Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to India.

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

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

India[edit]

Vipul Shah (businessman)[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman, with no significant secondary coverage in reliable sources, just passing mentions in The Hindu and Fortune. He's interviewed in The Week as cited, but that's a primary source. Passing mentions, routine coverage in trade blogs and softball interviews was all else I could find in a WP:BEFORE search. Promotional tone and editing history of article creator suggests UPE. Wikishovel (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Wikishovel (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahender Singh Tawar[edit]

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

Minor Indian bureaucrate fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NPOL. No meaningful WP:SIGCOV in any sources; coverage cited in article (and found in BEFORE search) is WP:TRIVIALMENTION of him in the course of reporting on local government activities, and much of it is problematic under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP built in routine announcements of promotions and transfers. Mccapra (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gattu Battu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trichy Tollgate[edit]

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

Completely uncoursed, fails WP:NPLACE as I could not find any reliable sources or indication of legal recognition. Hence this appears like mostly WP:ORIGINAL research. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page to get significant coverage on this toll junction and is not notable. It does not satisfy the legal recognition requirement. RangersRus (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chacha Bhatija (TV series)[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Hungama_TV#Animated series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Hungama_TV#Animated series. RangersRus (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Raju[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Pogo#Animated_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Pogo#Animated_series. RangersRus (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudra: Boom Chik Chik Boom[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nickelodeon_(Indian_TV_channel)#History: if coverage is considered insufficient. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank Rudra: Boom Chik Chik Boom aired on both Nickelodeon and Nickelodeon Sonic channels, and it is also digitally available on JioCinema and Amazon Prime Video. Therefore, redirecting it to Nickelodeon#History might not be appropriate. This situation parallels that of Shiva. M S Hassan (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply there. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green_Gold_Animations#Television. RangersRus (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva (TV series)[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Hinduism, and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon_Sonic#Animated_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank Shiva aired on both Nickelodeon and Nickelodeon Sonic channels, and it is also digitally available on JioCinema. Therefore, redirecting it to Nickelodeon Sonic programming list might not be appropriate. M S Hassan (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. True. But it was originally broadcast on N. Sonic and N. only. And the latter does not list the series, whereas the NSonic list does (and the first is a part of the latter, fwiw). If you find a better target (Viacom 18?), consider I agree. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to delete it rather than redirect it to another article. M S Hassan (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see! I'll stand by my redirect and target then. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon_Sonic#Animated_series. If Viacom18 page had list of shows it produced, I would have redirected it there. RangersRus (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanthi One[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; written like a TV guide. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : The article's subject is notable. Thanthi one is an airing new TV channel from Daily Thanthi Group in Tamil Nadu. They already have one channelThanthi TV. strong source from (www.dailythanthi.com, www.afaqs.com, www.medianews4u.com, cinema.vikatan.com). It deserves to be kept. in future can we add more source. This is not TV guide, only added programs broadcast by Thanthi One. Official Web (Thanthi One, Thanthi One's channel on YouTube)--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A channel could be notable; sourcing now is very PR-ish and I can't find anything better. This is written like a program guide, not appropriate for a wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thanthi TV. This is likely a case of WP:TOO EARLY. Note that www.dailythanthi.com and www.dtnext.in. are both owned by Dina Thanthi, which are self-published sources. DareshMohan (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreliable sources and fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thanthi TV The title is a viable search term, but Thanthi One is so new that it does not have notability on its own, nor do all the writeups from related media confer notability (WP:NEWSORGINDIA). A mention in Thanthi TV that a general entertainment channel was started is about all we can do right now. It's also worth noting that this channel has no original programming, merely dubbed programs produced for other entities. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Liberal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Merge with Internet celebrity. Although, that seems to have a potential move afoot to rename it "Influencer". IMO, "Influencer" and "Adarsh Liberal" have a lot in common - they're both flash terminology of the moment, used to define any number of personalities. — Maile (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Popular culture, Internet, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Article cleary fails WP:GNG. Written in POV and fan voice.च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Message 12:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't merge, the term is too area specific to be known outside the area. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The term gained some traction online [1] and [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable term from social media and memes. WP:DICDEF. RangersRus (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andh Bhakt[edit]

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

Lack of Notability . च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Message 20:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see significant coverage. There can be "blind followers" of just anybody. Implying anything like "only Narendra Modi has blind followers" is an absurd POV. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adarsh Liberal (3rd nomination). Ratnahastin (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in Jasrasar Tehsil[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Resubmitted with no improvement. I feel this is a list too far, or perhaps WP:TOOSOON insofar as almost none of this list have articles. If and when they do I will reach a different view 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Rajasthan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jasrasar Paradoctor (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify - Does not satisfy list notability when, as the nominator has said, very few of the list entries are notable, so the list is not notable. If draftified, consider ECP-protection to avoid another move back to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST: the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable. Otherwise, we'd have to scrap all of Category:Lists of minor planets.

For the present list, this is of course a moot point, as the list topic is not notable. Paradoctor (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always up for a merge, such as the one suggested by User:Paradoctor, but are these WP:POPULATED places? Populated, legally recognized places are basically always notable, and lists thereof are basically always kept. Also, we're allowed to have lists of non-notable places; this list appears to meet two of the three WP:Common selection criteria for lists (and you don't have to meet multiple criteria). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, these are villages, so presumably all populated. Unless there is an inordinate number of ghost towns in Jasrasar.

Also, we have two baker's dozen more lists like this one. Paradoctor (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jasrasar. It's already been pointed out that it's absolutely NOT necessary for all contents of a list to be independently notable but this information makes better sense in the context of the article on the tehsil, which is notable. Ingratis (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manav Bhinder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. ltb d l (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Regardless of what happened in the last AfD, there are still zero sources about this individual that I find. What's used now in the article isn't RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've done a search, and I'm just not seeing it. The sources in the article now are woefully inadequate (bare mentions in two places, and yes I looked at the archived original). There's certainly nothing to surpass WP:NDIRECTOR or WP:GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monsoon (photographs)[edit]

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

Generally fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG, there are no footnotes in the article and not enough information for direct sourcing. I tried to find more sources for this article but I couldn't. GoodHue291 (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brian Brake. This could have been done without a discussion. I'm skeptical of GoodHue291's WP:BEFORE search; I suspect a determined editor could find sources for this subject to pass WP:GNG. However, I see no reason that it needs a standalone article. Daask (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question, why would you be skeptical about my WP:BEFORE search? GoodHue291 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is the most sensible option. The photgraph is notable and featured in numerous publications globally. NealeWellington (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a notable photograph or series of photos (there are many Wikipedia articles on photographs) the topic is well sourced, although these sources are listed on the page as 'Further reading'. This coverage easily meets GNG. No need to merge to the photogrpaher's page as it already has much of this information and a merge does not take into consideration Aparna Sen, the subject of the well-known staged cover-worthy photograph. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RuralShores[edit]

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

Per WP:DEL#REASON 4, no non-promotional content worth saving here. Filled with gems like founded in May 2008 with the objective of assimilating rural India into the Knowledge economy by providing job opportunities to the rural youth of the country. – Teratix ₵ 14:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. – Teratix ₵ 14:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A BPO with very promotional content... This is typical [3], stall writer, thinly disguised promotional material. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional page. None of the sources meets the criteria of WP:NCORP. Sources also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because of no independent subject matter. RangersRus (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigns of Nader Shah[edit]

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

The article doesn't have any source for its notability. There's no source explicitly mentioning "Naderian Wars" or "Campaigns of Nader Shah" with its fictitious timeline. Clearly it's full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess, It's just impersonating Napoleonic Wars. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 12:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at the equivalent articles on other wikis and most are barely sourced spam but the Italian one is extensively written and has numerous sources. I don’t think the nominator has clearly established that no sources use this term. Mccapra (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed no source defining "Naderian Wars" or "Campaigns of Nader Shah" as a whole. At this rate anyone can create articles on the campaigns of any other personalities, but we have to make sure that sources do cover such campaigns or wars instead of covering some battles. Unlike Napoleonic Wars, it doesn't have any source for defining "Naderian Wars". Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it a bit ironic that the nominator themself just recently made an article that is exactly the way they have described this one [4], whose deletion [5] they are opposing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ironic when I have myself asked to draftify the article so it can be improved. Could you please go through WP:AADP? Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify will not fix a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess that shouldn't exist in the first place (also, you initially pushed for a keep very hard, so you're not being completely honest here). If anything, you're the one who needs to go through our guidelines. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran Well, at least the sources I have cited do cover Devapala's conflicts with Tibet but that's not the case here. Can you give us a source where "Naderian Wars" is covered notably. And I still don't get why you are bringing other topics to this discussion. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick search at Scholar finds a multitude of sources. There is no reason whatever to claim that a source is off-topic just because it doesn't have two specific phrases. Just search for "Nader Shah" and lots of sources that describe his campaigns come up. The article is about a historical phenomenon, not about a phrase. The article at present is not well written and needs a lot more inline sourcing, but that is not an AfD issue. Zero^talk 03:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And at the same time, we don't find a source explicitly covering "Naderian Wars". Hope we are not creating "Campaigns of X" and "Campaigns of Y" just because there are lots of sources on X and Y. The article is full OR and SYNTH at best. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand the role of article titles. There are only a few articles where the title is the subject of the article. Usually the title defines the topic and there is no need for the sources to even mention the words that are in the title provided they address the same topic. Also if the article has OR and SYNTH that's reason to clean it up, not reason to delete it. The role of AfD is to decide if the topic is suitable for an article, not to decide if an article is well written. Zero^talk 14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said I can work on "Campaigns of Khalid ibn al-Walid" or "Campaigns of Bajirao I" if I want? And also in these cases there are many sources dealing with their military career. Moreover I find in the above HistoryofIran's comment contradicting you; Draftify will not fix a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess that shouldn't exist in the first place, I guess we need more participation in this discussion. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 12:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can work on any topic that meets the guidelines for having an article. Also, HistoryofIran is mistaken about the role of OR and SYNTH at AFD, and has also not provided any evidence of those defects being present. The only relevance would if there was something about the topic that prevented a policy-conformant article, which is obviously not the case. Zero^talk 13:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think there has been a misunderstanding here. I was not referring to this article. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable topic and fair split from main biographical and region history articles. Sourcing and citations could be improved and infobox trimmed, but those are editing problems, not deletion criteria. Folly Mox (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking. Is it fair to combine all the campaigns and wars of historical figures in one article even if it's not given pass by reliable sources? Doesn't that come under WP:SYNTH? Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 18:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is normal to use multiple sources to create articles. It only becomes SYNTH when we use a combination of sources to draw conclusions that are not drawn by any of the sources. Zero^talk 13:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Mandaran[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources which provide significant coverage of this event or mentions the event as Conquest of Mandaran. it relies heavily on Non-WP:RS sources. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 09:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military and India.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviewed all the sources before they were removed and all are poor and fail WP:HISTRS like a source where N.K. Sahu is an editor of a book that was contributed by William Wilson Hunter, WP:RAJ and sources by Nitish K. Sengupta who was an IAS officer in 1957 and served as the Revenue Secretary of the Government of India. No source has a paragraph enough to give depth on the Conquest of Mandaran Page fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indo–Turkic people[edit]

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

WP:OR article with no WP:RS to back it up. The previous citations were either not WP:RS (random websites) or were misused, not even mentioning the name "Indo-Turk(s)/Indo-Turkic". Couldn't find any WP:RS on these "people" either. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Islam, Central Asia, India, Russia, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A11. Mccapra (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviewed older version of the page before all sources were removed. Per nom, some sources were poor and others were misused as these had no mention on Indo-Turkic people but some brief about Indians and Turkish connection and interaction because of Sufism. Page fails WP:GNG and is a WP:SYNTH. RangersRus (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baalveer Returns[edit]

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

Can't see it passes WP: GNG. All available sourcing are just about the actors. Proposing MERGE to Baalveer or DELETE. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The article "Baalveer Returns" has been supported by many reliable sources, including Mid Day, The Tribune India, Aaj Tak, Abp news and The Times of India as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources It seems like Twinkle1990 has a personal enmity with Baalveer, so they are trying to delete all Balveer- related articles.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Baalveer. Same here like Baalveer 3 and Baalveer 4 nomination. The sources do not have the quality and depth of coverage needed to warrant a page on this show. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baalveer. Since the article is not passing, WP: GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prasads Multiplex[edit]

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

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

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

Vidya Gajapathi Raju Singh[edit]

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

BLP of “ a prominent figure known for her multifaceted contributions to various fields including women's associations, charitable endeavors, sports, fitness and journalism. She is also the founder of Sumyog Wedding Planners, President of the International Women's Association, and also the President of Soroptomist International.” I don’t see anything that makes this subject notable and the article appears to serve a mainly promotional purpose. Mccapra (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and India. Mccapra (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: minor aristocrat who has done a lot of admirable charity work, but doesn't meet WP:BIO, with no significant coverage of her in independent, secondary RS. Soroptimist International is a notable organisation, but the only mention of her I could find in connection with SI was apparently self-written profiles in The Hindu source cited and this organisation. It's also not clear whether president is an executive or patron role at SI. Wikishovel (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balasubramanian Prabhakaran[edit]

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

Twice speedy deleted under G11 this has been recreated with marginal sourcing and does not seem clearly notable to me. Bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Mccapra (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NPOL, WP:NORG for the company. Possible PR in news sources. The articles doesn't meet WP:GNG and what we call WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:BIO and the degree of significance of the subject and of role as business man is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. Fails WP:GNG too. RangersRus (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXN (brand)[edit]

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

Upon a meticulous review of the DXN (brand) article, I propose it be considered for deletion for several compelling reasons:

Firstly, the article is excessively reliant on primary sources, including the company's own website, press releases, and internal documentation. This overdependence raises substantial concerns regarding the neutrality and verifiability of the information presented. Wikipedia's guidelines underscore the necessity of secondary sources to furnish an objective and thorough examination of the subject matter.

Secondly, the article is deficient in adequate third-party reliable sources that could independently corroborate the company's claims and establish its notability. For an article to adhere to Wikipedia's notability standards, it must be underpinned by significant coverage from reputable, independent sources. The present article fails to satisfy this criterion, thus undermining its credibility.

Moreover, the content of the article exhibits a promotional tone. DXN operates as a direct selling company, also recognised as multi-level marketing (MLM), which frequently prompts concerns about the legitimacy and ethical practices of such business models. The promotional nature of the article is likely to mislead readers into perceiving it as an endorsement rather than an impartial encyclopaedic entry. Wikipedia's neutrality policy dictates that articles should not function as advertisements or endorsements. LearnologyX (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Malaysia. Skynxnex (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Most of the sources cited are controlled by the company itself. Of the rest, Direct Selling News is a trade publication; DXN's mere presence on their list could be cited in an article, but doesn't establish notability. The only significant coverage here is from the Sri Lankan Daily News; that article is archived here. I have concerns that this is undisclosed paid news, like is common in Indian media. It certainly reads like a press release rather than independent reporting. For non-cited sources, quite a few about the company's products' purported health benefits are excluded by WP:MEDRS. Something like this Elsevier publication (p. 642) is a good start, but even I don't think this rises to significant coverage, and it seems I tend more liberal than consensus on that regard. I do not know enough about accessing Malaysian media to know if we're missing quality sources there. Lubal (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Creditability of Daily Express is in question when it is open to feature Video, Story on their website from the volunteers. There are two articles (1 & 2) published in the Daily Express that read more like press releases than news coverage. LearnologyX (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't mentioned the cited Daily Express source because I didn't think it did anything to establish notability, but I'm pretty sure it's just a repackaged press release anyway. Lubal (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Advertising, India, and Europe. LearnologyX (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The revision history for the article DXN (brand) demonstrates multiple significant issues that warrant its deletion. The article has been subject to numerous actions due to copyright violations, as indicated by the changes made to hide revisions under RD1 (Violations of copyright policy) on 11:21, 9 April 2021; 01:15, 8 April 2021; 00:08, 23 September 2020; and 14:16, 26 January 2020. Furthermore, the page was temporarily protected on 16:34, 27 November 2018, due to persistent sock puppetry, necessitating restrictions on editing to autoconfirmed or confirmed users. These recurring issues underscore significant non-compliance with Wikipedia's content policies, including verifiability, reliable sourcing, and adherence to copyright law. Given the repeated infractions and the need for administrative intervention, deletion of the article is justified to uphold the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. Furthermore, an attempt to clean up criticism was made in the past, which can be another sign of advertising and an effort to maintain a good reputation for the brand, which was removed from the article. LearnologyX (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tata AIA Life[edit]

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

Insufficient number of references for the significance of the article Welcome to Pandora (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Welcome to Pandora a lack of references is not reason for deletion. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.

I would suggest a Redirect to Tata Group which holds a majority stake in the company, as I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources. I did, however, found a lot of routine coverage: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Broc (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tata_Group#Affiliated_companies. Page fails WP:SIGCOV in secondary independent sources and WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to Keep the article as a STUB until its contents are expanded. Redirecting this article would NOT serve the purpose. Moreover, if Tata AIA Life is nominated for deletion, then TATA AIG should also be nominated for deletion since both are joint ventures between Tata Sons & foreign financial companies. Indian English Literature (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Indian English Literature we are discussing deletion of this page, whose notability should be evaluated on its own merits and not based on other content present or not present on Wikipedia. WP:WHATABOUTX should be avoided as argument. Broc (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Barwara (1757)[edit]

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

The whole article relies on WP:RAJ and out dated sources (WP:AGE MATTERS) and there is no mention of “Siege of Barwara (1757)” in the sources. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAJ is not a policy or guideline. It is an essay on the quality of sources on the Indian caste system and those written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. Indian historians like Sarkar's sources are used because historians today depend on their secondary work. Sarkar is an eminent historian and is perfectly reliable. Source still needs to be reviewed and verified. RangersRus (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if WP:RAJ doesn't applies here it is still not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS and this is the only source used in the article thus it fails WP:GNG too. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If old sources have become obsolete due to coverage in new sources then AGE matters and it does not apply here. Multiple sources are expected but there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. RangersRus (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just found it at RSN. Hope this helps to evaluate the reliability of Jadunath Sarkar. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, it clearly fails WP:GNG & there is only one sourced used in this article (Fall of the Mughal Empire by Jadunath Sarkar) which is not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had to wait to be able to find the source on the page for verification. Source by Sarkar has enough coverage from page 191 to 193 on the siege. The name of location is Barwada not Barwara (spelling error?). Page passes general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Nom & it fails WP:GNG Chauthcollector (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecom Express[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This company page fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, as most of its citations focus on trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Company making press releases or announcements is not significant and cannot be considered notable. None of the sources meets the criteria of WP:NCORP. Sources also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because of no independent subject matter. RangersRus (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Attaching some sources [13],[14],[15]. These three sources are sufficient to meet the WP:THREE criteria and hence pass the WP:ORGCRIT. A Google search would also produce some more reliable results. Akshithmanya ^talk 00:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails CORPDEPTH. The WP:THREE provided by Akshithmanya are PR/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal–Kashmir Wars[edit]

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

This article literally has no sources or content in it. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than deleting the page, editors should work on it and improve it. It's an actual war provided with sufficient sources. Lightningblade23 (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The war is historically accurate. Citations and content can be added and the article can be improved but its deletion wouldn't be in good faith.EditorOnJob (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify. Poor, unreliable and unverifiable sources excluding two by Mohibbul Hasan and Majumdar. The complete page is from source by Mohibbul Hasan from page 183 to 186 that has a mention of two wars fought in 1527 won by Kashmir Sultanates and the other in 1528 won by Mughals. Majumdar source is used for mention of Khanua battle that has nothing to do with Mughal-Kashmir wars. None of the other sources have any ascription. The page numbers on source templates for Hasan are wrong. The creator of the page should hold back from primary sources like Chādūrah, Ḥaydar Malik who was an administrator and soldier under Mughal emperor in 17th century, Baharistan-i-shahi, a Persian manuscript written by an anonymous author, presumably in early 17th century, Tarikh-i Firishta written by Muhammad Qasim Ferishta presumably between 16th and 17th century and also Babur-nama. Page is also WP:SYNTH when you read a content written "The Mughals faced the Chaks at Naushahra and, despite early success, were defeated and forced to retreat back to India." No phases of wars are supported by reliable sources. Draftify vote is if the creator can bring on reliable sources to support many phases of wars to consider the page an actual full fledged Mughal-Kashmir Sultanate wars. RangersRus (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another WP:SYNTH like few other recently deleted pages revolving around the same subjects. Azuredivay (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess recent contributions to the article since the deletion nomination says it has no sources and that is no longer true.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RangersRus. Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samadhi of Bodhendra Saraswathi[edit]

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

The tomb lacks wide coverage in RS. Most of the text is covered in Bodhendra Saraswathi, whose tomb the subject is. The article has little information on the architecture of the tomb, but rather concentrates more on Bodhendra and his death Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, and India. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bodhendra Saraswathi. Mccapra (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . One source that is poor and fails verification. Page fails WP:GNG. I would not even consider to Direct the page to Bodhendra Saraswathi as that too is poorly sourced and should be nominated for deletion. RangersRus (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riksundar Banerjee[edit]

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

Failing all criteria of WP:NBIO, publishing articles and non notable books not fulfils WP:GNG Pinakpani (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject fails to meet WP:GNG as there is no in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. However, the subject's book titled "The Book of India Ghosts" may meet WP:AUTHOR criterion number 3, which requires multiple reviews of books to establish notability. There are two reviews available for that particular book, one from The Hindu and one from The Hindu BusinessLine. Both reviews are from different publications and authors. GrabUp - Talk 18:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The author's work has not made a significant monument, or won significant critical attention. One of his book "The book of India Ghosts", got a review from hindu.com but this cannot be considered the criteria needed to pass WP:AUTHOR because the work needs to be widely cited by peers or successors. RangersRus (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RangersRus: WP:AUTHOR’s third criterion states: “The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.” There are two reviews from The Hindu and The Hindu BusinessLine from different authors. I think this is sufficient to meet the third criteria, as multiple reviews from independent sources are available. There are other criteria, but if a subject meets any of them, then it can be presumed to be notable. GrabUp - Talk 15:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: This talks about the author [16]; on the balance, just enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

85th Plenary Session of the Indian National Congress[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, not a notable event. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 17:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, India, and Chhattisgarh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Based on my check, I searched for in-depth coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources to establish notability, but I couldn’t find any. The sources I found were just passing mentions and cannot meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 18:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) * Delete. 3 sources on the page and none have significant coverage to warrant a full fledged page on the subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs substantial cleanup but as the second-largest political party by membership in the democratic world a meeting like this is likely to be notable, in a similar sense to 2024 Democratic National Convention. We even have an article for the tiny 2024 Libertarian National Convention. The US Libertarian Party has less than 1 million members, the Indian National Congress has 95 million. I've conducted a few quick searches and located quite a bit of coverage from national newspapers in India such as this from The Hindu and this from the Times of India. Google News searches produce a lot of results, too. It appears the conference was quite significant for the party based on the coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Times of India can’t establish notability at all as per WP:TOI GrabUp - Talk 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, from a quick glance there is ample in-depth coverage in English media outlets. There is scope to expand the article, and outline the policy shifts that materialized in or through the event. It's worth noting that this is the national convention of a party that pulled 119 million votes in the last national election. --Soman (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - examples of in-depth coverage at India Today, NDTV, National Herald, The Wire, Business Standard, Business Standard, The Hindu, Hindustan Times. --Soman (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Thanks for sharing these sources, Maybe my BEFORE was not great enought like you. I am convinced that the article meets WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 11:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I too changed vote but to Draftify as the page needs major work with all reliable sources given by Soman and AusLondonder. If we just vote for Keep, then no guarantee if anyone will improve the page. Creator of the page can take the feedback from here, improve the page and republish it. RangersRus (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
National Herald is a Congress Party linked Newspaper. Does it qualify for a neutral, Independent reference source? — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 12:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. After looking at search work by AusLondonder and Soman, page has potential to pass WP:GNG with some cleanup and expansion with reliable sources. Voting for page to Draftify for creator and other interested editors to improve the page and then submit for review to be published. RangersRus (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Draftify is not intended as incubation for expansions. This article is a mini-stub, but a perfectly legitimate stub. There is no material in the current version of the article that warrants it to be draftified. See Wikipedia:Drafts#Moving_articles_to_draftspace. --Soman (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V. N. Srinivasa Rao[edit]

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

I do not think that this person meets the criteria for notability. I have been unable to find any reference to him other than the The Hindu article (https://web.archive.org/web/20240317044514/https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/the-lawyer-as-a-writer/article4683660.ece), which just effectively said it was nice to read. And cryptic metadata from library websites who happen to have the book (which seems to just be stanford and nyu https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/in00000071311 ) Mason (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Law, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he was pretty clearly a Madras barrister[17]. He's cited for appearances a number of times in the Madras Law Journal[18]. I'm not finding a lot more than that.
Are you questioning whether the Madras chief justices book exists? It is held by 8 WorldCat Participating libraries. The comment about cryptic metadata doesn't make sense. Oblivy (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe you are confusing notability and verifiability. Just because a source is hard to find doesn't mean it isn't reliable. See WP:PAYWALL. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I used my university's library to see if I could find anything else on the subject. My comment on cryptic meta data was that that was literally the only additional information I could find about him. I am not rejecting the source, for being difficult to get access to. My point was that there was literately nothing else when I searched other than that metadata. Typically for someone to meet notability they have to be covered by multiple sources. And, I can't find any support for independent coverage. The book in question wasn't even something he published. The book was edited by another person long after his death. Mason (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Will respond more at bottom. Oblivy (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage on the subject in the sources which are also poor. Subject does not meet basic criteria to be considered notable due to insignificant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If this criteria can be met, I would reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer. Page was created by sockpuppet and is good for WP:G5 speedy deletion. RangersRus (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RangersRus, this article is not eligible for CSD G5. You've made this kind of comment several times which is a mistaken interpretation of G5. Please review WP:CSD carefully. G5 is for block evasion, not simply for being the work of a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I striked my comment. Is it right though that "when a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5"? WP:G5. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see an SPI on 21 March and this article was created 19 March. Blocks were in April. Perhaps I'm misreading or missing something? Oblivy (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5 does not apply to the initial accounts that are blocked for socking if they are not evading a block at that point. It only applies to the articles created by accounts that come after the initial case/block.

In this case, both the accounts were used simultaneously and neither of them had an active block. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. Just FYI, a general comment for all AFDs, when an editor says "seems like" or "likely" or "appears to be" it means to me that the editor hasn't read or seen the sources and are basing their opinion on attributes like the title or the publisher. If that's the case, it's good not to have an absolutist opinion on what should happen with an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I am right down the middle on this. This guy seems to have been a prominent barrister, wrote a number of books including a treatise on administrative law. Maybe also wrote about temples (not sure if it's the same author).

But I've tried to find the sources, and don't find anything substantial about him except for the two links on the page, and as @Smasongarrison points out above that's a book by him, or perhaps comprising judgments curated by him. And one The Hindu journalist who liked his book.

Complaints about the origin of the article are, subject to further developments, misplaced. The author seems to have a particular interest[19] in Calamur.

If, on chance, there is someone out there who can improve this article let them do it. It will not be me. There's a conversation over unblocking going on so perhaps @Hölderlin2019 will live to edit another day. Oblivy (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be onboard with draftifying. If he were in my subject area, I'd inter-library loan the book. Maybe someone will be so motivated. Mason (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify, either one. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Hindu source is fine, but it's one source. I don't find anything in Gscholar or Books, there are some papers he's written on various aspects of the law, but these don't affect notability here. I think there could be more sourcing in the local language, but I can't locate any. Oaktree b (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election[edit]

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

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

I've found 3 sources for this election, but they're not in depth enough to require the article right now, imo - [20] [21] [22] Soni (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There will be a number of duplicate comments on this given how 5 different AFDs were based on the same prior consensus (they didn't fall under WP:MULTIAFD by my read). So I'm going to make all general comments about evaluation of NCRYSTAL and similar on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Assam Legislative Assembly election instead of replying the same things 5x. I'll keep finding sources or replying about sources in each specific AFD. Soni (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many of these future prediction pages. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Again, two years off is too far in the future, judging from the information given. In any case it should be 2026 Kerala Legislative Assembly election given that it has a date. "Next election" articles are either speculative or misnamed and need to be suppressed. Mangoe (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no good references discussing this future event. It currently has no value and WP:TOOSOON. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Assam Legislative Assembly election[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is the second AfD on this topic. I previously nominated this article, and the consensus was to keep it. I continue to support the previous decision. For reference: Previous discussion.Hitro talk 22:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I waited for the 2 other AFDs from this month to close, just to be sure this was not a one-off of me misevaluating Crystal. But mainly -

If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2044 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research.

I searched and found no sources talking about the election. I didn't find any consensus about next elections in any notability guidelines I could see. I found 5 (+2) AFDs that suggested deletion is the correct approach, and just 1 that didn't.

This topic also needs a talk page notification and/or a higher level consensus established somewhere (I don't know where), otherwise each AFD will end at a different inconsistent place. But until I see such higher level consensus, my read of both Crystal and prior consensus says it's pretty clear it should be a delete. Soni (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, there is already coverage of this election: [23] [24] along with articles about new delineation. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that Hindu article (published 5 days ago) is definitely talking directly about the elections.

I disagree on the livemint article, it's not coverage of the elections as much as just "BJP leader stated something about Hindu-Muslim divide in Congress". It's not significant, and they only mention it as a "in a few years".

I missed a couple other articles on my before check - [25] [26] so I do agree there is significant enough coverage for the election. Soni (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many of these future prediction pages. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - There are 5 connected AFDs in this - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Manipur Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. This didn't seem to meet MULTIAFD as each of them are at a different level of RS reporting, but the general question (Is it CRYSTAL) would still apply. Soni (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a date has been set for each of these, then they should each be moved to reflect that. Mangoe (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess I support keeping this article now. See above comment. Coverage is now significant enough. Soni (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: !vote balance at this time is leaning keep, although I will note that most of the connected AfDs noted above this relist have since been closed as consensus for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In established democracies, the next election is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAl. Sourcing and existing information is sufficient. --Enos733 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's just not enough here for an election that is almost two years off; the only substance is the date itself. Failing that, it should be moved to 2026 Assam Legislative Assembly election since this has a set date. Mangoe (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion since the previous list has not cleared things up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per comments Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandhan Mutual Fund[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating the article because it has been restored to its original state (after minimal participation in the previous AfD) and has not been modified since the date of its refund (12 May 2024). This circumstance provides ample reason to once again initiate the deletion of the article, based on the same rationale presented during the initial deletion discussion. - "Trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. Citations are collections of paid news which are highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The primary issue arises from the editor's attempt to pass off two financial products (exchange traded funds), namely BANDHAN S&P BSE SENSEX ETF (BSE:540154) and BANDHAN NIFTY 50 ETF (NSE:IDFNIFTYYET), as company's own stock market listings, which they are not, thereby failing to adhere to WP:LISTED. A comparable effort was observed in the AFD discussion of Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance, wherein the company tried to be part of NIFTY 50 without proper validation. In a nutshell, the company falls short when it comes to meeting WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND." TCBT1CSI (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion (again)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India-Latin America relations[edit]

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

Articles on diplomatic relations are supposed to be country specific as long as they concern modern period. This article's title is too broad, inaccurate and whatever is added here can be already found on other articles.Ratnahastin (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share that understanding of what counts as a legitimate article at all; there are many articles concerning country-to-region relations, such as Africa–India relations, Sino-Latin America relations, etc. Also, I would like to ask which other articles most of the information in this article can be found at. GreekApple123 (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Africa–India relations is based on historical relations while Sino-Latin America relations shall also require deletion.Ratnahastin (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Politics, Economics, India, and Latin America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Merge the article is well formatted and cited with many references which covers this topic in depth. It does spun around the topic, passes general notability. However if merging is an option then I'd not oppose it merging in Foreign relations of India. Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page is well written and has many reliable sources with significant coverage on the India-Latin economic and trade ties and history. Passes WP:GNG. I am also not opposed to Merge to Foreign relations of India. RangersRus (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Duplicative of other articles. No point. Yilloslime (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or Merge into other Indian articles about relations with Latin America

48JCL (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well sourced and covers India's relations with Latin America. With India's growing economy, this a topic which has been getting covered these past years. Dash9Z (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput Mughal marriage alliances[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It isn't well written and could use a more analytic overview, but the large number of sources is more than enough to establish notability. Marriages were an important aspect of diplomacy in many countries, as shown in Royal intermarriage. Zero^talk 09:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing a GA article with a poorly written article that mainly relies on outdated unreliable sources and fails to establish notability. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Poorly written" is totally irrelevant at AFD. Also only a fraction of the sources are primary and more than half do not date from the RAJ. The fact that you link "unreliable" to PRIMARY suggests that you don't understand either. This article needs a good clean-up, that's all, as the topic is obviously significant. Zero^talk 12:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This is a good article based on NPOV. I don't think so this article should be deleted because it has more than 53 reliable sources produced by various independent writers. It would be a significant loss if this article were deleted since it may require copyediting but not deletion, practically all sources are reputable, and the article fits the general notability criterion. The Mughal Rajput marital partnerships were a significant occurrence in Indian history during the 16th and 17th century so it should remain on free encyclopedia.2404:3100:188E:2F21:1:0:94AA:65C8 (talk)— 2404:3100:188E:2F21:1:0:94AA:65C8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete WP:SYNTH at best. I don't see any need for having an article on this subject. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess. There was no such thing as "Rajput-Mughal marriage alliances" in the cited sources. Based Kashmiri (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not denying that these marriages didn't happen, but the topic is not notable. Lorstaking (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Mughal Empire. Some reliable sources on the page from John F. Richards (historian), Ruby Lal (historian), Bonnie G. Smith (historian), Jayashree Vivekanandan (senior research associate), Barbara Ramusack, Satish Chandra (historian), David O. Morgan (historian), Anthony Reid (historian) and few others help with verification of the content on the page. Passes WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I mainly see it as a fork of various articles. I don't believe a merge would be needed. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly pass WP:GNG Most sources are reliable and meet the criteria of notability, as most of the references are written by notable individual authors, viz., Jayashree Vivekanandan (senior research associate), Barbara Ramusack, Satish Chandra (historian), David O. Morgan (historian), and some others.Feniles (talk)— Feniles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Page seems to be illogical and a mixture of Tales. There isn't any particular record of such marriages Rudra Simha (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic mainly in western india (as the most classical example of Mariam uz Zamani and Akbar marriage belong to Rajasthan), cleanup of this article is required for better overview and number of reliable sources is also enough. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is as trivial as it gets and Wikipedia appears to be the only source right now that happened to make a topic out of it. There are no WP:HISTRS sources that have provided coverage to this topic. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see any validity of the topic or existence of an actual "marriage alliance". Article just lists some marriages that are speculated to have been between a Rajput and a Mughal. That is rather trivial. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, strongly. Am I seeing double? There is a preponderance of reliable sources on that article, some even discuss the dynamics of these marriages overall. Few of them are old primary sources, most of the sources that establish notability are from the 90s and later. I have not gone source-by-source (will do in a while) but is difficult to believe that the multiple Rajput marriages of Akbar and Jahangir alone would not generate sufficient scholarship for notability, let alone all the marriages of Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, minor princes and nobles. Those bringing up OR, SYNTH, and RAJ don't mention a single specific example where the article fails these policies when it has inline citations for almost every sentence as well as overarching citations that unify them into a si gle topic. @Ratnahastin: what is the POV supposedly being pushed here? What am I missing? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 12:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said the article has been created for pushing a POV because it relies on primary sources like Akbarnama, Jahangirnama for info and none of the references are exactly showing how this is a notable topic. Then there are some examples who have been hijacked by caste Rajput writers despite there is no evidence if they were Rajput. These things are better for discussing on the articles of the particular individuals instead of creating a list to impose a contradictory point of view.Ratnahastin (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not difficult to find sources even for the very trivial subjects but the major problem here is if WP:GNG was satisfied. I don't see if it has been. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1226273371 by 2409:4085:9197:EABD:0:0:1C8:8B1 I had to revert your comment here. You need to write a comment without making WP:NPA. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear. Caste-pushing are we? I see this too often. I can't remember, but I saw an editor like this recently who did the exact thing. — thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: One part of me wants it deleted, but one it kept. — thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting seems unlikely to achieve consensus, but with this much discussion, let's give it a try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not my favourite kind of page, but I think it is undeniable that the phenomena is covered in scholarly literature, so the only WP:SYNTH argument is that the facts of individual relationships have been marshalled into a list. If that's SYNTH then all lists on en.wiki are at risk. JMWt (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic does not require a page of its own. WP:NOT specifically WP:DIRECTORY disagree with the page. (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (already voted keep above). I strongly object to the claim that this topic is not notable. Back when kings and princes ruled the world, arranged marriages were one of the most important ways that alliances were cemented and empires waxed and waned. This was true in Europe also. The political map of the world would be different today otherwise. So in fact this phenomenon is a key part of history. Zero^talk 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you mention which sources convinced you that the topic is notable?Ratnahastin (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seek and ye shall find. The Politics of Marriage in Medieval India is a book about it published by Oxford University Press, but surprisingly not cited. Zero^talk 15:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me where this book is focusing on this subject? The summary of this book that I have found tells it is rather talking about Rajput#Culture and ethos.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is scattered throughout the book. Note the emphasis on political marriage and marriage alliance — this was not just a matter of some people marrying each other. For example, on p80-81 we have "Political marriages soon came to play a significant role in the establishment of the Mughal rule. Akbar wanted to use political marriage alliances as an important means for building and consolidating local support. In fact, Akbar’s conception of the Rajput role in his expanding empire was responsible for a number of matrimonial alliances with the Rajputs, and he made at least 40 political marriages for himself, his three sons, and his eldest grandson. Ultimately the emperor made marriage alliances for himself and sons with almost all major Rajput chiefs." And on page 80, "the first Rajputs to make marriage alliances with the Mughal dynasty were seeking support for their efforts to gain or retain land. Raja Bharmal Kachwaha, involved in a long and bitter contest with a brother for the control of Amber and Mertiya Rathore, Jagmal Viramdevot, was similarly struggling with his brother Jagmal for Merta, both married their daughters to the young emperor in 1562–3 respectively." And the drama surrounding marriage alliances is exemplified by a quotation on page 79: "The Mugals demanded the hand of princess of Roopnagar, a junior branch of the Marwar house. But she rejected the proposal offering herself to Rana Raj Singh in return for her protection. The priest deemed it as an honour at being the messenger of her wishes. The Rana then appeared before Roopnager and took her away to his capital. This led to a war between Mewar and the Mughals." On page 84, "Marriage alliances were also entered into as a face saving device in order to bring an end to prolonged hostilities over land." On page 141, "When the Rathores of Marwar rose to prominence in the mid-fifteenth century, marriage alliances with them were keenly sought after." That's all taken from random pages and is more than enough to demonstrate not only the relevance of this book but also the notability of the topic. Zero^talk 14:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be discussing a broader topic, which is not just "Rajput Mughal" marriage alliance but more than that. Will you support moving the title to something like Political marriages in India? That would certainly clear up things and allow meaningful expansion and removal of WP:SYNTH from the present version.Ratnahastin (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have preferences as to how the topic is divided into articles. It can be discussed on the relevant article talk pages. Meanwhile it would be counterproductive to delete the part of the story that this article tells. Zero^talk 01:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This book also appears citable and contains a fair amount of relevant information. In particular it could help to move the article away from being a boring list. Zero^talk 06:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per above discussion. First move the page to draft space, then remove the content that isn't supported by the source with regards to politically motivated marriage, and then change the title to Political marriages in India. After that, we need to include other examples such as political marriage of Chandragupta Maurya and move the page into article space. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : This article is created by main contributor, User:Adhinayaka, appears to use multiple accounts to push a caste-biased narrative favoring Ahiras/Yadavas on Hindi Wikipedia. This politically motivated article compromises the article's neutrality and reliability. For this reasons, the article should be deleted.च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Message 19:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NXcrypto, if you have evidence, please file a case at WP:SPI. But AFDs are not an appropriate place to cast aspersions and make undocumented accusations against another editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That editor must be talking about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HinduKshatrana. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above proposal to draftify as laid out by ArvindPalaskar seems good. I am not opposed to it. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hexaware Technologies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous version was deleted in 2020. This is quite a different from previous. I can see here significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. And a listed company at National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange. MeltPees (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know, if all you're going to do is past a few specific articles from draft to mainspace and then show up at several AFDs eventually you're going to attract scrutiny like an SPA. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some sources are reliable but still do not help with notability, lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Wikipedia is not a business directory. RangersRus (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The last AFD discussion was in February 2020 and since then the company received several articles and stories such as this article in Bloomberg 1, the Hindu articles 2, 3 and 4 (which is considered a reliable source per WP:RSP), and this article from Reuters. More citations might haven't included in the 2020 previous page version such as The Hindu article 5 and the Reuters article 5. Rchardk (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rchardk, reliable is fine and all, and if that were the only criteria it could have been kept even back in 2020, but there are three others. Can you take a look at the rules for trivial, especially routine coverage or those for independence and tell me which of the sources you posted meet those? They seem like the usual announcements copied from press releases. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please assess new sources,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per the citeunseen script, this page has 11 reliable sources, but all of them are trivial, especially routine coverage, as Alpha3031 has rightly noticed. If there are any three reliable sources, which satisfies ORGCRIT, there's a possibility of keeping it; otherwise, it's a straight-forward delete. Charlie (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolkur Sadashivapet Indian Railways

Proposed deletions[edit]

Files for deletion[edit]

Category discussion debates[edit]

Template discussion debates[edit]

Redirects for deletion[edit]

MFD discussion debates[edit]

Other deletion discussions[edit]

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