Gpedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

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

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

India

Jatin Sial

Jatin Sial (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Has been deleted before twice, once only a year and a half ago, and all five references appear to be interviews. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

C10H14N2 (film)

C10H14N2 (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Non-notable unreleased film, no evidence production ever began on film, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 23:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

ISKCON Temple, Ujjain

ISKCON Temple, Ujjain (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Lack of detailed coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NBUILDING. Sources are travel sites or promotional press statements in newspaper. Venkat TL (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Bala Ram Moodh

Bala Ram Moodh (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Not a notable politician. Subject's main claim to prominence is as a state representative, that in itself doesn't warrant an article. Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NPOL. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

thank you for notifying the issues, I have made some changes in it and add some sources to it. Now working on it to make it more suitable to wiki. User:mukesh.kfc (User talk:Mukesh.kfc) 16:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Mukesh.kfc (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mukesh.kfc what is your relation with Bala Ram Moodh? Venkat TL (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

No relation User:mukesh.kfcMukesh.kfc (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete: No indication of meeting NPOL or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Kaka Muhammad Umar

Kaka Muhammad Umar (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 · NYT · WP Library)

No significant coverage and the article was created by a blocked user. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Pelli Chesi Choodu (1988 film)

Pelli Chesi Choodu (1988 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 · NYT · WP Library)

One of myriad articles mindlessly created by B.Bhargava Teja. Lacks reliable sources, and I was unable to find any. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Sanjeev Nag

Sanjeev Nag (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Not notable by either WP:GNG or WP:NFILMMAKER standards. Unable to find any suitable coverage, though it is possible someone more familiar with Indian sources would be more successful. — Goszei (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The Company (production company)

The Company (production company) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Completely unsourced since 2013; does not meet WP:NCOMPANY, WP:GNG. I can find no coverage of this company. Admittedly, searching for "The Company" is rather difficult, considering the generic name. The only indication that I can find that this company even exists is from their Facebook page. – Pbrks (t • c) 18:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sreejith Guruvayur

Sreejith Guruvayur (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 · NYT · WP Library)

A makeup artist with no evidence of notability and fails WP:GNG. Also the article does not have a single reliable source. Onmyway22 talk 16:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Madhumita G Das

Madhumita G Das (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Insufficient reliable sources to show that this person meets WP:NACTOR. I moved the article to Draft:Madhumita G Das, but author recreated the article again without working on the Draft. I indicated the problem in a PROD, but the PROD was removed without explaination. Singularity42 (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Rohan Prasad

Rohan Prasad (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Non-notable youth footballer. Fails WP:NFOOTY. The only reference provided does not return a result. Searching the source site for Rohan Prasad only returns high school teams. Cabayi (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete It is not notable and does not pass either WP:GNG.--Tysska (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Dellete, fails NFOOTY and GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is eligible for A7, there is no credible claim of significance there - the random IP removing the tag that the author removed multiple times is rather suspect... Girth Summit (blether) 16:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Reviewing Footballers. SN54129 16:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
That's a strange reason, since Reviewing Footballers is the one fighting for this article. Geschichte (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not meet any Gpedia guideline. Any further single-purpose accounts showing up to remove the AFD template from this article, will be blocked indefinitely on sight. Geschichte (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NFOOTY. Lack of coverage in Media. Every footballer cannot have a Gpedia article. This is not social media. Venkat TL (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - can't find any WP:SIGCOV, no claim to notability Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails all Gpedia notability guideline Footy777 (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Snow delete since the person clearly fails Fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL Etc. Etc. and I really doubt this will be kept since there's zero keep votes. So it might as well be snow deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Apur Sangsar (TV series)

Apur Sangsar (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Non-notable show. Most of the sources are unreliable. Shinnosuke15, 13:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Peshawar (1758)

Battle of Peshawar (1758) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

There seems to be some doubt about many of the sources, others do not seem to even mention this battle. Does it in fact have more than one line in any of these sources, was this a major battle? Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hell many of them seem to just list it as one of a number of cities captured, so was there even battle?Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect/Merge' to Maratha conquest of North-west India by using a source like this one. Extorc (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    It seems no source says a battle occurred there, so I am unsure this would be a used search term. This looks made up by the article creator. What seems to have happened is the city was captured, but that could mean anything. So if there was a merge/redirect it would also have to have name change.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    In agreement as well. Change the title to Capture of Peshawar (1758), delete the page and direct the title to another page suitable for it. MehmoodS (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - Nominator has removed 4 sources, while only one source was the disputed one. I have reinstated 3 sources back. This battle is an important battle, which shows the maximum extent of the Maratha Empire in the north. One source [1] clearly mentions there was an attack, though nominator claims there was no battle. I could not access other book sources quoted as they are not available on google books preview. Crashed greek (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    Of the sources that were removed, only one seemed to be about this one "battle" and it seems to not be an RS. The rest just refer to the capture of the city, not a battle. None were more than a line, no in-depth coverage from which we could create an article. Note your source here does not say it was attacked, it says it was captured.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    It clearly says attacked, the exact quote "The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758." is clearly mentioned in the ref. Peshawar was a big city, so your claim that it was occupied by Marathas as it was abandoned is wrong. Also another source [2] clearly mentions that it was stationed by Afghan Emperor's son Taimur Sultan and Jahan Khan were at Peshawar. Crashed greek (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    Also you have wrongly tagged a source of 2005 book source, which was published before wikipedia article was created, while the reliability issue was with another book. So I have removed the tag, and put back the disputed source book too but with the tag you you have inserted. Crashed greek (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
So (and let me get this straight, they attacked 3 cities all at once and fought one battle between them that lasted a month? No they are not, they are talking about a campighn where 3 cities were captured, that does not mean there was a battle there (read wp:or). In fact this whole article looks like, ORSlatersteven (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The source above says Emperor's son and Jahan Khan had retreated to Peshawar, after seige of Sirhindh in March and Lahore was captured in April. And Peshawar also was overrun by Marathas in May. I was able to verify one more source now using google search, [3][1] I have added the exact quotes with page numbers now. Crashed greek (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - Also nominator is now trying to move the article to Capture of Peshwawar (1758), after nominating here for deletion. He is trying multiple things with the same article to see which one works. Crashed greek (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    No, I said that as there does not appear to have been a battle (and no source says there was one) even as a redirect we would have to use what people would be looking for, which is the capture of the city.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    The one source clearly said it as battle has been called as disputed using a wikipedia essay. Essays are not wikipedia policies. You have sided with that claim without any justifications. Other sources mention Peshawar fort as attacked, overrun. That is not the same as captured as you claim. Crashed greek (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    As I recall the source did not say it was a battle they just gave the date it had been captured. Would you care to provide a quote from an RS that says there was a battle THERE? Using the word Battle or similar termSlatersteven (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Cybage

Cybage (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 · NYT · WP Library)

The page of this entity is an end-to-end WP:PROMO. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND. Also, there is no encyclopedic value of this page. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Ebix Smartclass

Ebix Smartclass (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Coverage are press releases, passing mentions, or routing coverage. Does not seem to meet WP:NCORP. Could be redirected to Ebix. MarioGom (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment: There is a lot of repetition about the ownership history across the Educomp Solutions, Ebix Smartclass Educational Services and this article, all of which are recently created by the same editor. Despite that weight of content, it is probably worth considering the present article as being about the SmartClass product and assessing any notability in that respect. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Ebix Smartclass Educational Services

Ebix Smartclass Educational Services (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Coverage are press releases, passing mentions, or routing coverage. Does not seem to meet WP:NCORP. Could be redirected to Ebix. MarioGom (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Memories (upcoming film)

Memories (upcoming 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Memories (upcoming film), also known as Theengirai

This unreleased film seems to be in post-production limbo. There is nothing in this article that satisfies general notability or the current poorly written wording of future film guidelines. Review of the references shows that they are the sort of typical advance publicity for films, which are not considered either significant or secondary. One of the references refers to release of the film in April 2021 or May 2021.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 CinemaExpress Announcement of film No No Yes No
2 TimesofIndia Advance mention of film No No No consensus No
3 CinemaExpress Discussion of casting - Mentions release that is planned in April 2021 or May 2021 No No Yes No
4 ManoramaOnline Glamour photos of leading lady No No Yes No
5 ETVBharat.com Discussion of teaser in June 2021 No No Yes No
6 TimesofIndia Another advance mention of film No No No consensus No
7 TimesofIndia Yet another advance mention of film No No No consensus No
8 Cinema.Maalaimalar.com Advance discussion of film No No ? No
9 Cinema.Vikatan.com Interview with actor No No ? No
10 TimesofIndia An interview with actor No No No consensus No
11 TimesofIndia A story about a different film No No No consensus No

This article was proposed for deletion by User:Donaldd23 in July 2021, stating: "Non notable future film, fails WP:NFF as production wasn't notable. Should be deleted or moved to draftspace until release and then notability can be established." The PROD was removed and a small expansion was made, but it still does not establish notability prior to release. I concur with the recommendation of the PROD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Kaushal Srivastava

Kaushal Srivastava (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 · NYT · WP Library)

I don't think he meets either WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR to the best of my ability to determine, although there may be sources in other languages I'm not finding. Most of the links on the page establish his existence, but not his notability. PianoDan (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)



  • Keep

Hi there, and thanks for willing to discuss the deletion of this page. I have found a few more sources that I believe prove his notability as a professor, I will reference them here [4] [5]. Both of these sources outline that Professor Srivastava led the university's theoretical and research physics department, with an emphasis on research of theoretical solid-state physics. While in this role, Professor Srivastava developed novel theories regarding spin lattice relaxation in magnetic ion-pairs 9 diners, vibronic coupling in paramagnetic systems, and super paramagnetic relaxation 9 magnetism in nano-particles. These theories are still cited to this day.

This source [6] outlines that Professor Srivastava was the first to use a particular quantum mechanic model in order to determine a particle's suitability for recording. Professor Srivastava was invited to the Symposium on Condensed Matter Physics in 2004 to speak about his findings, and to discuss the ramifications of such a discovery. This source [7] is a book published in 1989 and distributed throughout India, the USA, and Canada outlining major advances in material physics. Research undertaken by Professor Srivastava is included and discussed in this book, namely his work on orbit lattice interaction for iron ions within insulators. The Australian Institute of Physics, in conjunction with ANU explored several pieces of groundbreaking work at their inaugural Congress, and research by Professor Srivastava was recognised at a national level for its novel discoveries [8] (to view, source will need to be downloaded).

These sources above are not cited on the Gpedia page, although I will add them if that's best. Further sources are available, but the ones that I have mentioned here are just a selection of what's available online. As Professor Srivastava did much of his work 20+ years ago in India, many sources aren't available in English on the internet, but in print. Most sources will be online, but there may be certain printed sources in Hindi that aren't accessible at the moment. I am happy to do further research to find these sources. From the sources I have compiled while drafting the Gpedia page (as well as the sources that I have outlined above) I believe that Professor Srivastava meets several of the notability guidelines.

I appreciate being able to discuss this page with you all. And sorry if I haven't formatted this correctly, this is my first time going through the AfD process!

References

  1. ^ a b Barua, Pradeep (2005). The state at war in South Asia. University of Nebraska Press. p. 55. ISBN 9780803213449. The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758.
  2. ^ War, Culture and Society in Early Modern South Asia, 1740-1849
  3. ^ Mehta, Jaswant Lal (2005). Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813. New Dawn Press, Incorporated. p. 256. ISBN 9781932705546. "The province of Multan and northwest frontier were also overrun by Marathas and the forts of Peshawar and Attock were garrisoned by their troops"
  4. ^ "University Department of Physics Overview". Tilka Majhi University.
  5. ^ "Tilka Majhi Department of Physics". IndCareer.
  6. ^ "Magnetic Relaxation in nanoparticles of iron oxides: magnetic recording applications". Symposium on Condensed Matter Physics.
  7. ^ Advances in Physics of Materials. Scholarly Publications. ISBN 817019346X.
  8. ^ "Physics for the nation" (PDF).

Rohagr (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Rohagr

The quickest way to establish notability is to cite a source that expressly shows that he has met one of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC, and say which criteria you're pointing to. For example "Source X shows that he holds the rank of 'Distinguished Professor' at notable university Y". The sources you've posted here establish that he 1. & 2. is indeed a physics professor, 3. has published a paper, 4. has written a book, 5. presented a paper at a conference. However, none of those are sufficient to establish notability. Ideally, you'd like to see some coverage in secondary sources outside of strictly conference papers and academic journals, but that's not mandatory if you can establish sufficient importance to the field.
Alternately, you could look for a source that meets one of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR, establishing his notability as a poet. In that case, you would almost certainly needed to find signficant coverage in secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
comment Thanks for these tips! Just for the sake of clarity - Professor Srivastava didn't write the book that is cited as source 4. His research was discussed at length in the book by authors that are entirely independent of Professor Srivastava, and was categorised as being a significant advance in modern physics. Just so I know I'm looking for the right things, what are the guidelines for establishing sufficient importance to the field? It seems like a fairly subjective criterion, so I was wondering whether there are a set of pointers or rules to help establish this.
Rohagr (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Rohagr
Sure - if you look down the page at WP:NACADEMIC, there's detailed discussions of each criterion. PianoDan (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. I am really not seeing the citation profile to support NPROF C1 on Scopus, which shows him with just 327 citations and h-index of 9. Being invited to speak at general symposia and conferences doesn't count towards notability. His research was discussed at length in the book by authors that are entirely independent of Professor Srivastava The only place I'm seeing his research discussed at length in this book (or rather, these proceedings of a workshop) is in the chapter he wrote, which is not by independent authors. JoelleJay (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hamdard (NGO) Ramban

Hamdard (NGO) Ramban (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 · NYT · WP Library)

There are several issues with this article. 1. No significant coverage about the organization itself in any of the sources, most are passing mentions. 2. Puffery and attempts at promotion with too many images. Statements across the article are repetitive in nature. 3. No COI declared by article creator, have also removed the tag added to article. Removed PROD without fixing the issues. Previous attempts at creating the article has been speedy deleted per user/talk page. MT TrainTalk 14:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yash Dhull

Yash Dhull (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Going with the logic of AssociateAffiliate - "We don't have articles on under-19 cricketers. For a cricketer to have an article they must meet WP:NCRIC which states a player has to have played a first-class/List A/Twenty20 match to be included. Dhull doesn't meet this criteria. PS: Why was this article accepted at AfC without checking the relevant project criteria?". - Hatchens (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Devonian Wombat, your opinion is crucial here because you have accepted this article at AfC. Feel free to put your views. -Hatchens (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Devonian Wombat - Aren't the first and thirds of those interviews? Not independent coverage unfortunately, since the information in them comes form the interviewee. One more non-interview source and I'd happily vote keep. FOARP (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
No, those articles are pretty clearly not interviews as they are not formatted as one, with the journalist asking questions and the person responding. This is an example of an interview, the act of including a quote in an article does not make it an interview. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why was the PROD removed to start an AfD? Totally unnecessary. Firstly, WP:NCRIC is not completely irrelevant, we have project inclusion criteria for a reason. Secondly, the coverage is from interviews, so coverage is not independent and lacks anything beyond routine coverage. Under-19 cricket is not played to a substantial enough level where the ICC even affords the matches any level of status, so we must stick rigidly to what the ICC define as important matches, and thus people playing in these matches must mirror that criteria. StickyWicket (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. And where is the consistency? This stub is little different to the stubs Lugnuts was creating, for players who actually have played at a senior level, yet they were deemed 'sub-standard'. StickyWicket (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - there are sources - and quite good ones; the problem is that he hasn't done anything particularly notable yet. It's close, but I don't think this is a suitable subject for a standalone article - certainly not in it's current form anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Agree with BST on this one. There's sources on this guy and a couple of articles which could potentially pass him for GNG in the article and in a search, however they tend to relate to him being named as India U19 captain, which is a bit WP:ONEEVENT at this stage. The guy may well on to play notably in FC/LA/T20 cricket or even internationally, however at this stage I don't think he's ready for an article unless more GNG passing sources turn up. Not seeing a suitable WP:ATD here either, and that may also prevent article creation in the future. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Mandar Agashe

Mandar Agashe (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Procedural listing per close of Gpedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 2. No opinion from me. Daniel (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Neutral for now. It does seem to have the hallmarks of paid editing. Deb (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete (tentative vote). A laundry list of sources have been provided in the DRV linked by Daniel. @SmokeyJoe: checked a few of them and found them passing mentions and/or not indepedent. I've independently clicked on about 5 sources there or in the article itself and felt the same. It's possible there's wheat among the chaff or other better sources available, but someone will need to make a WP:THREE argument if that's the case. Martinp (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Deepika Pilli

Deepika Pilli (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Non-notable actress. Fails WP:NACTRESS. Declined twice at AfC but the author bypassed review and moved the draft to mainspace. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

EduKart

EduKart (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Not notable enough. RPSkokie (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RPSkokie (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertisement of a non-notable company fails WP:GNG, Coverage is WP:ROUTINE and PR. DMySon (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was thinking this could be mentioned in its parent company Paytm's page, but there's really nothing here to merge. It's all routine. FalconK (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete as the coverage about this is made up of extremely trivial passing mentions. None of it seems to be in-depth enough to pass WP:NCORP. The PR isn't really helpful either. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Leaning delete but could be wrong. My initial feeling was the same as Adamant1's. But how about [1] and [2]. They're paywalled, and I personally don't understand which media are editorially independent in the Indian market, but they look like they may be more than passing mentions. Martinp (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

WizIQ

WizIQ (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Not notable. Just a promotional page. RPSkokie (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Mindspark

Mindspark (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Not notable enough. RPSkokie (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. The Times of India source cited is a dependent source (interviews with executives) and this is a WP:PROMO. FalconK (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

List of British people in India

List of British people in India (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 · NYT · WP Library)

This article started under the title British in India, about some aspect of British rule in India [3]. Somehow, at some point, it became a list of "British people who were born in India or lived there at any point", which it still is, and which is clearly not an unencyclopedic topic. Even if we were to limit the scope to just "British people born in India", I don't think that would be a valid list; there are no other "List of X people born in Y" articles.

Perhaps British people in India, i.e. people of British descent currently living in India, could be a notable topic, like British people in Pakistan, but nothing in the current article or its history is useful for that, so in that case it would be better to start over. Scratch that: Anglo-Indian people already covers that topic. Lennart97 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

GRT Jewellers

GRT Jewellers (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 · NYT · WP Library)

pure advertising. The references consist of pr and promotional interviews. Fails NCORP, but would have failed out standards even in 2011. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete. The company does not have any notability and it sounds like its a paid article. HelpingWorld (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Hindu is a very reputable newspaper in India per its RSP entry, and it does look like the subject has significant coverage in one of the sources from that newspaper (this one). However, the Gpedia article we're looking at here is quite poorly-written, promotional in tone, and doesn't really seem like it has a lot going for it in terms of notability, so it's hard to get really stoked about keeping it. jp×g 03:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Shaji Chaudhary

Shaji Chaudhary (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Non notable actor. No major roles as an Actor. Not enough news coverage for qualifying notability. Article created by a blocked user. IndaneLove (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Male Rao Holkar

Male Rao Holkar (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 · NYT · WP Library)

The article is not notable. It only cites one source. I can't find any reliable source which gives information about Male Rao Holkar in depth.

Guddi (TV series)

Guddi (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 · NYT · WP Library)

WP:TOOSOON and WP:UPE. The only sources are press releases of a projected series. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shinnosuke15: I can only see that the show seems to have started filming as per the Times of India reference in Darjeeling as per the article. 2402:3A80:1A4A:7B3E:F7A6:372B:9AA2:A57D (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
But sources confirm only three cast members without the names of the characters. And any of them doesn't mention the name of the show. That is my concern. Shinnosuke15, 05:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: The name of the show is out in Anandabazar Patrika as Guddi. See this. 2402:3A80:6F7:58C2:B15F:4BB8:A996:D544 (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - Falls under WP:TOOSOON, and the article seems promotional in nature. Tosi | they/them | t/c 20:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep: The article is developed and it clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NTV, plus it is supported by press notable and reliable press releases too. Deleting such an article will be a great loss to the encyclopedia. The creator of the article has created many articles, and all are of well quality and up at mainspace, and admins have not brought any concern either. None of them has been deleted. Though there can be a case of paid editing, but the article is of good quality and passes Gpedia's quality standards. So, the article can be kept, as there is nothing wrong with the article. A topic ban for the creator can be another alternative of deleting the article. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    There is nothing in the draft to show that WP:GNG is met, and press releases never count towards notability. AfD is not the place to discuss topic bans (and it wouldn't be an alternative to deletion anyway.) --bonadea contributions talk 08:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Bonadea Well, I wonder if it would have landed in AFD, if I would not have brought specific attention to the article. It is unlikely that foreign editors who don't understand Bengali, understand that is WP:TOOSOON, especially when there are so many sources now. If we would not have pointed out, that it was toosoon, I doubt it would have ever ended up in AFD. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 06:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure about the deletion of the article. There are reliable sources which proves about the show, but none of them mention the name 'Guddi'. If the article does not get deleted before the official announcement of the show, my vote is keep. Shinnosuke15, 04:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
As per the creator they mentioned February 2022 (next month) as the start date but we dont have any reliable source to verify it. 2402:3A80:1A4A:7B3E:F7A6:372B:9AA2:A57D (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@Shinnosuke15 It does now. See this. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 06:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Itcouldbepossible: The source says that the name can be changed. Shinnosuke15, 13:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete – none of the sources indicates notability; in fact, none of the sources would be used in an article about a clearly notable topic. --bonadea contributions talk 08:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON; sources do not meet WP:NTV. Miniapolis 23:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Draftify it is too soon as the comments above indicate, but with production about to start, I have no issue with incubation/work by independent editors to prepare for it to move back should it become notable. Star Mississippi 16:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agletarang (talkcontribs) 19:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: Concur with reasoning from nominator. This is WP:TOOSOON without the sources needed to show notability. Given the lack of sources, the impressive detail almost certainly comes from someone connected to the show, WP:COI and WP:PAID are very possible. An option would be to move this to draft with the requirement that an established reviewer must accept this. This needs far better sourcing and information - a good review section would be very helpful. Right now though, WAYYY too soon. Ravensfire (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom and other voters. This obviously does NOT meet the GNG, and rather than this being a "great loss" to the encyclopedia -- rather a farcical bit of hyperbole -- I'd suggest rather that losing this NN article is a loss practically no one will ever notice. No objection to draftification though, and indeed nothing prevents the creator from doing so. Ravenswing 17:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Draftify I have moved the page to draft as it is not on a good place to be on mainpage, hope users will add more references soon after the project shares any teaser of the show. ... २ तकरपेप्सी talk 21:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@२ तकर पेप्सी: Don't move pages before the discussion is closed. You are not supposed to take your own decision. Know the rules before you act next time. 2402:3A80:1A48:F5F2:430B:2659:78F3:E93B (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@2402:3A80:1A48:F5F2:430B:2659:78F3:E93B: Thankyou for your guidance I was not aware of this that before closing an discussion I can't move it to the draft, thanks. ... २ तकरपेप्सी talk 07:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Aamir Khan Productions

Aamir Khan Productions (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Page is currently a catalog that roughly reproduces Aamir Khan filmography. The two critical appraisals of the body of work (this and this) belong there as well. Other sources available amount to nothing more significant than routine announcements and thus do not pass WP:NCORP. hemantha (brief) 05:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete since it fails the notability guidelines for companies. The only thing that might work for notability is films that they have produced being notable, but most of their films aren't notable and the article would still have to be more then a glorified directory listing even if there was more then only a few films that are notable. At this points essentially what it is though, a glorified directory listing of trivial information. So I'm going with delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Conflicting Resonance

Conflicting Resonance (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 · NYT · WP Library)

I found no significant coverage for this band. SL93 (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 04:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

1963 in Nagaland

1963 in Nagaland (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Perhaps, Gpedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are no secondary reliable sources discussing events of 1963 in particular in this Indian state of Nagaland as a topic of scholarly interest. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I definitely agree on lack of notability. Seeing as there's no real ATD it seems like the only option at hand is delete. TartarTorte 19:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@The Anonymous Earthling – Hi! I understand that you created all these articles in good faith, to improve the coverage of Nagaland on Gpedia. But, the articles have nothing other than few dates and officeholders, and that does not help the encyclopedia. The argument presented in your keep vote is something which should be avoided in a deletion discussion (See WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). If you want to contribute to the history of Nagaland, better improve this article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
In that case, you can also nominate 1963 in India, 1963 in the United States, etc because these articles also have nothing other than few dates and officeholders. User:The Anonymous Earthling (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll still wait to see what the outcome of this discussion is before nominating other similar articles of Nagaland. I think "1963 in the United States" has some coverage in relevant sources ([4]), but the existence of that article should not be a reason to keep this. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I would argue that the completeness of the US and India article is more reason to keep than the Nagaland article. There is no 1963 in New York for example. I don't like jumping into WP:WAX arguments that much, but I feel that is more apples-to-apples comparison within WAXy territory. TartarTorte 13:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Like every other Indian state, Nagaland is unique (different race, religion, lifestyle, etc). Would be bias if this is not included. We also have countless other similar sub-national articles like 2018 in New York City, 2014 in Maharashtra, etc User:The Anonymous Earthling —(talk) 10:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
No, that would not be biased. We have article on September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market, that does not mean we should create articles for every other month. We don't look for completeness, we look for notability. Do you have any sources which asserts that "1963 in Nagaland" is a topic of scholarly research? I can simply take any newspaper for any random date, and create article for any month, but that would not make it notable. Nagaland is of-course a unique state, but that does not make the article in question notable. And if there are other articles, non-notable as this is, they all would eventually be deleted. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the articles listed, 2018 in New York City is not notable and I'll be AfDing that shortly. 2014 in Maharashtra should also probably be AfD'd to be honest. None of these articles are really notable enough for their own article. TartarTorte 14:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete There are not sufficient sources that provide significant coverage that demonstrates that this year, in his state, is sufficiently notable for a Gpedia article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep, list articles like this makes it easier to find a particular article based on years and also the expand list section indicates that there are more notable events that might be included in the future. YticagaS (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

14 Reels Plus

14 Reels Plus (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Sources in the page (and the numerous others on the web) are all routine announcements of movies they produced. Apart from this news bit, I couldn't find anything that meets WP:NCORP. Company website itself is dead. hemantha (brief) 12:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for linking the WP:NCORP article. I agree that the sources provided are mostly announcement of movies. I recommend adding the Template:Notability on it for a while instead of nominating it for deletion, so that we get some time to fix the article and make it compliant. I found some more articles apart from the one you linked that might meet WP:NCORP. The production company is still currently active in Telugu cinema. They make notable movies in Telugu cinema and even have some movies scheduled for release in 2022. Thanks - krZna (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
You could list the sources here (or even better add it to the article) so that they can be evaluated. I'll withdraw the nom if there is significant coverage. It's a 12 year old company and the page has existed for 10 years; I doubt a tag would bring forth new sources. hemantha (brief) 05:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Greater Bangladesh

Greater Bangladesh (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 · NYT · WP Library)

There is no concept of Greater Bangladesh that includes the entire Northeast India. The lead says this is a conspiracy theory. This does not belong in Gpedia Chaipau (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 02:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep, this appears to be a very well-documented conspiracy theory that is easily passes WP:GNG, the article could perhaps be renamed to “Greater Bangladesh conspiracy theory” but there’s no reason to delete. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

New Delhi Times (newspaper)

New Delhi Times (newspaper) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Advertisement of a fake news website pretending to be a 30 year old newspaper, note that the editor who has been restoring the advertisement version has only ever edited/created or tried to create pages related to its parent company, i.e the Srivastava Group. There are bunch of advertisements on the net for this website, some disclosed and others undisclosed. See this disclosed one in The Print, parts or whole of which can be seen reproduced in the undisclosed ones. The only independent coverage from RS is in the form of passing mentions in the coverage of Srivastava Group, which has acquired a bunch of defunct, unused and misleading domains and repurposed them as part of a disinformation network.

See these articles about the group in The Hindu, CBC, or BBC, etc for context. Quoting from the latter, "Some suspected Russian interference, but EU Disinfo Lab, which is an independent NGO, traced the servers behind the website to Srivastava Group. The researchers then uncovered a vast network of English language fake sites serving India's lobbying interests. Many of the fake websites use names of defunct newspapers to provide a veneer of credibility. EU Disinfo Lab have dubbed these "zombie" sites, because the names were resurrected from dead media outlets. For example, one of the sites is called Manchester Times ... The IINS is based at the same address in Delhi as Srivastava Group and an obscure media outlet called New Delhi Times. BBC News Hindi reporter Kirti Dubey visited the address and was told by a security guard there was no office in the building. A neighbour who had lived in the area for 40 years told her he had never seen anyone in the house. Srivastava Group did not respond to the BBC's attempts to request comment by phone and email. When Indian media reported the publication of EU Disinfo Lab's initial findings in November, the New Delhi Times' editor in chief Ankit Srivastava tweeted that Pakistan's intelligence services were trying to tarnish him, although he provided no evidence." Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There isn't any guideline prohibiting misinformation or disinfo entities from having their own page in the articlespace, (for e.g., The Onion); it is just that there isn't any established notability based on what was cited. Also, Disinfo.eu is not a reliable source and so the report should not be considered in this AfD nom. Multi7001 (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
We are not citing the report but its coverage by BBC, The Hindu, AL-Jazeera, NYT etc. Claiming The Onion to be a misinfo/disinfo site also shows that you don't really understand what those words mean. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Any mention by BBC of disinfo should be considered. The page may need to be rewritten entirely. Also, the Onion publishes satirical articles; however, some users are not aware and spread the content as if it is genuine news stories, resulting in unwitting deception. Some younger users too, however, tend to use the articles for more deliberate spread. Multi7001 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Ahh, but the Onion exists. The evidence is that the New Delhi Times is not a real entity, just part of a cover for a disinformation campaign run by a central group along with many other fake newspapers. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
It would be irrational from my end to make such a determination, since I do not have much recognition of the subject. Reporting from the CBC, BBC, and The Hindu are what will and should steer this AfD nom process. Multi7001 (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete I thought that was a real site. It will need to be checked and removed from WP. scope_creepTalk 19:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    Turns out Fake news in India mentions the New Delhi Times but didn't link to the wiki entry New Delhi Times (newspaper) rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Jeez, how did it survive for more than eight years? ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with nom, kept under the radar for so long. Nice catch. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: The first source, Daily Excelsior, is somewhat reliable but only contains a small amount of info on the subject. And the second source, OrissaPost, is practically an unreliable source. Insufficient reliable sources and SIGCOV confirming that the subject is both authoritative and a legitimate Indian media entity. Multi7001 (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • ′′′KEEP′′′: The Newspaper is one of the oldest newspaper's in India and looking at the newspaper's article there have been no fake news published. It is suggested that all the WIKIPEDIA experts before suggesting for the deletion should find news or articles from the website and tell which news is fake. If all the WIKIPEDIA experts are suggesting the news published on Pakistan is fake news, then they need to please highlight which articles and exactly what in the articles are FAKE News. And the WIKIPEDIA expert who has nominated for deletion has only used those articles written and published by Pakistani Origin Journalist , which can supported by evidence. This is just a simple case of propaganda war which is being initiated by some users who seem to be having one sided approach. I understand that this will also seem to be one sided approach, but no one seems to consider the real facts, that New Delhi Times, has not published any fake media, which any one is able to prove. Without any evidence of Fake News published by New Delhi Times, you are just maligning the reputation and goodwill of the media outlet that it has established over so many years. Delhiwikiwriter (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2022
Please provide a reference that states it is one of India's oldest newspapers. Multi7001 (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

(UTC)DelhiwikiwriterDelhiwikiwriter (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  • See Gpedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#New Delhi Times (newspaper) for the discussion about this user. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 15:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:NORG lack of coverage, and above comments. This is not the old newspaper. New newspaper is not notable. Venkat TL (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete fake news, WP:HOAX. Skyerise (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: The mainstream sources describing disinfo should be considered to both counteract the info inputted in the page and to establish its notability as a fake news website. It may need more reliable sources for it to meet WP:GNG as a fake news source, like for example InfoWars. Any negation of the credible reporting by the CBC or BBC as a disinfo entity lacks rationality and logic, and should not be taken seriously in the AfD process, unless there are reliable sources that counteract their reporting. Multi7001 (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. and describe proerly, and if necessary protect. This. is the sort of information people could reasonably look for here, but we should get it right. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    I somewhat agree. The problem is there are so many sites in this network. Perhaps protected redirects to Fake news in India or Fake news in India#Fake news against Pakistan. or even Srivastava Group (though this page already points there) with the full information. At the very least, the current version should suffer WP:TNT, imho. --SVTCobra 02:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    That may have been possible if there was more coverage of the particular website, at best it can exist as part of an article on the Srivastava Group (which I do think should be possible to create) but otherwise this is far from meeting WP:GNG or WP:NMEDIA. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Nidhish Kutty

Nidhish Kutty (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Worked in only 3 movies, not significant coverages. PQR01 (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Faisal Rashid (actor)

Faisal Rashid (actor) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Beyond cast lists, role announcements and an agency interview, I couldn't find any source, let alone reliable ones, covering the subject. hemantha (brief) 09:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Namashi Chakraborty

Namashi Chakraborty (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Does not meet WP:NACTOR as the person is yet to debut. Also lacks significant coverage to meet GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Languages of the Indian subcontinent

Languages of the Indian subcontinent (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 · NYT · WP Library)

As made clear from this discussion, there isn't scope for a separate article from Languages of South Asia. This should be redirected there. – Uanfala (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The lede also contains untenable errors such as the statement excluding Austro-Asiatic languages (which are firmly entrenched in the areal linguistics of the Indian subcontinent). There is no scholarly definition of Indic that makes them "less Indic" than Indo-Aryan or Dravidian languages.Austronesier (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep or move. Like Usedtobecool has pointed out above, there is still confusion as to what the title of the page should be. Since South Asia and Indian subcontinent are almost considered the same, I understand the point that the page feels like an unnecessary fork; moving the page under a better title could be a good option. My major point of concern is that all our discussions still do not answer the question of why there is a lot of good literature mentioning Indic in the context of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian instead of just Indo-Aryan, as can be easily seen by browsing https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=indic+languages . I think that the discussions are not yet concrete enough, and should continue on the Talk page before converging about the redirection or moving to another page, especially to ensure someone does not come-up with this confusion again and recreates the same thing. Thank you! BawaseerKhwaja (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Comment Most citations for "Indic languages" in Google Scholar are from papers in Computational Linguistics written by Indian scholars. I can't see that these papers explicitly restrict "Indic" to Indo-Aryan (IA) and Dravidian. Their actual scope might indeed eventually turn out to include only IA and Dravidian languages, but that's because they apply their methods to the most widely spoken languages in the subcontinent. Tibeto-Burmese (TB) and Austro-Asiatic (AA) languages simply cannot numerically compete with the "big ones" like Hindi, Bengali, Tamil and Telugu. So the apparent "exclusion" of TB and AA languages from papers about "Indic" is just a demographic artefact. –Austronesier (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sandrembi Chaisra

Sandrembi Chaisra (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 · NYT · WP Library)

I am neutral, filing as closer of this RfD, where I found consensus to revert Rosguill's BLAR of 22 January 2020 and send to AfD instead. Rosguill's BLAR rationale was

Doesn't seem to meet GNG and is very confusingly written, redirecting to Meetei folklore which mentions the story

to which AFreshStart objected on the basis that Sandrembi Chaisra is not mentioned there.

Courtesy pings to all RfD !voters: @Lenticel, Aervanath, Uanfala, SnowFire, and Mdewman6: -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up. It was quite correct that this was sent here instead of surreptitiously deleted-by-redirect, but (1) AfD is not clean-up, and (2) things should be deleted if it is likely that there will be no sources, or if they are so, so dreadful that an absolutely fresh start is necessary. In this case sources are likely to be available (based on its presence in [6] and [7]), and although the article is in dire need of good writing, it's not totally irredeemable. The character-list, info-box and popular-culture sections are a good start; what it really needs is a comprehensible, coherent plot-summary and some better referencing. Elemimele (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment would a transwiki from the simple wikipedia version suffice? --Lenticel (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Import from Simple English Gpedia. It will still need to be cleaned up (and the story section pared down, I think), but it's much better than our current version, and with MUCH better sources.-- Aervanath (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless someone writes it up from scratch. The article has serious sourcing and comprehensibility issues, and it was written by a sockfarm known for POV. The article on simple wiki seems in a much better shape, but it was written by the same sockpuppets after they got blocked here, so this means: 1) if the article is imported it will be eligible for WP:G5 speedy deletion, 2) the doubts around sourcing and neutrality will remain. If the topic is notable (and that's what we're supposed to be finding out here), then we're better off creating the article from scratch. – Uanfala (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    the simple version might have been written by a sock, but it's a decent article; we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we deleted it because of its authorship. We have the right to delete the products of socks, but not the obligation. If anyone doubts its neutrality, we have tags for that sort of thing. Elemimele (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    Of course. But the relevant point here is not that the article was created by a sock, the point is that it was created by a sock with content issues. If another wikipedian is willing to take ownership of that article – if they're willing to check for copyright violations and then examine the sources to see if it doesn't misrepresent them in some subtle way – then absolutely, let's import it here. But it's not enough if it just looks "decent". – Uanfala (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sandeep Engineer

Sandeep Engineer (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Entity is being promoted. Note, WP:NOTCV. Possible WP:UPE/WP:COI. Besides that, it lack WP:SIGCOV, WP:NPOV . Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep: The article needs a clean up. Although the current version is filled with poor sources, I could find WP:FORBES sources with significant coverage.[8][9] and another one from Business Standard.[10] - SUN EYE 1 03:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Sakala Kala Vallabhudu

Sakala Kala Vallabhudu (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Does not meet the requirements of WP:NFILM with routine coverage/press releases. Barring a review from 123Telugu, cannot find any reliable reviews in Telugu and English. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete This is the other one the page creator possibly had in mind, maybe even this (the site is used enough as a source in en-wiki). But NFILM and WP:GNG guidelines are rebuttable presumptions of notability, to be proved with enough sources for the policy WP:V when questioned at AfD. There is no reason now to presume that any new sources will ever be found for this 2 year old film, for the page to be anything beyond the stub it is. --Hemantha (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep the reviews found in this discussion by the previous poster along with Telegu sources are enough for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    😀 To clarify, NTV Telugu was already there. Telugu Filmnagar definitely can't be used as a source since it is an outlet of a brand management company heavily involved with Telugu film production. hemantha (brief) 07:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

All India Kisan Mahasabha

All India Kisan Mahasabha (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 · NYT · WP Library)

A before search returns with trivial mentions. It fails to qualify WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources. As stated on creator's userpage, it seems user has failed to comply with our WP:COI guidelines. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete: Was unable to find much above mentions, never mind WP:SIRS-level coverage, so WP:NORG is unlikely to be satisfied. Perhaps it's WP:TOOSOON. As it stands, there appear to be issues with the WP:NPOV of that article: while the plight of the farmers sounds awful, this should be backed up with sufficient citations of good quality, and put in the context of rationales for things relevant to the article. WP shouldn't be the first location for presenting that story in the context of this political front. Perhaps some of this content could go under pages for related parties. Chumpih t 06:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

And I see a few new minor links out from the article. I've added a link in to the article myself. But we're still a very long way from WP:NORG. Chumpih t 21:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment Prior to the 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest I would have !voted redirect to the CPI-ML(L) page, but not so sure now... I will come back to this. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

As i earlier said, "before search returns with trivial mentions" – the sources you provided fails to qualify significant and independent coverage. All sources are focused on 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest. Sources presented by Goldsztajn are also focused on protests than the subject in question. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I fund zero independent sources. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Between the 15-odd sources Soman and I have posted, please indicate how are these not independent of the AIKM or CPI-ML(L)? The Hindu? The Siliguri Times? Dainik Jagran? Of course these are articles about farmers' protests, it is a highly politicised farmers' organisation (technically landless peasants, and while a quibble, quite important difference in terms of caste/class politics in India). The AIKM is a leading part of the coalition of agricultural organisations which took part in the protests; the vast majority of the articles I posted below are focussed purely on the AIKM and describe its activities, these are not trivial mentions. There's no doubt its profile grew during the protests, but these have been over for a month and the AIKM continues to receive coverage. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The Hindu: Demanding tar-topped roads between Yercaud and Kovilur village, drinking water and hospital facilities, members of All India Kissan Mahasabha (AIKM) staged a demonstration near Anna Statue in Yercaud here on Wednesday.

Dainik Jagran: CPI ML and All India Kisan Mahasabha on Friday staged dharna in various blocks and raised their voice in support of their demands. On behalf of the All India Kisan Mahasabha, a dharna (protest) was held in front of the Saria sub-divisional headquarters for the five-point demands. Vijay Kumar Singh, Sonu Pandey, Sudama Ram, Amrit Sharma, Lalmani Yadav, Laxman Prasad Mandal etc. were present on the occasion.

The Siliguri Times: The All India Kisan Mahasabha launched Rail Roko Abhiyan protesting against the privatization of agricultural services. Despite continuous farmers’ movement in Delhi for the past 85 days, no solution has been provided so far. Hence, the state’s leftist workers, students, youths, and women's organizations jointly staged a movement with the All India Kisan Mahasabha. Both the organizations joined the Rail Roko Abhiyan at Rangapani near Siliguri on Thursday.

WP:IS, says Independent sources are distinguished by their lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved.

WP:SIRS says, 1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.

2. Be completely independent of the article subject. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

TheBirdsShedTears, apologies, but can you be explicit, how does any of that indicate these are not independent? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • This is great stuff. We need to ensure a few of these links will pass WP:SIRS, and get them in to the article. Chumpih t 23:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Do we have any source that disscus the subject independently? Being a participant in a protest do not confer notability. Hundreds of people and orgs participated in this protest that doesn't mean that we should create Gpedia articles for every organisation, group or individuals. An independent sources generally discuss the subject without being influenced by other topics. It also discuss the subject in 100-150 words. None of the sources talks about subject's background, history or its notable contribution to its respective field. What i have read in sources "only protests" – ".....staged protest", "Secretary of .... organised meeting" etc. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Independence is about the relationship between source and subject (eg are editorial decisions of the source controlled by the subject), not the source content and the subject. In this case, material published in the party journal Liberation would not be independent, or an article by a party official published in any journal/newspaper would not be independent. I cannot see any reason to indicate that the sources being discussed here are not independent. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "फसली ऋण व बिजली बिल माफ करे सरकार". Hindustan (in Hindi). 21 December 2021.
  2. ^ "धान खरीदो आंदोलन 15 जनवरी से शुरू होगा". Hindustan (in Hindi).
  3. ^ "गाजीपुर में किसान महासभा का धरना प्रदर्शन:2 दिन से चल रहा अखिल भारतीय किसान महासभा का धरना, खाद की कालाबाजारी का लगाया आरोप" (in Hindi).
  4. ^ "केंद्रीय कृषि मंत्री तोमर की टिप्पणी को किसान महासभा ने कॉर्पोरेट ताकतों की ओर से एक चुनौती बताया". Dainik Bhaskar Hindi (in Hindi). 27 December 2021.
  5. ^ "बिहार: अखिल भारतीय किसान महासभा का अनिश्चितकालीन धरना शुरू, यह है वजह..." Zee News (in Hindi). 8 January 2021.
  6. ^ "आक्राेश:कृषि विधेयक के खिलाफ निकाला गया प्रतिरोध मार्च, केंद्र सरकार के खिलाफ नारेबाजी की गई". Dainik Bhaskar. 25 September 2020.
  7. ^ शर्मा, रजनी (28 December 2020). "बिहार के किसान कल करेंगें राजभवन मार्च, इन मांगों को लेकर सौंपेंगे ज्ञापन". www.abplive.com (in Hindi).
  8. ^ "देश में पहली बार महिलाओं की संसद, किसानों ने कहा- अब मोदी के जुमले नहीं चलेंगे". The Wire - Hindi. 21 November 2017.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Very useful. Can a few of these be shown to pass WP:SIRS? Can we ensure the article is safe? Chumpih t 07:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Bearing in mind the second part of SIGCOV states: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material," all but the last one clearly meet SIGCOV. The point of these sources is they show multiyear, independent reliable sourcing coverage. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
For organisations, WP:ORGDEPTH should apply. Granted, to me, they would possibly meet Independent and Secondary. Uncertain re. reliable, as I don't know those publications. WP:SIRS is quite tricky. Chumpih t 14:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC) + 16:35
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:NORG Notable farm union in India and have been covered numerous times for their work and agitations. --Venkat TL (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    Can you identify a few sources that meet WP:SIRS? Chumpih t 16:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think they can identify any source. Venkat TL, you edited Bulli Bai case at 09:49, 11 January 2022, another page at 09:52, 11 January 2022, and All India Kisan Mahasabha AfD at 09:57, 11 January 2022. The time between Talk:Bulli Bai case and AfD is 5 minutes. How did you read all sources and how did you locate this AfD within 5 minutes? As i can see, you just follow the majority of votes than posting your own thoughts. Your vote cannot be trusted, i think. I assume, you took 2 minutes to reach here, and 1 minute to read the article in question and 2 minutes to read all sources? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
In case you are not aware, I am an Indian who has been reading Indian Newspapers and magazines for years. I am aware about the coverage they receive in local newspapers. Unlike folks abroad, I dont need Google to tell me about what I have been reading for years. I dont wish to be pinged again due to concerns on WP:BLUDGEON. Venkat TL (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Weak Keep This article right now is a total trainwreck whose only purpose is to promote the subject. However, it appears that some legitimate sources exist for it. Rogermx (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Valsa Nair Singh

Valsa Nair Singh (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Gpedia should never be used as a resume hosting site a.k.a. WP:NOTCV. This is a promotional page of the entity WP:PROMO with over citations WP:CITEKILL. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD; ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

American Embassy School

American Embassy School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
American International School Chennai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)
American School of Bombay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Three articles about non-notable schools. The first school which is the namesake of the nomination only has passing mentions and from what I could find the most mentions of it mostly relates to the Devyani Khobragade incident. While the American Embassy School came under controversy from this, it doesn't really pass basic GNG and notability concerning schools. The two other school articles I'm nominating, American International School Chennai and American School of Bombay, also fail GNG with articles available online making passing mentions of them. Even the United States State Department pages for these schools is nothing more than just a basic overview of the curriculum. Nothing about the history of the schools. Although, one would assume the U.S. government page for it would have more details as they normally do for everything else on their website, but unfortunately, they don't. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete: There is one good New York Times reference, but apart from that it really needs more independent reliable sources.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Filmymantra

Filmymantra (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 · NYT · WP Library)

non notable news website. Lack of significant coverage. fails WP:GNG. DFXYME (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Uyarntha Manithan (upcoming film)

Uyarntha Manithan (upcoming 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Began filming in 2019 but no coverage since then as per my searches. Likely shelved; does not meet the WP:NFF criteria. -- Ab207 (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Draftify to give time to develop. (We shouldn't assume there won't be any coverage). Neocorelight (Talk) 12:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Riniki Bhuyan Sarma

Riniki Bhuyan Sarma (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Except being Chief Minister's wife, she has no notability. Her page was created after her husband became Chief Minister. Moreover, being an owner of a local news channel can not make her eligible for Wiki. Requesting higher level to look up the matter. - Arunudoy (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete The coverage in WP:RS found above is all focused on corruption allegations. Neither does it appear WP:SUSTAINED nor can it be covered here due to WP:BLPCRIME requirement on conviction. The Guwahati Plus source the page currently depends heavily upon, is an interview and hence WP:PRIMARY (the site does not inspire any confidence about reliability or independence, founder claims to be a marketing professional). Her own channel has nothing that amounts to WP:SIGCOV. --Hemantha (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Priyanka Mondal

Priyanka Mondal (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 · NYT · WP Library)

The subject is previously rejected through afc process, so this article should go through afc process. Please check the creator's talk page for further information. Trakinwiki (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete The film credits may count towards NACTOR, but significance of some roles aren't clear. Falling back to sources, ToI articles on her are all two-three paragraph collections of her quotes. IE Indulge is a "luxury lifestyle magazine", a once-per-week supplement that shouldn't be presumed to be as reliable as the main paper; but setting that aside, the coverage is all shallow interviews that can hardly be considered independent. ABP/Sangbad links are movie announcements which do not mention her at all. There is a bn-wiki page, but it uses same sources as here. This bengali search https://www.google.com/search?q="প্রিয়াঙ্কা+মন্ডল" doesn't seem to turn up much, so I think there isn't enough for WP:GNG. --Hemantha (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hanmant Ramdas Gaikwad

Hanmant Ramdas Gaikwad (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 · NYT · WP Library)

This entity's page is end-to-end WP:PROMO , full of WP:WEASEL words and statements. Lacks WP:NPOV, and has used news portal articles as WP:ADMASQ. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - clearly intended as promotional, probably unsalvageable. Deb (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Darul Huda Islamic University

Darul Huda Islamic University (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Requesting to delete and salt all articles, and block all suspected accounts. This institution is a self-styled and unaccredited university based in Kerala. A group of people, including students, alumni, staff members and paid editors who work as writers, authors, journalists in leading news agencies like The New Indian Express and Gulf Times, and news portals like TwoCircles.net, and Wikipedians, presenting an institution that does not even have a primary school as a university based on its own press releases, books, articles and self-created web profiles instead of independent evidence and they offer the kind of degrees or PGs offered by accredited universities.

Read more at Gpedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting cross-wiki investigation against Darul Huda Islamic Academy

. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt all From what I can tell it seems like all or most of the references in the article are written by people who are connected to the academy and for the purpose of promating it. Even if that wasn't the case though the article aren't up to Gpedia's standards anyway. For instance the article "Four Muslim students from Kerala to address Youth Conference at UN General Assembly" in the Deccan Chronicle wouldn't work for notability IMO even if there was no COI issues with the writer. Another example is that one of the articles from TwoCircles.net, "Darul Huda Islamic University" is about them opening a couple of satellite campuses. Which is extremely WP:MILL. Plus it contains a lot of PROMO puffery like "Darul Huda Islamic University is all set to spread its wings" and "off campuses will be set up apart from initiatives meant to educationally empower Muslims in these states." Neither of those quotes are written from a neutral, un-bias perspective. It's also worth noting that the title for the bhatkallys.com shares the exact same line about the academy "spreading it's wings" that is in the TwoCircles.net article. I'd be pretty surprised if the extremely similar wording was a just a coincidence. Probably the articles were written by the same COI editor. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I have went through all the talks and discussions related to Darul Huda Islamic University. And from my findings, I don't think that the article violates any of the Gpedia rules. The references of the article seems to be genuine.
    1. The Islamic University talking about is notable by the references.
    2. From the article, it's clear that, DHIU is a private Islamic University in Kerala. It has'nt termed itself as a Public University and hence doesn't need other affiliations other than that mentioned.
    3. I didn't find any offence with the sources referenced with the article as mentioned above. The university events have been published on other articles also like The Hindu. I don't think it would be self-published.--Nezvm (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
      Struck as an SPI (trainee) clerk action per Gpedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tinkvu (permalink). Inappropriate tag-team editing by editors with a shared COI. Editors issued only warning. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, I see no evidence that the articles published in The Hindu [16] and the New Indian Express [17], sources that are generally considered reliable, managed to evade those publications' editorial oversight and were intended as promotion by the author(s). The article may need some cleanup, but that's not an issue for AfD. Huon (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter if article in the New Indian Express is reliable or not since it's about a student magazine. Which isn't what this article is about. Otherwise, how does that article address "university" directly and in-depth? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep The article was nominated three times before and resulted keep. A clean up might works. Onmyway22 talk 19:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep There are 25,000+ madrasas in Kerala, this is one of the most prominent.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ Metcalf, Barbara (2007). "Madrassas and minorities in secular India". In Zaman, Muhammad Qasim; Hefner, Robert W. (eds.). Schooling Islam : the culture and politics of modern Muslim education. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. p. 98. ISBN 9781400837458. In Kerala, institutions of advanced Islamic training tend not to use the term "madrassa" ... Instead, they prefer loan words like "college" or "academy". Thus one of the most prominent "madrassas" is Darul Huda Islamic Academy.
  2. ^ Pedersen, Gry Hvass (February 2016). "The Role of Islam in Muslim Higher Education in India: The Case of Jamia Millia Islamia in New Delhi". Review of Middle East Studies. 50 (1): 28–37. doi:10.1017/rms.2016.73. This essay is based on three months of fieldwork at the National Islamic University, Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI), and visits to two Muslim universities in Kerala ... In comparing DHIU and JI with JMI, I try to illustrate the conceptual differences of the universities’ interpretations of being Islamic institutions ... Darul Huda Islamic University (DIHU) and Al Jamia Al Islamiya University (JI) in Kerala have a different approach regarding the role of religion. Both institutions have constructed a dual education system, providing their students with a purely Islamic faith-based education, that is to say they offer degrees in hadith, the Qurʾan, fiqh, etc., which they combine with non-religious, government approved university degrees. These degrees are typically in fields such as history, English, and sociology. Both universities have accepted the necessity of government approved degrees to improve their students’ career options, while still remaining focused on religious education and the dissemination of their interpretation of Islam. DIHU and JI thus represent a different position within the Islamic educational tradition than JMI in deliberately trying to educate their students as specifically Islamic modern subjects.
  3. ^ Muneer Hudawi, A. K. (September 2013). "Poisoned chalice? English at an Islamic university in Kerala: Is it possible to teach the English language without teaching 'western values'?". English Today. 29 (3): 15–18. doi:10.1017/S0266078413000266. Darul Huda Islamic University is arguably the State's flagship Islamic learning centre, offering upper primary, secondary, intermediate and advanced courses (including undergraduate and postgraduate courses) spread over a period of 12 years. Located in the village of Chemmad in Malappuram district, the heartland of the Mapilla Muslims of Malabar, this institution is the boldest initiative ever undertaken by Kerala's Sunni ulema to promote reforms in their madrasa system and English has been a compulsory subject in its curriculum since its inception in 1986. At present, Darul Huda has more than 1000 students and almost 60 teachers on its rolls.
  4. ^ Visakh, M. S.; Santhosh, R.; Mohammed Roshan, C. K. (November 2021). "Islamic Traditionalism in a Globalizing World: Sunni Muslim identity in Kerala, South India". Modern Asian Studies. 55 (6): 2046–2087. doi:10.1017/S0026749X20000347. The first-ever ‘model dars’ in Kerala was established in Kottakkal Town Juma Masjid during the 1980s that incorporated subjects such as literature, Islamic history, Urdu, and English language into the curriculum. However, such attempts at imparting 'integrated education' were rather unsuccessful until the establishment of Darul Huda Islamic Academy in 1986 in Chemmad, Malappuram, which was formally upgraded to a university in May 2009 and is currently a member of the Federation of the Universities of the Islamic World.
  5. ^ Haneefa, Muhammed A