nominate the Squads article for deletion. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the squads article isn't there, and all the fixtures are instead transcluded from the main page; it won't be a WP:CFORK. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ILIKEIT. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not what I like, it's a suggestion to improve these articles. Vestrian24Bio (U, T, A, C, S) 07:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Squad articles are a cricket standard for these events, and can be expanded easily. These country articles are not standard or needed, swapping one squad article for loads of country articles is not a good solution. Just because it's the sort of thing WP:IPL would do, that doesn't mean other cricket tournament articles should do that. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, pretty much the point. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a deletion discussion about squad articles, that would need a separate consensus (and nominating right now would just further muddy the waters). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. My instinct, as a regular AFD closer is to Redirect these article to the competition which is typically what we do with bundled nominations like this. But I don't see a consensus for this action so that would be a supervote on my part. I'd rather not close this as No consensus so let's see if a few more days of consideration can form a rough consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ajmer[edit]

Battle of Ajmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no such a battle named "Battle of Ajmer" in any of the WP:RS nor any Historians named a battle as "Battle of Ajmer" between Mher tribe and Ghurids. The article body talks about a conflict between Mher tribe and Ghurids, whereas the infobox describes Rajputs as the belligerents. Neither from the source of R. C Majumdar, nor from Romila Thapar, I could even find a scattered line about this event. The actual event per cited is the prelude of Battle of Kasahrada (1197). The current content could be added into this parent article (edit: it is already present the background section). Fails WP:GNG, and not found any RS calling the event by the name of "Battle of Ajmer". Imperial[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Geography, and India. Imperial[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Very Weak Keep. The sources from Majumdar and Thapar, like ImperialAficionado I too could not verify or find on this Battle and would have opted for delete but the source from Dr Ashoka Srivastav from Department of history at University of Gorakhpur had me hanging from where the page got its attribution from. There is need for improvement on this page and some more detail that is missing or wrong about the battle, siege, and the belligerents. From Srivastav Belligerents were Mhers, many Hindu Rajas, Raja of Nagor, Raja of Nahrwala. It does not say Rajputs. More sources will help too. RangersRus (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is rapidly filling up with made-up Indian battles. Mccapra (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag Sinha[edit]

Anurag Sinha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I initially tagged this for UPE for cleanup but after it was challenged by two SPAs, and at the request of one, I dug further into cleanup. The issue is that the references, other than this, are not reliable to show notability. Everything is mentions, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, press releases, churnalism, interviews, or otherwise unreliable. I removed some WP:FAKEREFerences prior but kept everything else in tact so the AfD could be judged based on how it sits currently. CNMall41 (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41
I think you are indulging in provocation to prove you’re correct. Please refer this case to senior editors and administrators for opinion. My knowledge about Wikipedia rules is limited. However this nomination for deletion seems fishy. Hope fellow editors will objectively contribute to sort this, whatever is right.
Request to refer to the Talk Page of Anurag Sinha to understand the case. His notability and credibility is vouched and acknowledged.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixing001 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fixing001, Don't worry this ADF discussion will surely closed by an Administrator of Wikipedia. Grabup (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @CNMall41
I would really like to contest your decision to provocatively send the article for deletion, while I was engaging in a meaningful conversation with you in the talk page. I will also request the inclusion of other editors and administrators to have a look at this case as I feel that this step may have been influenced due to reasons while this could have been avoided certainly for an actor who has a valid presence and calibre in the indian films industry.
Please have a look at the references right from 2008 till 2023 where these references are attributed from TOI, Press Trust of India, ANI News, NDTV, Organisational bodies, Etimes, Recognised Production Houses and International Film Festivals, Directors and fellow actors from the industry of India.
While some citations may come from a list of as you call “Paid Media”, there is a plethora of other google search articles and references in the article where the subject is not in ‘Mentionary terms’, but actuality a major point of interest.
Articles by reputed journalists of India, like Mr Subhash K Jha, Mr Khalid Mohammad and other prominent journalists have done interviews and wrote articles on ‘Anurag Sinha’. His recent Best Actor Award in International Film Festivals is also merited by TOI and PTI, ANI News, The Week, Zee5 News etc.
While, you discredited the article and the subject 2 months earlier accusing of Paid Creation, why did you not send it for deletion then itself when proper cleaning of language and any inkling of promotional intent was also removed by myself.
I had only requested you remove the “paid template” and present any transactional proof made by the user/article subject for creating the page, to which there is still no evidence provided by you. You have stated the ‘creator of the page’ has been flagged, but that does not mean that all articles created by the creator are false and paid, when the merit of this particular artist/actor is recognised by a mass audience and people of his industry.
However, I again repeat that today seems out of hasty decision, you have altered the article by your edits which are not justified. This article is on my watchlist and some removals are uncalled and was not needed at all. While you also have wrongly exercised your rights to put templates and send the page for deletion. Why?
Also, for clarification of my interest in the article, I certainly am interested in the work of actors and indian film industry and will want to contribute positively towards it.
As a responsible Wikipedia editor, I again would address you to clean the page, if you find it dissatisfying. According to me, all current references are reliable third part sources that are not just mentioning, but are talking about the subject or acknowledging the achievements of the subject.
I trust this process and hopefully this matter will be justly resolved. I will also invite other editors and experienced editors to engage in its resolution.
Thanks Fixing001 (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article must be uploaded back and edited with supervision. The article subject is legit. DSTR123 (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that DSTR123 and Fixing001 might be the same individual, given that the DSTR123 account was created today following this nomination and has only posted this comment thus far. Grabup (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup:, They likely are. SPI filed here. I believe the image uploads are a pretty good trail of breadcrumbs. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Based on my checking, I've discovered that sources are only WP:NEWSORGINDIA and press releases, sponsored articles, and interview pieces can't establish notability at all. The individual clearly doesn't meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG due to a lack of comprehensive coverage on the subject. Grabup (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’Keep’’’ - The article subject has a 16year career where he has recently won Best Actor Awards in his field at International Film Festivals in New Jersey and Toronto. The notability can’t be debated with the individual being working with premium indian production houses like Mukta Arts, Emmay Entertainment, Applause Entertainment, T Series etc in leading roles with directors and co-stars who are also having a sterling background.. like Subhash Ghai, Anil Kapoor, Nikkhil Advani, Shefali Shah, Purab Kohli etc. The article references are cited from the premier news agencies of indian media viz..Times of India, HT, Rediff, The Week, Press Trust of India, ANI News, NDTV, Money Control, The Print etc. Mostly all the articles in India media are cited with references from the above agencies, if that’s the case, we may need to delete every article in Indian Films section.

This article must be added with citations available in the public domain and be made available. It’s a KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixing001 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC) struck sock vote --CNMall41 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - There is enough information on public domain for the credibility of the actor. The article needs more citations. Not all artist must have a comprehensive coverage, consistent qualitative work over a sustained period with accreditation from international film festivals and other platforms must be taken in account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E5:1041:EA04:B517:90B9:EDEE:D31E (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions (one for which he was nominated for a FF award; another that received minor awards; which also contributes to prove the roles were significant); his role in P.O.W. – Bandi Yuddh Ke can also be considered significant. So, at least 3. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with other AfD's I have requested this, can you show me the specific references that show notability? Simply having "various significant roles in notable productions" does not grant notability, it only says they "may be considered notable." --CNMall41 (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Here are just some of the articles that are published where the actor is talked and discussed in a positive prominent light and not merely in mentionary terms. This merely are a few articles from only one of the indian publications, Times of India, TOI Entertainment.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/kill-terrorism-not-the-terroristshubash/articleshow/2849557.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anurag-in-black-and-white/articleshow/2917175.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/genres-dont-matter-says-anurag/articleshow/3184943.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/i-think-i-can-handle-the-curiosityanurag/articleshow/2864389.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/actor-anurag-sinha-to-marry-on-nov-19/articleshow/5156245.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anurag-sinha-wins-best-actor-award-feature-for-shadow-assassins-at-alternative-film-festival-toronto-altff-2023/articleshow/104649337.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/subhash-ghai-feels-inspired/articleshow/3973118.cms?_gl


https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/star-plus-p-o-w-bandi-yuddh-ke-gets-3-new-faces/articleshow/56625506.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anil-is-jealous/articleshow/2787866.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/another-honour-for-subhash-ghai/articleshow/3900541.cms?_gl


Again, all this issue of notability was only brought by the editor who flagged the article, when was requested on the Talk page to remove the paid templates as there was no citation of proof for payment by the artist in discussion for a period of two months or so. I still am not clear why is it happening here, where the article on this actor in discussion can easily be expanded with reliable reference and citations that are available on the public domain.

My perspective - The India media is suffering with the malady of copying and publishing information from one source to another and is suffocating genuine talents and films with the issue of paid marketing and publicity. If Wikipedia doesn’t provide a platform like its own of credible acknowledgement to authentic artists/talents, soon must find it surfeit with articles on Arts & Entertainment , that are already influenced and published under bias and discreet funding from production houses. Why are we not calling out the ones overtly known ? As for this article, this feels like a pitiful hassling over an unjust removal of a credible and relevant indian talent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Centrepiece12 (talk • contribs) struck sock vote Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Times of India is totally not reliable when it comes to BLP. They are known for their paid editing and promotional material. See WP:TOI and WP:RSN archives. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I went through all the sources cited in the article. Can't find any that satisfy reliability + independence + significant coverage. Most of the sources are about the movies the subject played a role in, with trivial mentions of him interspersed. I doubt the notability of the movies too, These are sponsored stories [33][34]. This is an interview. So not WP:IS. Alternative Film Festival best actor is not a significant award or honor. The article is just deliberate and malicious refbombing. — hako9 (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep- The article must be reassessed. The references are from the most read publication of India, TOI. Barring a few, the references are credible enough to abide by WP:NACTOR. The actor has worked as protagonists in films that have been notably popular. The present article is acceptably consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40d2:103a:b4e6:2d76:969:3718:41d3 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm not sure about determining consensus as I see editors I respect on both sides of this debate along with a lot of IPs and newcomers. Can we get an essential THREE that can be agreed upon instead of posting dozens of links to bad quality sources? Also editors are advised they need to sign all of their comments with their signatures.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't know where all the "keep" votes are coming from. Anyways, not enough reliable sourcing to establish notability, and there is possible paid editing. HarukaAmaranth 春香 12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poor and unreliable sources. The actor's work has not been significant and unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. RangersRus (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The actor has been honoured with Best Actor awards at Film Festivals and nominated for best actor award at Filmfare, India. Sources as checked are abiding to WP:SIGCOV with sources being secondary and abiding by independence of the subject.References are found to be consistent.References that are not paid and independent sources.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anurag-sinha-wins-best-actor-award-feature-for-shadow-assassins-at-alternative-film-festival-toronto-altff-2023/amp_articleshow/104649337.cms

https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/bollywood/story/anurag-sinha-not-big-b-to-play-sarabjit-in-subhash-ghais-next-215349-2013-10-23

https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/striking-it-hot-with-black-and-white/story-snmGGlHB2ytv86PqxNxauN.html

https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/story/entertainment/anurag-sinha-marry-girlfriend-nov-2568467

https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/subhash-ghai-s-sarabjit-biopic-to-have-newbie-anurag-sinha-as-lead/story-WyHBMQcK21qJf8zcb0mstL_amp.html

https://www.ndtv.com/entertainment/anurag-sinha-to-play-sarabjit-in-subhash-ghais-next-614525/amp/1


The article can be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E4:1047:11C:F8F7:A83:EA0A:22DF (talk)

Same person with a similar IP address rang is repeatedly commenting and voting to Keep the article. The sources provided only offer passing mentions and lack in-depth coverage of the subject. The Times of India is considered unreliable for establishing notability. Probably sockpuppet of @Fixing001. Grabup (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not significant coverage. And read WP:SYNDICATED before posting gazillion sources that are from IANS churnalism. — hako9 (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is satisfactorily credible and seems factual to the achievements of the actor. The actor has worked in lead roles in successful Indian films and shows with respectable directors and production houses. Confirms to WP:NPACTOR WP:GNG. Many of the references are reliable and credible sources of information in the Indian media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40C4:101D:80A8:8000:0:0:0 (talk • contribs)
Again, vote from the same IP range, with the same type of comment, and without providing any sources. This AfD is being targeted by the creator or a team who were paid to retain the article, or the subject himself is doing this. These IP votes should be avoided. GrabUp - Talk 13:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found similar, listings, name mentions, promo, nothing that meets WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong independent reliable sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  12:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mutta (tribe)[edit]

Mutta (tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sources to show notability - I am aware this isn't my area though or language. Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 5 results show up if you search "Mutta people" on Google Books. [35] They do exist, but maybe they are a small community (I don't know) and not much has been written about them. However, I found 5 results on Google books alone. I haven't checked other venues like Scholar etc. If this is a keep, maybe changing it to Mutta people.Tamsier (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Mutta tribe definitely exists, i've been able to find some mentions of them on JSTOR and Google Scholar. Samoht27 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 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) 05:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No sources on the page and a simple search did not show result on a Mutta tribe. I did find a Google book that talks about Muttadari System of Bhagatha tribe but that is different than the tribe on the page. Some more sources about Muttas in Australia. I did not find any source that would give an option to draftify the page for improvement. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolkur Sadashivapet Indian Railways

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/India&oldid=1224275043"