Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India
Points of interest related to India on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to India. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|India|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to India. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.
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
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. asilvering (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Dholakia Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The organization in question does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria for corporations, as outlined in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Gujarat. Charlie (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- The deletion of the Dholakia Foundation page should be reconsidered as the foundation meets the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The foundation has been featured in leading media such as the Economic Times, Entrepreneur Magazine, and CBS News, showcasing its significant contributions to environmental conservation and social welfare. Its work in constructing over 150 lakes and planting 3 million trees has earned global recognition, including accreditation at the 2023 UN Water Conference. Given the foundation's widespread impact and recognition, both nationally and internationally, the article complies with notability guidelines and warrants retention. Njoy deep (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: The 14 sources cited in the article are either irrelevant to the subject or press releases and there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with Jeraxmoira. Sources are found to be WP:ROUTINE and announcements. No significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Aaragan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article does not meet WP:GNG as no in-depth coverage of the subject has been found from reliable independent sources. The cited sources are mostly unreliable, and the reliable sources only provide passing mentions. Additionally, the article fails to meet WP:NFILM. It could potentially be recreated if multiple reviews from reliable independent sources are published after its release. GrabUp - Talk 12:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Tamil Nadu. GrabUp - Talk 12:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- no issue i will move draft Monhiroe (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: kindly move to draft Monhiroe (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or Draftify. WP:TOOSOON and per nom. Sources are poor to unreliable with no significant coverage. Maybe after the release of the film, some sources with reviews and other significant coverage might come forth, and then the page can either be recreated or reedited with sources that meet secondary independent reliability criteria. For now fails WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The creator himself had reDrafted it so that Draftification although not procedurally standard seemed pretty consensual among all contributors. This is therefore a (fair) procedural AfD and a consensus seems easy to reach if the creator confirms he agrees to Draftification. @Monhiroe:: what do you say? (Announced release on October, 4) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- done @Mushy Yank Monhiroe (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies and thanks! You had already done it indeed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- done @Mushy Yank Monhiroe (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Monhiroe Mushy Yank, please page should not be moved to draft while this AFD is in place. RangersRus (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- ?? I never said to move it during AfD and am rather aware we should wait for a close, mind you; just trying to make sure we can reach consensus as you can see if you read my comment with attention. Please amend your comment, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- ??? Why are you making big fuss about it? It is just a general comment. RangersRus (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why I am not surprised by your reply? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- ??? Why are you making big fuss about it? It is just a general comment. RangersRus (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- ?? I never said to move it during AfD and am rather aware we should wait for a close, mind you; just trying to make sure we can reach consensus as you can see if you read my comment with attention. Please amend your comment, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nitte Meenakshi Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There is no independent coverage. Delete or merge with Visvesvaraya Technological University or NITTE as per the existing affiliation. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. 6 sources on the page. 1 2,3,4,5 sources can not be reached and 6 is just a table of different universities and the subject does not even have entry in it. Even if there was entry, it still is a poor source with no significant coverage. Per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Dinesh Kanabar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Also, Wikipedia is not a resume hosting site WP:NOTRESUME. His company is also nominated for deletion. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Totally promotional content, clearly failed WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete other users suggesting this is being used for promotion. Monophile 💬 10:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This page has WP:PROMO all over it. The subject did not make any significant achievements noteworthy nationally and internationally to satisfy notability about the subject role as businessman. Fails WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. Promotional, but the subject also does not have enough news coverage. There were a few announcement type articles, that may have come from a press release and there was an article about his stamp collection.Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Dhruva Advisors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A purely promotional page WP:PROMO for a company with no credible sources WP:RS. It does not meet the standards of WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Signature Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The primary citations center around the IPO listing and fundraising efforts. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. At the time of this nomination, an agency had withdrawn a credit rating, and no analyst reports existed on the web. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The Nominator is doing nothing except marking the pages up for the deletion. They should read and understand the basics of Notability first. The subject passes the guidelines. Faizi Dehlvi (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you are familiar with the notability guidelines, would you mind adding them here by conducting a WP:SIRS? Discard IPO related news due to WP:CHURN, feel free to use anything else instead. TCBT1CSI (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Darpan Sanghvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Also, Wikipedia is not a resume hosting site WP:NOTRESUME. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Singapore, Maharashtra, Spain, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Editors who work in this subject area believe this article subject meets WP:NSPECIES which is the notability standard here. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Rama rama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only other sources I could find is a trivial mention that contradicts our article: [1] and this one: [2] which calls it a misidentification? Traumnovelle (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep There seems to be some uncertainty about current placement, but that does not mean that the species does not exist or does not represent a valid classification. It appears in one recent checklist as a cyprinid [3] but in another, as well as in Fishbase and CoL (and our article) as Bagridae [4][5][6], and is present in a number of other checklists and publications [7][8]. CoL states "Considered in some literature as synonym of Chandramara chandramara (Hamilton)" (also a bagrid). So, the taxonomic status is murky, but that is something to sort out out and summarize in the article. No grounds for deletion. (The "misidentification" mentioned above refers to particular specimens from a particular collection, and has no bearing on taxonomic status as a whole.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to be any in depth secondary coverage which is the grounds for deletion. I can't access the last link but all the others are quite trivial in coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- We do not require "in-depth coverage" for species in excess of the original description and inclusion in multiple reliable databases. I am aware that discussions are ongoing re WP:NSPECIES (see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(species)), but what you are assuming here sounds like one of the far-end positions in that discourse that was never going to gain majority traction, and certainly does not seem likely to end up as the conclusion. If that is your deletion rationale, then this is an assured non-starter. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- We do require that. WP:WHYN. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- ...welcome to AfD, where we get this exact issue twice a month, which is why we are currently trying to formalize it into a special notability guideline. I'll sum this up as "Keep per WP:NSPECIES" and leave it to others to reiterate the argument. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- We do require that. WP:WHYN. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- We do not require "in-depth coverage" for species in excess of the original description and inclusion in multiple reliable databases. I am aware that discussions are ongoing re WP:NSPECIES (see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(species)), but what you are assuming here sounds like one of the far-end positions in that discourse that was never going to gain majority traction, and certainly does not seem likely to end up as the conclusion. If that is your deletion rationale, then this is an assured non-starter. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. As stated above, notability guidelines are unique when the subject of an article is an officially named species. --Jtwhetten(talk) 23:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Bhav 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 · TWL)
Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Whole article is made up of profiles. No indication of significance. Awards are non-notable trade awards. scope_creepTalk 11:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and United Kingdom. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This page reads as WP:PROMO and resume. Sources are very poor and do not highlight any significant achievements noteworthy nationally and internationally to satisfy notability about the subject role as investor and businessman. Fails WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Based on same reasoning in the AfD for the 2023 ceremony. Main page Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards exists which is also likely not notable so not seeing how this would meet notability guidelines. Cannot find enough coverage to establish it for this specific year. Attempted (twice) to redirect as an WP:ATD but IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point. CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also pinging the three other participants from the 2023 discussion - @TimothyBlue:, @RangersRus:, @Improvised but so real unicorn: in case you have other thoughts on this year from 2023.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: as a standard WP:SPLITLIST -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Too many unneeded statistical data and the winners are already listed in Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards. No need for a standalone page for this. RangersRus (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards 2019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Based on same reasoning in the AfD for the 2023 ceremony. Main page Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards exists which is also likely not notable so not seeing how this would meet notability guidelines. Cannot find enough coverage to establish it for this specific year. Attempted (twice) to redirect as an WP:ATD but IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point. CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also pinging the three other participants from the 2023 discussion - @TimothyBlue:, @RangersRus:, @Improvised but so real unicorn: in case you have other thoughts on this year from 2023.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: as a standard WP:SPLITLIST -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Too many unneeded statistical data and the winners are already listed in Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards. It does not need to be a standalone page for this. RangersRus (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards 2020–21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Based on same reasoning in the AfD for the 2023 ceremony. Main page Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards exists which is also likely not notable so not seeing how this would meet notability guidelines. Cannot find enough coverage to establish it for this specific year. Attempted (twice) to redirect as an WP:ATD but IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point. CNMall41 (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also pinging the three other participants from the 2023 discussion - @TimothyBlue:, @RangersRus:, @Improvised but so real unicorn: in case you have other thoughts on this year from 2023.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: as a standard WP:SPLITLIST -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Too many unneeded statistical data and the winners are already listed in Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards. No need for a standalone page for this. RangersRus (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards 2022 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Based on same reasoning in the AfD for the 2023 ceremony. Main page Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards exists which is also likely not notable so not seeing how this would meet notability guidelines. Cannot find enough coverage to establish it for this specific year. Attempted (twice) to redirect as an WP:ATD but IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point. CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also pinging the three other participants from the 2023 discussion - @TimothyBlue:, @RangersRus:, @Improvised but so real unicorn: in case you have other thoughts on this year from 2023.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: as a standard WP:SPLITLIST -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- We have been through this before. SPLITLIST is not a notability guideline. Can you point out the references that talk about this as a whole? This vote is a continued fallacy by assertion. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Too many unneeded statistical data and the winners are already listed in Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards. No need for a standalone page for this. RangersRus (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Bafakhy Yatheemkhana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find WP:SIGCOV of this charitable organization in WP:SIRS for a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Islam, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep pass WP:GNG There is a reliable source [9][10][11], Consider the (School) category ~Spworld2 (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Your first two links are single-paragraph WP:ROUTINE news stories that do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Your third link is dead, but the archived version shows it is a commemorative anniversary book published by the subject of the article and thus not independent. None of these sources get to GNG, and the School page you linked is a non-binding essay. The actual policy, WP:NSCHOOL, requires schools to meet WP:GNG, WP:NORG, or both, and so far there are no sources that contribute to either guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Sources are very poor with no indepth significant coverage. Sources are more about the school activities in sanitation, math fair, science fair and such. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Nothing in Gnews, regular Gsearch only brings up social media for the institution. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment As per reference, During the course of this discussion This article has been updated in the School category! Check once with WP:GNG, WP:NORG Consider the (School) category ~ Spworld2 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - If this is kept in any form it needs to be renamed. It is Valavannur Bafakhy Yatheemkhana School, and all the other Bafakhy Yatheemkhana, Bafaghi Yatheem Khana etc. institutions in Kerala are seperate and distinct. Also in reply to the above comment, NORG is a higher bar than GNG, but GNG will do. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Not draftified, as there is no indication that the subject is likely to become notable in the near future. asilvering (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Debangshu Bhattacharya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No inherent notability here. Subject fails WP:NPOL, and I've checked the cited sources, none could satisfy WP:GNG criteria. The regular WP:ROTM sources we get during election periods. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Tagging @Sohom Datta: who reviewed and @Toweli: who previously redirected to Trinamool Congress said that the accepted version was better improved than that of earlier version before redirected.--☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 11:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. The subject is not a major political figure and has not held international, national, or state/province–wide office. Subject was a contestant from West Bengal representing All India Trinamool Congress political party in Lok Sabha Elections 2024 from Tamluk and lost. RangersRus (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Per WP:THREE, If you kindly read its talk page that I provided certain sources that may pass WP:SIRS, following which the draft was accepted. Not always it is necessary to pass per NPOL case. I can even explain further if requested. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 18:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- From the talk page, Source 2 is from NDTV News Desk with no byline, probably a routine article. Source 7 and 4 are not independent. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then I advise to draftify the page for now. Any new development will take place persisting to GNG criteria, that it seems fit for. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 08:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- From the talk page, Source 2 is from NDTV News Desk with no byline, probably a routine article. Source 7 and 4 are not independent. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination and RangersRus. Searching in English and Bengali (দেবাংশু ভট্টাচার্য), I can find only routine coverage of him as a candidate, not the sort of significant coverage as a politician that would meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Over the past week there's been a gossipy story in the Bengali press about him supposedly insulting someone online, but that's WP:BLP1E at best. I oppose draftifying in this case, since he last ran for office seven months ago, and isn't on the cusp of getting elected. If he does win an election, then WP:REFUND can be used to recover any content worth including in the new article. Wikishovel (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to New Series Adventures#Tenth Doctor. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ghosts of 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 · TWL)
Fails WP:NBOOK tagged for notability since Januray of last year. One unreliable review Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and India. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom, I noticed the same thing, was gonna AfD myself. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to New Series Adventures#Tenth Doctor. Mr Sitcom (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Nyrika 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 · TWL)
A promotional biography of a businesswoman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:ADMASQ, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ahmedabad Rockets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough coverage; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- There's also the following articles,
- Chandigarh Lions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Chennai Superstars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dhaka Warriors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delhi Giants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Hyderabad Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Royal Bengal Tigers (sports team) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lahore Badshahs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mumbai Champs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Might be perfect candidates for collection in a List of Indian Cricket League teams. This would mean a merge all to such a list. Geschichte (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all. I did ponder a redirect, but this event was so long ago, do people really remember the names of the teams which took part? I know I didn't! So I thought it was unlikely people would search for them in 2024. AA (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Founded and dissolved same year 2008. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT. RangersRus (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all non notable crap. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.
Just to note, this was never a bundled nomination, it just concerns one article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Enterr10 Television Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Attempted to clean up but found a bunch of WP:FAKEREF and unreliable sources. Everything here appears to be a WP:WALLEDGARDEN created by UPE Sock in an attempt to show notability. There are sources about some of the individual networks but as a whole there is nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT which is required to show notability under WP:NCORP. CNMall41 (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Other pages that are part of the WALLEDGARDEN (many of which do not appear notable) are:
Have not sent any of those to AfD as of yet. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete ALL. Per nom. Poor to unreliable sources with no significant coverage on the network and its channels and fails to meet organization criterias to pass notability. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. asilvering (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Faliyu (housing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant coverage of the topic. Article at present is just a dictionary definition. C F A 💬 21:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Religion, India, and Gujarat. C F A 💬 21:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete seems to be a WP:DICTDEF of the Gujarati word for "neighborhood". No sources, and a cursory search for "ફળિયું" (Gujarati) found nothing. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can we redirect to Pol (housing)? Bearian (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. No sources on the page and so no coverage on the word. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 17:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- ICL 20s World Series 2008–09 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough coverage on reliable independent sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- There's also the following with the same condition...
- ICL 20-20 Indian Championship 2008–09 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- ICL 20-20 Indian Championship 2007–08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- ICL 20s Grand Championship 2007–08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- ICL 20s World Series 2007–08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. No WP:LASTING impact either. AA (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete ALL. The world series started on 23 November in 2008 and canceled three days. Series has no lasting impact and no significant coverage. All the others listed in this AFD fails WP:SIGCOV and had no notable significance. RangersRus (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all no WP:SUSTAINED coverage, so separate season articles are not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Praveen 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 · TWL)
Praveen Singh does not meet the qualifications for a Wikipedia page, especially under the WP:NPOL notability guidelines. His role as a block pramukh lacks national significance and does not represent a state or province-level office in India. Note: This page is being nominated as part of an ongoing New Page Patrol (NPP) training exercise. Charlie (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Charlie (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. --Ratekreel (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Clearly fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG; the sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Best wishes to the nominator for NPP School. GrabUp - Talk 14:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- I believe this article should be kept as Praveen Singh has been a notable political figure in Uttar Pradesh with significant contributions to regional politics, being a local i am aware he's going to contest for block elections in 2026 from Machhrehta Block. In case of India, the Panchayati Raj system still prevails and for Indians the block levels are really significant offices in government. IndianQuest (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- @IndianQuest: Let him contest and win the Block-level election; only then can the article be recreated and retained. Currently, he does not meet the notability criteria according to Wikipedia’s guidelines. GrabUp - Talk 03:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @GrabUp block level elections are insignificant. He must win either national elections (to become a Member of Parliament) or state-wide legislative elections (to become a Member of the Legislative Assembly). Charlie (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @CharlieMehta: I thought Block-level elections meant MLA elections, as every MLA is elected from blocks in a district. GrabUp - Talk 04:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- The hierarchy is as follows: Gram Panchayat (village level), Block Panchayat (a group of Gram Panchayats at the intermediary level), and Zilla Panchayat (comprising several Block Panchayats). A constituency district typically includes at least one city municipal corporation, a few municipal councils, and several Zilla Panchayats. To represent the area, an MLA must be elected across the entire constituency. Charlie (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explaination😉 GrabUp - Talk 06:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes very well explained. So far he has only been contesting for block elections. IndianQuest (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- The hierarchy is as follows: Gram Panchayat (village level), Block Panchayat (a group of Gram Panchayats at the intermediary level), and Zilla Panchayat (comprising several Block Panchayats). A constituency district typically includes at least one city municipal corporation, a few municipal councils, and several Zilla Panchayats. To represent the area, an MLA must be elected across the entire constituency. Charlie (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @CharlieMehta: I thought Block-level elections meant MLA elections, as every MLA is elected from blocks in a district. GrabUp - Talk 04:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @GrabUp block level elections are insignificant. He must win either national elections (to become a Member of Parliament) or state-wide legislative elections (to become a Member of the Legislative Assembly). Charlie (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @IndianQuest: Let him contest and win the Block-level election; only then can the article be recreated and retained. Currently, he does not meet the notability criteria according to Wikipedia’s guidelines. GrabUp - Talk 03:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. Poor and unreliable sources from a personal self published youtube videos, Facebook and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: does not meet the qualifications for a Wikipedia page, especially under the WP:NPOL notability guidelines. Youknow? (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per RangersRus. Even if he’s a party block (committee person), that’s not notable. I was an equivalent, county committee member, and that’s not notable. I also agree that the sourcing is not reliable. Bearian (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'd normally prefer to weight the WP:ATD argument more heavily, but a) there's barely anything to this article, and b) this makes it easier to deal with vexatious recreations via G4. Future editors who believe they've found more sources are advised to publish through WP:AFC. Thank you. asilvering (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Border 2 (2026 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Film has not received enough significant coverage to warrant a standalone article, per WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON. Draftify until the topic receives more coverage BOVINEBOY2008 10:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify, I agree with Bovineboy here. Put it in drafts until we can get a better picture of its notability. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 11:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Border_(1997_film)#Sequel -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete
or Draftify. Too early. The makers are still making announcements about the cast. Film is still at early stage of making and is in pre-production. There is nothing notable yet. RangersRus (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)- In the previous AFD, I voted for draftify but looks like it was republished again without any notability and is way too early for any coverage on the film that will presumably (no release date) release in 2026. I stay my vote to just delete now. RangersRus (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: This was already discussed in the previous AfD about this film, and it was draftified. We should delete this one because the draftified version is sufficient, and we should not keep creating drafts repeatedly. GrabUp - Talk 06:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- @RangersRus: You were also part of the previous discussion; maybe you forgot. GrabUp - Talk 06:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I should have checked the last AFD but the previous one is not listed here on this AFD about past discussions. Thank you for the link to last AFD. Delete is the only option now. RangersRus (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- @RangersRus: You were also part of the previous discussion; maybe you forgot. GrabUp - Talk 06:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Tej Giri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and India. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, seems WP:TOOSOON. Or Redirect to List of Nepalese actors. nirmal (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Won't the inclusion in the list be challenged if he has no page himself? If the inclusion seems OK, I could support that outcome too, given the so-so coverage he received in Nepalese and the sourced list of films. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - meet WP:NACTOR according to the given refrences [1][2][3][4]. for more info
References
- ^ "फिल्ममा 'ट्वीस्ट' ल्याउने चरित्र मेरो छ : तेज गिरी". www.ratopati.com (in Nepali). Retrieved 2024-09-17.
- ^ "तेज गिरी". www.ratopati.com (in Nepali). Retrieved 2024-09-17.
- ^ "तेज गिरी". Himalaya Times. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
- ^ "अभिनेता तेज गिरी भन्छन्: 'उपहार'मा मेरो अभिनय सुधारिएको छ". nepalkhabar (in Nepali). 2019-06-03. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review sources. User:Endrabcwizart, please remember to sign all discussion comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. asilvering (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Elina Hsiung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:ENT. No appearance in multiple reliable sources. Aside from h above, there are many unsourced, promotional contents. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Women, Entertainment, and China. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - a single interview in Vogue and citations to three blogs doesn’t make significant coverage. If you find something more useful, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Here is the only good source I found:
- Mankani, Sneha (2020-08-18). "6 dancers on how their craft empowers them to find strength during crisis". Vogue. Archived from the original on 2020-10-23. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
The article notes: "The first routine Elina Hsiung choreographed was at age nine, to the chart-topping Backstreet Boys song ‘Larger Than Life’. ... Hsiung teaches at a dance studio in Manhattan whenever she’s not working on workshops and collaborations in Mumbai. Trained in ballet, contemporary, jazz, hip-hop and modern, her style is versatile and natural. Her recently launched e-book In My Shoes is almost an instructional manual on how to make it as a dancer in New York. Hsiung attributes her toughness to dance. It gives her the fortitude to train for 10 or more hours a day (she tops this up with cardio and body conditioning at the gym) and the mental capacity to learn routines and adapt techniques in minutes, as well as tackle auditions and rejections. [quote]"
- Mankani, Sneha (2020-08-18). "6 dancers on how their craft empowers them to find strength during crisis". Vogue. Archived from the original on 2020-10-23. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Love, Sitara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreleased Indian film. Nothing notable about the production, so it does not meet WP:NFF. I couldn't any sources that give WP:SIGCOV so WP:GNG is also not met. The only sources I could find only give routine coverage based on plot summaries, press releases, quotes from people involved in the film and social media posts. John B123 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. John B123 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: announced release in 12 days, and probably coverage coming with it. So this is either too early (cannot judge yet) or too late (too close to release's date). There is no need to delete or draftify for such a short period of time (which, by the time this discussion is over will be either reduced to 5 days or less than zero, if it is Relisted). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Film is as yet unreleased. Therefore a black-and-white case of not satisfying WP:NFF:
Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.
Film has not yet been released, the production itself is not notable. QED. Article could have remained in draft space... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)- Except, given existing coverage about production (cast (including notable actors, as I am sure you know), plot, filming, location, production history etc), it is far from proved that production istelf was not notable, very far.... so basically, no, nothing is demonstrated at all. And this is thus far from being a ”b/w” case. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- None of that has received significant coverage, that would satisfy the notability guidelines, though? It's all just entirely routine press releases - film announced, these people have been cast, production has begun... Anyway, time for others to have their say. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Except, given existing coverage about production (cast (including notable actors, as I am sure you know), plot, filming, location, production history etc), it is far from proved that production istelf was not notable, very far.... so basically, no, nothing is demonstrated at all. And this is thus far from being a ”b/w” case. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Instead of deleting this article, extend this discussion till the 27th and if reviews show up, then keep it. DareshMohan (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Delete !voters should consider changing their !votes to draftify. I don't think deletion is the correct decision for a film that is about to be released and will likely be notable after its release. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah it's very clearly not the best course of action to delete the article, so I hope the closer does not do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae and Hey man im josh: Normally I'd agree with you, but in this case the creator is convinced that the article, as is, easily meets WP:NFF and WP:GNG, will not discuss notability with other editors and has already reverted a draftification. I can see the article being moved back to mainspace without any significant changes almost immediately if draftify is the outcome. --John B123 (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- If there are insufficient keep !votes, perhaps the closer can close this as "The result was draftify, and the article is not to be moved back to mainspace until the movie is released in theatres." –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: A movie being released doesn't make it notable. It still needs to meet GNG or the provisions of WP:NFO, the most usual one being
The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics
. I would suggest adding and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics to the end of your proposed closing. --John B123 (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: A movie being released doesn't make it notable. It still needs to meet GNG or the provisions of WP:NFO, the most usual one being
- @John B123: None of that sounds like a good reason to delete the article instead of moving to draft space. WP:DRAFTOBJECT exists and the creator was pushed by myself and another admin to revert a draftification if they truly believed it to be inappropriate. An AfD result changes things, it makes it so that the reasons that the AfD was closed as draftify need to be addressed before moving an article to main space. Let's not try to solve a theoretical future move war by deleting content that could prove useful in the coming months, request page protection or make a report in that case if necessary. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: I agree draftspace is the best place for this article until if/when it meets the notability requirements. Adding move protection to a draftify outcome would go a long way to ensuring it stayed there until moving to mainspace was appropriate. John B123 (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'd much rather we wait until such protection is actually necessary. At this point in time, we have no reason believe anyone won't respect the close. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- We kinda do, though. Draftifying was the correct course of action, and I would have been happy for it to be worked on there and moved to mainspace, post release, if it satisfied WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV, but instead the draft was moved straight back to mainspace without any improvements. Mushy Yank doesn't accept what WP:NFF says, nor does C1K98V, who below is saying "improvement shall take place in the mainspace." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Mushy Yank doesn't accept what WP:NFF says, nor does C1K98V
is both inappropriate and not true. AS I'VE CLEARLY explained, I think it does MEET NFF, and SO DOES C1K98V, that is very very clearly stated in their !vote; so please refrain from making this kind of fallacious comments. You have your opinion, ours differ from yours, obviously. You may be right and us, wrong, but even if that was the case, that does not allow you to resort to personal attacks to make your point. Or just go to ANI and report us. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- We kinda do, though. Draftifying was the correct course of action, and I would have been happy for it to be worked on there and moved to mainspace, post release, if it satisfied WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV, but instead the draft was moved straight back to mainspace without any improvements. Mushy Yank doesn't accept what WP:NFF says, nor does C1K98V, who below is saying "improvement shall take place in the mainspace." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'd much rather we wait until such protection is actually necessary. At this point in time, we have no reason believe anyone won't respect the close. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: I agree draftspace is the best place for this article until if/when it meets the notability requirements. Adding move protection to a draftify outcome would go a long way to ensuring it stayed there until moving to mainspace was appropriate. John B123 (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- If there are insufficient keep !votes, perhaps the closer can close this as "The result was draftify, and the article is not to be moved back to mainspace until the movie is released in theatres." –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae and Hey man im josh: Normally I'd agree with you, but in this case the creator is convinced that the article, as is, easily meets WP:NFF and WP:GNG, will not discuss notability with other editors and has already reverted a draftification. I can see the article being moved back to mainspace without any significant changes almost immediately if draftify is the outcome. --John B123 (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah it's very clearly not the best course of action to delete the article, so I hope the closer does not do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The article satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:NFF. The film was announced and filmed during the COVID-19 period. The filming was also delayed/halted due to the pandemic. There is a specific category to list down impacted films. So I'm opposed to deletion, dratify and redirect the article. The changes and improvement shall take place in the mainspace itself. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 02:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. The page in the current stage is as good as delete with no significant coverage and usually films before release and post-production do get significant coverage but not this one. I would like to give my final vote once the film is released on 27 September (3 more days to go) and see how much significant coverage with reviews there is and then decide. RangersRus (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Plenty of reviews are now published. Making the nomination moot in my view. Inviting the nominator to withdraw.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sameer Siddiqui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this unreferenced article about a scriptwriter and dramatist, and cannot find coverage to add. I have also looked at a lot of the references in the articles he is linked to, and cannot find him mentioned. I did find a mention of him being arrested in 2018, but this is not appropriate for the article per WP:BLPCRIME. I may be failing to find coverage in Hindi-language sources. No obvious redirect target. Tacyarg (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Film, Theatre, and India. Tacyarg (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Youtube and Imdb aren't RS, I can't find anything about this person. A doctor and a bunch of others come up in my searches, not this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Non-notable, nothing shows up on searching. --Ratekreel (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. No sources on the page. I tried to search but could not find any secondary independent reliable source on the subject. Clearly fails notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Shri Krishna (1993 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources on the page are unreliable and fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. A WP:BEFORE found nothing reliable, just more of the same. CNMall41 (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_DD_National#Drama_series. I was thinking of redirect to the production company Sagar Films but this has no source on the page. RangersRus (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Given the existing coverage (such as https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment/television/after-ramayan-twitterati-welcome-ramanand-sagars-shri-krishna#google_vignette, https://theprint.in/india/after-ramayan-and-mahabharat-now-shri-krishna-to-return-on-dd/407561/ etc etc); or redirect (/as a historically important series for/) to the network. Very opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Hinduism. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: As Mushy Yank said above, remove some sources, and find more reliable sources, but very opposed to deletion Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Again, after some research, I'm just finding out that 160 episodes were filmed with the actor "Swapnil Joshi" but then they were deleted and refilmed from episode 73, Tilak has also wiped some articles too just because they contained some footage. and while deleted by some user, It also did air on ZEE TV, it has many indecisive things, for exmaple some sources say it aired from '93 to '96 while others say it's aired from '93 to '96 but later shifted to DD1, some other say that it was aired in '99 on ZEE TV for the first time and some that it aired on DD2-Metro and shifted to ZEETV and/or DD, It's very hard to find truthful sources, as all talk about the same thing but say it differently. for say the example mentioned above. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Rather keep it and do more research on it. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Two mentions that verify it exists is hardly enough to establish notability. If that were the case, pretty much every television show would be notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely true, but it takes some time to find some reliable sources. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- All articles talk about the same thing, just their matter is different, even with some or for say a lot of digging can be done but it results to the repetitive articles. Though for me deletion is not okay. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Page has been up since 2009, and by now we all realize after quite some digging that no reliable sources with indepth significant coverage is to be found. Redirect is better than to keep. Right? RangersRus (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- We could've redirected, if for say there was any good mention of it anywhere, but any mentions of it are exotic across wikipedia Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment/television/krishna-cast-here-is-a-list-of-actors-and-the-characters-they-play
- https://www.indiatoday.in/television/soaps/story/after-ramayan-ramanand-sagar-s-shri-krishna-to-return-on-doordarshan-1670255-2020-04-23
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/after-ramayans-end-viewers-welcome-ramanand-sagars-shri-krishna/articleshow/75547221.cms
- https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/coronavirus/news/after-ramayan-shri-krishna-returns-to-dd/articleshow/75359729.cms
- https://www.indiatvnews.com/photos/entertainment-swapnil-joshi-shri-krishna-ramayan-comedy-circus-mahasangram-611899
- https://www.filmibeat.com/television/news/2020/after-ramayan-and-mahabharat-doordarshan-to-bring-back-ramanand-sagars-shri-krishna-298001.html
- https://hindi.news18.com/news/entertainment/tv-ramayan-will-end-today-on-doordarshan-shri-krishna-will-start-from-ss-3073219.html
- https://www.aajtak.in/entertainment/television/story/krishna-janmashtami-2022-date-18-or-19-august-know-where-is-ramanand-sagar-shri-krishna-show-cast-tmovf-1519979-2022-08-18
- https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/tv/news/when-and-how-to-watch-shree-krishna-on-doordarshan/articleshow/75501800.cms
- https://www.bhaskarhindi.com/city/mumbai/union-minister-piyush-goyal-congratulated-mahant-swami-maharaj-on-his-91st-birthday-1066201?infinitescroll=1
- https://www.thelivemirror.com/doordarshan-brings-back-shri-krishna/
- https://www.latestly.com/entertainment/tv/how-marathi-actor-swwapnil-joshi-became-the-common-link-between-dd-shows-uttar-ramayan-and-sri-krishna-1724038.html
- https://www.indiatvnews.com/entertainment/tv/enjoyed-watching-ramayan-now-ramanand-sagar-s-shri-krishna-set-to-return-on-doordarshan-611513
- https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/photomazza/tv-photogalleries/janmashtami-2023-top-show-shri-krishna-1993-cast-where-is-yashoda-maiya-damini-kanwal-shetty-now/photoshow/msid-103423057,picid-103423197.cms
- https://www.financialexpress.com/life/entertainment-sri-krishna-telecast-time-on-dd-national-doordarshan-sri-krishna-broadcast-timing-daily-1946373/
- https://amarujala.com/photo-gallery/entertainment/television/shri-krishna-actor-krishna-aka-sarvadaman-d-banerjee-now-where-is-he
- https://www.jansatta.com/photos/entertainment-gallery/shri-krishna-actor-mahendra-muralidhar-dhule-played-bhima-ramanand-sagar-serial-sri-krishna-3-times-played-kumbhakaran-still-looks-like-young-boy/1439996/3/
- https://www.hindustantimes.com/tv/shri-krishna-the-show-that-turned-swapnil-joshi-into-god/story-pRZnHUDgao6rAmuqEwsInL.html
- https://www.naidunia.com/entertainment/bollywood-ramanand-sagar-shri-krishna-will-be-retelecast-on-dd-national-form-3-may-2020-know-its-timings-5530789
- https://zeenews.india.com/hindi/entertainment/photo-gallery-krishna-janmashtami-2022-know-how-much-shri-krishna-cast-serial-1993-cast-change-in-29-years/1306669
- https://hindi.scoopwhoop.com/entertainment/where-is-1993-shri-krishna-show-sudama-actor-mukul-nag/
- https://www.jansatta.com/photos/entertainment-gallery/shri-krishna-radha-reshma-modi-played-in-many-bollywood-movie-after-27-years-he-looks-changed-photos-covid-19/1404748/
- These are some sources that I found. I think they're reliable Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- wait https://www.bhaskarhindi.com/city/mumbai/union-minister-piyush-goyal-congratulated-mahant-swami-maharaj-on-his-91st-birthday-1066201?infinitescroll=1. is a wromg source help Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not worth entertaining a discussion when the first reference you supplied falls squarely under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Won't waste time looking at the rest as it seems to be a misunderstanding of what constitutes a reliable source. A redirect is acceptable as we can verify it exists, but nothing that shows it is notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, so now that you mention that it falls Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA, I think, you're actually right. I think deletion would be ok, as there's no adequate source to find. (Ignore this here I was trying not to start an argument but oh well.) Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- But again, I think this show deserves a page. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Are you changing your vote to delete?--CNMall41 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- no. I am not. This show is of significance and deserves a page, no arguing Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- "I think, you're actually right. I think deletion would be ok, as there's no adequate source to find" - This is written as if you are. At least, it does agree there is no adequate sourcing so without it I am wondering your policy-based reasoning for keeping it. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Is what I was thinking, until I kept finding stuff, Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- "I think, you're actually right. I think deletion would be ok, as there's no adequate source to find" - This is written as if you are. At least, it does agree there is no adequate sourcing so without it I am wondering your policy-based reasoning for keeping it. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- no. I am not. This show is of significance and deserves a page, no arguing Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, so now that you mention that it falls Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA, I think, you're actually right. I think deletion would be ok, as there's no adequate source to find. (Ignore this here I was trying not to start an argument but oh well.) Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also curious about this edit as you added content that is no where in the source. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- The cast or the above para? Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you're talking about cast, I just corrected some errors, and if you're talking about the above para, It's common knowledge to know DD didn't stream it in '97 and hence it was handed to ZEE TV, and Sony & Star did stream it following 2001. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Common knowledge? I certainly didn't know about it. In Wikipedia we are allowed to state the obvious (e.g., the sky is blue), but what you added would be WP:OR at best. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I can't find any adequate source as all would "apparently fall under Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA", but here's a statement from the production team- https://production.sagarworld.com/shri-krishna Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Production company is considered primary and not secondary independent reliable source. RangersRus (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you need further source, here's an image of it airing on Zee TV, (footage is now deleted and replaced with SD Banerjee) Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- I can't find any adequate source as all would "apparently fall under Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA", but here's a statement from the production team- https://production.sagarworld.com/shri-krishna Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Common knowledge? I certainly didn't know about it. In Wikipedia we are allowed to state the obvious (e.g., the sky is blue), but what you added would be WP:OR at best. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you're talking about cast, I just corrected some errors, and if you're talking about the above para, It's common knowledge to know DD didn't stream it in '97 and hence it was handed to ZEE TV, and Sony & Star did stream it following 2001. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- The cast or the above para? Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not worth entertaining a discussion when the first reference you supplied falls squarely under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Won't waste time looking at the rest as it seems to be a misunderstanding of what constitutes a reliable source. A redirect is acceptable as we can verify it exists, but nothing that shows it is notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- wait https://www.bhaskarhindi.com/city/mumbai/union-minister-piyush-goyal-congratulated-mahant-swami-maharaj-on-his-91st-birthday-1066201?infinitescroll=1. is a wromg source help Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- We could've redirected, if for say there was any good mention of it anywhere, but any mentions of it are exotic across wikipedia Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Page has been up since 2009, and by now we all realize after quite some digging that no reliable sources with indepth significant coverage is to be found. Redirect is better than to keep. Right? RangersRus (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Two mentions that verify it exists is hardly enough to establish notability. If that were the case, pretty much every television show would be notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Rather keep it and do more research on it. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Again, after some research, I'm just finding out that 160 episodes were filmed with the actor "Swapnil Joshi" but then they were deleted and refilmed from episode 73, Tilak has also wiped some articles too just because they contained some footage. and while deleted by some user, It also did air on ZEE TV, it has many indecisive things, for exmaple some sources say it aired from '93 to '96 while others say it's aired from '93 to '96 but later shifted to DD1, some other say that it was aired in '99 on ZEE TV for the first time and some that it aired on DD2-Metro and shifted to ZEETV and/or DD, It's very hard to find truthful sources, as all talk about the same thing but say it differently. for say the example mentioned above. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Analysis of sources.
- Source 1 and 2 are announcement of airing the show.
- Source 3 has passing mention with sale of VCD and the price being sold for.
- Source 4 is primary source sagarworld founded by the son and grandson of Ramanand Sagar, Director and Producer of the show.
- Source 5 is interview wirh Moti Sagar, the youngest son of Director and Producer Ramanand Sagar of the show.
- Source 6 is intervew with Govind Khatri, an actor from the show about what role was originally offered to him and about his life after the series.
- Source 7,8,9,10,11,12 are all about Sarvadaman D. Banerjee (main lead of the show) and interview with him, on his life after the series.
All sources are poor with some WP:NEWSORGINDIA and no reliable source independent of the makers and actors of the show with indepth significant coverage to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure your assessment is completely correct. Taking just one example, source 5 offers very significant coverage beside an interview, in a bylined article in a very reliable newspaper. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sourve 5 says "Krishna made Swapnil Joshi a star overnight; co-director Moti Sagar talks about the TV show." This source is not independent of the claim by the makers themselves. Source needs to be completely secondary independent. RangersRus (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Do I have to copy and paste the whole article here? The major part is attributed to the journalist. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I cannot make it any more clearer than what the journalist himself said on the top of his article about the maker talking about the show and anything that journalist wrote in that article is the outcome of the interview. It is not an indepedent source at all. I am leaving at that. RangersRus (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- The following parts can be attributed Kavita Awaasthi, journalist for The Hindustan Times, based on her interview with Sagar; the media outlet being considered generally reliable, they can be used to verify a number of facts that contribute to the notability of the program, such as, at least:
After making the successful TV show Ramayan, producer Ramanand Sagar wanted to tap into another epic show — the Bhagavat Puran. Produced by Ramanand, Subhash Sagar and Prem Sagar, and directed by Ramanand, Anand Sagar and Moti Sagar, Shri Krishna was one of the biggest grossers for Doordarshan during the seven years it was on air. The national broadcaster had a limit on the number of episodes it could air in the ’80s, but the ’90s brought about a change in these rules. A producer could now make a show for a longer duration.
Music composer Ravindra Jain composed the music for this serial. The title song, ‘Shree Krishna Govind Hare Murari’, became popular in India and abroad. The show ran for more than seven years, and had over 200 episodes. The show covered Krishna’s life, from his birth to the time of his grandchildren.
The show was shot in Gujarat’s Umbergaon and Vadodara, where they put up huge sets.
Swapnil had a huge fan following because of the show. People thought he was Krishna.
- This, in my opinion, in a 2016 article about a 1993 program, can be given a certain credit and at least contributes to the apparent notability of the show (that had, as I am sure you have noticed, 221 episodes and originally aired during 6 years.....) and I think that the material, if the page was redirected, would be lost, which would be detrimental to the encyclopaedia. (And that's just one source). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- omg finally for goodness' sake someone mentions this, I'm not trying to be rude but why can't someone just read the sources and watch the show for 2 whole minutes to get some fruit out of it. GOD! (replied to mushy yank) Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I cannot make it any more clearer than what the journalist himself said on the top of his article about the maker talking about the show and anything that journalist wrote in that article is the outcome of the interview. It is not an indepedent source at all. I am leaving at that. RangersRus (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Do I have to copy and paste the whole article here? The major part is attributed to the journalist. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sourve 5 says "Krishna made Swapnil Joshi a star overnight; co-director Moti Sagar talks about the TV show." This source is not independent of the claim by the makers themselves. Source needs to be completely secondary independent. RangersRus (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: There are reliable sources present, opposed to deletion. Imsaneikigai (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Demonstrate so called reliable sources present that has not already been analysed above. RangersRus (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_DD_National#Drama_series: where it will only need to be verifiable, which it is, rather than to have reliable sources proving notability, which it lacks. Owen× ☎ 17:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for additional and more thorough source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Vivek Verma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Still unnotable. Not a key member of the Himesh team as he is not even mentioned on Himesh's article. Same weak references from previous AFDs. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: My concern regarding this nomination is that it overlooks the substantial updates made since the last discussion, including the inclusion of relevant sources published after August 2020. Despite the availability of reputable articles from sources like The Diplomat, Hindustan Times, and Times of India, I have focused on incorporating recent sources to align with Wikipedia’s guidelines for establishing notability.
Extended content ((non-)sources)
|
---|
1. Notability and Wikipedia Mentions:The statement In this case, the subject demonstrates notability through various reliable sources that cover both aspects of their career—both as an indie artist and a Bollywood musician. The presence of multiple independent sources that cover different facets of their career supports the argument for notability. Still ypu can check him mentioned in the core team in many different projects including Action Jackson (2014 film). Additionally, coverage in independent sources for distinct work profiles (Bollywood and indie music) further strengthens the claim for notability, as per Wikipedia’s guidelines. Getting covered for two different work profile (Bollywood & Indie Music) also cancles WP:1E. 2. *Independent Artist Notability: The nominator’s comment in the recent nomination mentions The new sources provided in the article explicitly highlight the subject’s achievements in the indie music scene, demonstrating a clear and ongoing recognition of their notability. The passage of time since the last discussion has enabled a more comprehensive evaluation of the subject's contributions, as reflected in the present sources While articles used from sources such as The Diplomat, Hindustan Times, and Times of India in the last discussion that could have been used, I have adhered to Wikipedia guidelines by incorporating only those sources published after the last deletion discussion. This approach ensures that the references are up-to-date and relevant for establishing the subject's notability. |
Suryabeej ⋠talk⋡ 12:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NMUSICBIO. 7 sources on the page and from it 5 sources on the page are not independent of the musician or ensemble itself. They are also promotional materials. Source india.com is unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES. 1 other source fail significant coverage worthy of notice to consider notability. I did not find information if the singer released two or more notable albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels or won any awards. I can not find any source where the singer has had a single or album on national music chart or has been in any international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. I see the subject missing all criteria for a notable singer. RangersRus (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete and salt per all the many and varied reasons given at previous AfDs, DRs, etc., with particular reference to ANYBIO (done nothing to fulfil any criteria), BLPSOURCES (no independent, reliable third party sources support an assertion of notability), NMUSIC (ditto: criteria fail) and NOTADVERT (fundamentally the root of these repeated attempts to inflict this article upon us). The time may yet still come when his career trajectory makes such a change in dynamic as to justify a neutral, source-based, independently-written article. That time is not now, however. SerialNumber54129 19:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like another opinion on the new sources added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sangeetpedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unclear notability, and the sources cited may be fake; at least they link to the wrong pages. Batrachoseps (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Music, Websites, and India. Batrachoseps (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Yep, used sources are completely fake.–TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 22:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. This is literally just an article about what appears to be some random person's Wordpress blog. The cited sources are fake too, as per @Tanbiruzzaman. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - not sure if it’s fake, but there’s certainly lack of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 2005 Bangladesh-India border clash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The description of events is one-sided, lacking verification from multiple credible sources. Additionally, there are significant discrepancies in the reported details and conflicting accounts that make it unreliable. The article's content does not meet the standards for inclusion and accuracy expected in a balanced historical record. Nxcrypto Message 16:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. Nxcrypto Message 16:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Lacks any lasting coverage. Lorstaking (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - It is a notable clash. If you would like to delete this, Please also delete some pages About clashes between India and Pakistan. I Will attempt to add more sources, I kind of forgot about this page, that I created. I should have added more sources earlier. User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Article most of the current citations are Bangladesh-based like Dhaka report, The Daily Observer Bangladesh, bdnews24. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies in the reported dates of the clash—some sources mention April 16[12], others April 17[13], and some April 18[14]. These discrepancies undermine the article’s reliability. The incident story have various contradiaction as compared to Indian news site with Bangladesh based news site. Additionally, minor conflicts like these, which lack significant international coverage, often do not meet the notability criteria required for inclusion on Wikipedia. The comparison to India-Pakistan conflicts is not relevant here, as the notability and coverage of each conflict should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Nxcrypto Message 09:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I’m a NZer, so totally outside the local political discussions here, but reading the three sources you cite, they all seem to say that the battle took place on Saturday 16, 2005 (all reference it occurring on Saturday). The different dates (16, 17, 18) were the dates the three stories were published in their respective newspapers, and do not show a confusion about the date on which the shootings themselves occurred. This seems fairly well covered in several different newspapers to me, with similar details in each. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Absurdum4242 Welcome to Wikipedia! It seems you're in a hurry since you've just created your account. I believe that gaining experience takes time. Nxcrypto Message 11:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. As far as I can tell, the only way to get the experience is to actually do the work to get it, which is what I’m trying to do here. If we are all working in good faith (which I assume we are), statements of fact such as “the articles are confused about dates” should be reasonably easily proven or disproven simply by reading the articles in question, and without a deep knowledge of Wikipedia policies (which I am never the less trying to gain). Then it’s just a matter of clearly articulating what we think - which I hope I have done, in service of moving towards consensus. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Absurdum4242 Welcome to Wikipedia! It seems you're in a hurry since you've just created your account. I believe that gaining experience takes time. Nxcrypto Message 11:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- I’m a NZer, so totally outside the local political discussions here, but reading the three sources you cite, they all seem to say that the battle took place on Saturday 16, 2005 (all reference it occurring on Saturday). The different dates (16, 17, 18) were the dates the three stories were published in their respective newspapers, and do not show a confusion about the date on which the shootings themselves occurred. This seems fairly well covered in several different newspapers to me, with similar details in each. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Article most of the current citations are Bangladesh-based like Dhaka report, The Daily Observer Bangladesh, bdnews24. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies in the reported dates of the clash—some sources mention April 16[12], others April 17[13], and some April 18[14]. These discrepancies undermine the article’s reliability. The incident story have various contradiaction as compared to Indian news site with Bangladesh based news site. Additionally, minor conflicts like these, which lack significant international coverage, often do not meet the notability criteria required for inclusion on Wikipedia. The comparison to India-Pakistan conflicts is not relevant here, as the notability and coverage of each conflict should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Nxcrypto Message 09:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This happens regularly and is nothing surprising. WP:GNG has to be satisfied. Even right now, Bangladesh is saying that Indian BSF is killing Bangladeshis.[15] The above argument against the deletion that "delete some pages About clashes between India and Pakistan" is baseless. Azuredivay (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The suggestion that different source articles are confused about the dates / give different dates seems to be based on a confusion between the dates the articles were published, and the dates the events themselves were said to have occurred. The sources seem both independent and robust, are numerous, include both local and international news publications (including BBC and Al Jazera), and give details which are consistent between the different articles. The wiki page itself could use some editing for clarity / grammar / neutrality etc, but this does not warrant deletion, it should be edited instead (and I’ll have a go at that tomorrow if I have time).
- Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Improvement - There is another clash in the same year in August 2005, During the Bangladesh Nationalist Party's Government, When Indian troops opened fire, We should add that to the page, It has many sources. the argument above by Absurdum4242 appears to be correct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk • contribs) 10:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete None of the sources could establish WP:GNG. Agletarang (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- You're wrong - Okay, Can you please clarify and tell how it does not establish WP:GNG? Keeping is a better option. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
- Keep. I totally disagree with the above arguments, it meets General Notability Guidelines. There're independent sources added, and perhaps worth reconsidering. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 12:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Until I see a couple of reliable sources that establish WP:LASTING coverage, my vote is to delete this article. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh really, What do you even define as reliable sources? Have you even read the page? According to your logic, Al Jazeera and BBC News are unreliable and also other sources, You are very incorrect, @Captain AmericanBurger1775, I suggest keeping.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk • contribs) 07:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Captain AmericanBurger1775, It's also not a logical vote, Since the person voting for deletion was warned several times for saying cuss words without becoming more mature later on, and apologising.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk • contribs) 07:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: per nomination. SirMemeGod 19:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why? - Do you even know about the nomination? And, check the page Again, If this AfD goes successful for deletion just because of votes, It would be a violation of the Administrator Instructions in the edit notice.
- This comment is by User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (please sign your comments). What are you trying to say here? It sounds like you are making accusations about someone or maybe just about the way AFDs work on Wikipedia. You are not assuming good faith of our discussion closers. Please refrain from casting aspersions. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also, please do not challenge every editor who has a different opinion from your own. It's called bludgeoning a discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- This comment is by User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (please sign your comments). What are you trying to say here? It sounds like you are making accusations about someone or maybe just about the way AFDs work on Wikipedia. You are not assuming good faith of our discussion closers. Please refrain from casting aspersions. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah and it is true, A lot of them have not done it in Good Faith. Liz. Ok sure, I will not challenge every editor. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
- Delete Absurdum4242 is correct that NXcrypto's original rationale for deletion is flawed. Being one-sided or containing discrepancies is not a good reason to delete.
- What Absurdum4242 and Tanbiruzzaman don't address, however, is that although there are multiple, independent, reliable sources, except for the India Today retrospective from a couple of weeks after the fact, and the one sentence in The Daily Observer, all are primary source news accounts of the April (Dawn, Australian Broadcasting Corp, bdnews24, Al Jazeera 2) or August (VOA, Al Jazeera 1, BBC) clashes. WP:GNG says notable topics are those that have received "significant attention ... over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia."
- Lorstaking and Captain AmericanBurger1775 are correct that there is no coverage that shows a lasting effect. The event was nearly 20 years ago. If historians believed it was significant, they would have written something about it by now, and they haven't. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this article should not be kept. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, Well Not Really, How would you know that they think it is significant or not? Also, you cannot just say that they would have written something about it by now, That is a person's choice if they want to write about it or not regardless of it being significant, My argument might have some issues, If so, Please reply. Also, What do you define as significant coverage and lasting effect? I am not asking for the community's answer, I am asking for your answer. As what do you think is significant coverage and lasting effects. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I encourage those who have !voted keep to consider changing their recommendations, and those who have given only brief delete reasons to consider elaborating to show a clearer consensus. The no WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS problem is one that comes up fairly regularly, such as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2022 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 As-Suwayda clashes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1958 East Pakistan-India border clash, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Bangladesh-Myanmar border skirmish. Author BangladeshiEditorInSylhet should be familiar with the reason for deletion since two of those are his creations. His 1979 Bangladesh-Indian skirmishes and 2019 Bangladesh-Indian border clash should be examined too. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, the 2 pages I created back then were not meeting with WP:N. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- The page about the clash between East Pakistan and India and the one with Bangladesh and Myanmar. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, the 2 pages I created back then were not meeting with WP:N. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion is still active. Remember, your arguments should be grounded in policy and your assessment about whether or not the sources in the article, that have been bought into the discussion or that you have found, are sufficient to provide SIGCOV and establish GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Girls' Hostel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 14:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I would tend to think that a 1962 film with notable cast, notable director, notable musicians is notable for historical reasons but if the various results of GBooks (added
one2) search are not judged sufficient, please redirect to the director's filmography. VERY opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)- Yank, I have seen you say this in different AFDs, could you please point out the part of WP:NFILM that says we should keep films because it has notable casts? Definitely not going to be the second criteria of WP:NFIC. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- My point is: pre-internet+ notable cast and director and musicians (not only because it has a notable cast) might be a case of Systemic Bias issue, if you really want a corresponding supplemental page to refer my !vote to. My point is: off-line sources probably exist and when I mention that, I generally suggest an ATD (a redirect to a list or to the director, as you do below; when it's verifiable of course.) Thank you for your concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yank, I have seen you say this in different AFDs, could you please point out the part of WP:NFILM that says we should keep films because it has notable casts? Definitely not going to be the second criteria of WP:NFIC. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. No secondary independent reliable sources with indepth coverage on the film. One source on the page that claims to be a review is just a Google snippet and is not review. Page fails WP:NFILM, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. I am not opposed to redirect to director's filmography. RangersRus (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Mushy Yank, notable cast , notable director, notable musicians.122.172.82.231 (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- — This IP has made few or no other edits outside this AfD. Lamona (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear more opinions on whether or not this subject meets WP:NFILM. Also, since a Redirect was brought up, please supply a link to the suggested target article. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete It's difficult to find sources for something that appeared in 1962 and didn't endure. There was a TV show with the same name which seems to be quite popular and that is what pops up in searches. I did find that a CD had be made of the music but that's all. Lamona (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Hindi films of 1962: Although this film doesn't meet WP:NFILM, this coverage is small but showed that the film may be historical as well as added to the career of Nalini Jaywant, hence redirect to List of Hindi films of 1962 instead of deletion. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Replying also to Liz. (I would prefer a Keep but) if a Redirect is chosen, the target suggested by SafariScribe clearly makes sense; however, I would tend to think that regarding a film a redirect to the director should always be favoured when it is possible, as it is closer to the subject than a more general list (in the present case, Ravindra_Dave#Hindi_cinema. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Star Mississippi 13:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Box Cricket League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Box Cricket League - Punjab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Non-notable cricket tournaments that clearly fail WP:GNG. Just because they were in TV, that doesn't make them notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Cricket, India, and Punjab. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Notability isn't inherited. AA (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 08:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Tushar Palve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a doctor makes no claim of notability sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO. Highest claim is that he ran a 350-bed hospital. Associate professor, no notable academic achievements, a handful of low citation count articles, nothing to satisfy WP:NPROF.
I have done WP:BEFORE searches and have found no significant independent coverage although his name does get a lot of search hits, too many to read all of them. I'd reconsider my nomination if someone turns up some significant coverage (but see next paragraph).
This article was tagged for WP:BIO then WP:PROD but editor @user:Monophile removed the PROD tag and re-added the BIO template after adding links that simply mention or quote the article subject, plus self-penned or promotional articles like this, none of which are significant coverage. If new sources can't bring it up to BIO, it should be deleted. Oblivy (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and India. Oblivy (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC).
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF. Mostly sources with passing mention and entries and some are primary workplace sources and promotional WP:NEWSORGINDIA and does not show any significant achievements noteworthy nationally and internationally to satisfy notability about the subject role as doctor, practitioner, gynecologist and Professor. RangersRus (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Sufficient sources mentioned for notability, so i'm also keeping The Indian Express2 The Times of IndiaHindustan Times It has been written about him in big Indian newspaper, since 2020, he is working as a superintendent in the Cama Hospital — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monophile (talk • contribs) 12:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC) — Monophile (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Today @Monophile the article creator has twice added information to the article without providing a reliable source. Just 24 hours ago they removed an unsourced awards section stating that no notable sources had been found. Today's edits first reinstated the awards section, then just one supposed award, twice been supported by cites that do not mention any award.The three citations added today just quote Dr. Palve in the context of reporting on the hospital. That's neither significant coverage nor evidence of his notability. Even if the hospital was notable he wouldn't inherit that.While I am somewhat sympathetic to Monophile's patent desire to see this article kept, WP:HEY requires actually moving the article towards notability. In my opinion, these are low quality cites and dubious claims and shouldn't move the needle at all. Oblivy (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Oblivy I have no interest in keeping this article or not but my aim is to bring out the truth, Maybe I was wrong there once I removed the info and re-added it but you removed it again And here was a lot for me to understand, thank you for that. Yes, I must say that as doctor-related information that I have searched about him. This made me think we might have something to look at in the coverage of why this page should be on Wikipedia, some issues in the page have to be corrected and thanks again for letting me know all this.Monophile (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Passes GNG I don't believe the nominator checked all some other languages significant coverage, I find it difficult to assess the reliability of Indian sources. I saw, notability satisfy WP:BIO. WP:NPROF appear to be fulfilling No valid nomination rationale is provided. Isha Sattar (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC) — Isha Sattar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete. I see absolutely no sign of the kind of academic impact we are looking for with NPROF. That leaves GNG: sources in article are either passing mentions, or in junky publications. Looks WP:TOOSOON at best. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. H-index is in low single digits, and nothing else to indicate passing WP:ACADEMIC. No pass of WP:GNG either, as the references cited are either brief mentions or promotional sites or non independent sources. Nsk92 (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Naveen Goyal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of an as yet unelected political candidate. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't won -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not running for one -- but this neither demonstrates that he had sufficient preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, nor that his candidacy would be a special case of greater and more enduring significance than everybody else's candidacies. No prejudice against recreation after October 5 if he wins, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to already get him into an encyclopedia today. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input. While I understand that simply running for a political office may not meet the notability requirements under WP:NPOL, I would like to clarify that Naveen Goyal's notability extends beyond his candidacy. He is the co-founder of CanWinn Foundation, a prominent NGO engaged in substantial social work, particularly in the healthcare sector. Over the years, his efforts have benefited countless individuals through health services, skill development initiatives, and community welfare projects. His contributions as a social worker have received significant media attention and public recognition, making him notable for his social impact.
- His candidacy for political office stems from this established reputation in public service. In fact, he is running for office precisely because of his existing notability and influence as a social worker. His candidacy is not what makes him notable, but rather his track record of impactful social work is what has led him to pursue a larger platform to serve the public.
- Given these broader contributions to society, I believe Naveen Goyal meets the notability criteria beyond just his candidacy, and therefore, the article should remain. Of course, I am open to improving the article further to highlight these aspects of his work.
- Thanks and regards. Anish Semalty (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Cofounding an organization isn't a notability freebie either, and a person still has to pass WP:GNG for that. Which means he has to be the subject of a significant volume of coverage in his own right, and it is not enough that his name gets mentioned in articles that aren't about him. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Most sources on the page are poor with passing mention, routine and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I cannot find subject's work as politician that has made any significant impact and achievement to be worthy of notice and noteworthy. RangersRus (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: per WP:NPOL. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:TOOSOON. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 22:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Well, he walked barefoot to the congress as an independent, source 16. But that's about all there is for sourcing that I can find as well. I don't find any further sources. This doesn't appear as a notable person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, per Pharaoh of the Wizards. Has never help party nor public offices. Not even close to significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Serving minor office, for example, a state coordinator doesn't justify notability. Same as a person who is yet to be elected into an office as it doesn't meet WP:NPOL. It's more acceptable to recreate when the election has taken place and that the subject is solely the winner. I see this as WP:TOOSOON. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Devatha_–_Anubandhala_Alayam#Adaptations. Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sandhya Tara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Am adaption of Devatha – Anubandhala Alayam which a good target for redirect as an WP:ATD, but as it stands, none of the sourcing is reliable. All on the page falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, especially based on recent RSN discussion on WP:TOI. I am unable to find anything in a WP:BEFORE that is reliable to establish notability. CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Devatha_–_Anubandhala_Alayam#Adaptations. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yashmith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Bit-part actor. Shorts, videos, uncredited. Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creepTalk 16:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Sources are unreliable. There is this and this which are bylined but the information is basically publishing information supplied by the subject. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - sadly, the Times of India used to be a reliable source, but its standards have fallen. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ravindra Kumar Mishra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly referenced promo piece / CV on a non-notable civil servant. Declined at AfC but moved into the main space by the author. A bit too old to draftify now, and in any case BEFORE finds no evidence of notability either, so probably no point in prolonging its misery. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Technology, and India. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Wikishovel (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Fails our general notability guideline as well as our our subject-specific guideline Monophile (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. No significant coverage in reliable secondary independent sources. I cannot find subject's work that has made any significant impact and achievement to be worthy of notice and noteworthy nationally or internationally. RangersRus (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The man was a Civil service and the sources that support him are reliable like The Times of India, my position is to maintain in some way there is significant coverage and evident notoriety. Alon9393 (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you read WP:TOI, the Times of India needs to be used with caution as a reference. Either way, in the ToI references cited, Mishra is only mentioned in passing, and is not the subject of any of the articles. Merely being in the Civil Service and getting quoted briefly in the newspaper doesn't automatically confer notability per WP:Biographies of living persons. Wikishovel (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wikishovel According to WP:TOI The Times of India you should look at it with caution, but the same does not happen with The Times somehow the colonialist mentality is prevalent here, I remind you that India and Pakistan have not They are under British rule and yoke and that does not mean they are irrelevant in history or in their own decisions. Auch Alon9393 (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- If colonialist mentality were the problem, then we would expect all Indian newspapers to be judged unreliable on Wikipedia. But the consensus on Wikipedia is that WP:THEHINDU and WP:INDIANEXP, for example, are reliable sources, whereas the London WP:DAILYMAIL is regarded as a completely unreliable source, and is generally removed from articles on sight. Wikishovel (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alon9393: I proposed this article for deletion because it doesn't demonstrate that the subject is notable. The three ToI articles referenced do not provide significant coverage of Mishra: they are not about him, but rather quoting something he has said about other matters. Even if the said publication didn't have reliability issues, these articles still would contribute nothing towards his notability. HTH, -- I DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wikishovel According to WP:TOI The Times of India you should look at it with caution, but the same does not happen with The Times somehow the colonialist mentality is prevalent here, I remind you that India and Pakistan have not They are under British rule and yoke and that does not mean they are irrelevant in history or in their own decisions. Auch Alon9393 (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you read WP:TOI, the Times of India needs to be used with caution as a reference. Either way, in the ToI references cited, Mishra is only mentioned in passing, and is not the subject of any of the articles. Merely being in the Civil Service and getting quoted briefly in the newspaper doesn't automatically confer notability per WP:Biographies of living persons. Wikishovel (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - sadly, the Times of India used to be a reliable source, but its standards have fallen, and I’ve seen some AfDs recently that depend heavily upon that as the source that they claim proves notability. I don’t see significant coverage in any case. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: could not find significant coverage for this person besides the TIA reference, which I wouldn't consider reliable. There was also a Hindustan Times source, although I will again not count that as reliable. SirMemeGod 17:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- National Dastak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have multiple reasons for proposing this article for deletion. Firstly, the page creator is blocked. Secondly, all the references provided are fabricated. The page creator has deceptively used the term 'National Dastak' in the title to mislead other editors. The article fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:WEB from any perspective." Youknow? (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and India. Youknow? (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The sources do exist, but they're all trivial mentions in lists or attributions - not the kind of discussion of the subject needed to show notability. Adam Sampson (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep. This is not G5 eligible, as the creator was not a sock of a then-blocked editor: as such the creator's block is not relevant. And the basic facts provided in the article do check out, it's obviously not a hoax. Whether it's notable, I'm less certain: there is coverage, including articles focused on on this channel: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], and a handful of others. There's not a lot of detail, hence "weak". Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Reviewed the page and the sources and I do see where the mislead was attempted where title of the sources were changed.
- Source 1 misleading title on the page is "#BeingADalit: How the Online Boom news websites like National Dastak that talk of Bahujan samaj" but the actual title is "#BeingADalit: How the Online Boom is Helping Dalits Reclaim and Reassert Their Identity". There is nothing in the source except for passing mention that says "Yadav has previously worked with news websites like National Dastak that talk of Bahujan samaj."
- Source 2 misleading title on the page is "National Dastak, which provide reportage and videos from a Bahujan perspective to counter the perspective of the upper caste-dominated mainstream English and Hindi media" but the actual title is "BSP war room is turning up the heat on BJP and SP". The source has nothing significant except for passing mention that says "There are also news portals like National Dastak, which provide reportage and videos from a 'Bahujan' perspective to counter the perspective of the upper caste-dominated mainstream English and Hindi media."
- Source 3 has passing mention that goes "There are YouTube channels widely watched by Dalits, including National Dastak...".
- Source 4 has passing mention that goes "Web channel National Dastak played the video of Chandrashekhar Azad addressing the protesters."
- Source 5 has misleading title on the page that says "As per a report of the National Dastak, Riya Singh, a Dalit will pursue Ph D in Women's Studies" but the actual title of the source is "Riya Singh, a Dalit, tops TISS entrance exam". This source has nothing except for passing mention that is shown in the misleading title of the source.
- Source 6 has passing mention that says "In Uttar Pradesh, BJP is the single largest party across the polls except for National Dastak which is predicting BSP victory."
- Source 7 has passing mention that says "Speaking to National Dastak after organizing ‘Blood donation’ programme".
- Source 8 has passing mention "Videos on National Dastak have over 88 crore views." All the sources are poor with no significant coverage on the channel. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Notability is based on the sources that exist, not ones that are in the article. When I have provided other sources above, you need to demonstrate that they do not confer notability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I did not look at the sources you provided in your vote but I did now. Source 1 is giving me 404 error, source 2,4,5,6 are all same WP:ROUTINE news about union government asking YouTube to take down ‘National Dastak’ from its platform. Source 2 is likely unreliable as Mumbai Mirror's about us page has comments from Wikipedia and the disclaimer says that it does not take responsibility for the reports by contributors. Source 3 is about the Journalist Anmol Pritam who works for YouTube channel National Dastak and was forced to chant a slogan by a mob and the article has also claims made by the journalist himself to another news media. This is all routine news. Not enough to pass WP:NCORP imv. RangersRus (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Vanamonde93 added Ref and WP:NEXIST there is Hindi coverage about the channel.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - The issue is that the additional sources provided do not meet WP:WEBCRIT. All of the sources except for two fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA so they are not reliable. This one simply mentions a journalist that works for National Dastak while this one provides some detail but isn't in-depth (and if considered in-depth, that leaves one reference). --CNMall41 (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Keep with million subscribers, this channel is one of the most important YouTube news platform and I think a lot of reference will be found if searched.
- Admantine123 (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Admantine123, it's the responsibility of editors wanting to Keep an article to go out and locate those reliable sources as Vanamonde93 has done. I'm not sure who else you thought would spend the time in this "search". Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Admantine123 (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ha Khel Sawalyancha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cannot locate sources to show notability. There are a few mentions but nothing that amount to significant coverage. CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: because this is a 1976 film and cast, music director and director are all notable and it contributes to the notability of the film. Or redirect to Vasant Joglekar. Very opposed to deletion of the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- We have seen many notable actors act films that aren't notable. So, citing the notable casts of the film is good but not when there aren't sources even to verify that they acted the film. This is eventually not part of WP:NFIC#2. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- My point is: The cast+the director+the music director are notable, and it is a 1976 film, therefore (perhaps non-English) off-line contemporary sources might (or more likely, probably) exist (see below). I also indicate an ATD, fwiw. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I am bit confused, You added a SourcesExist template yourself, was it by mistake? And sources have been added since nomination, some allowing partial verification of the cast (or simply look at the poster if you wish), some looking reliable but not allowing it so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- My point is: The cast+the director+the music director are notable, and it is a 1976 film, therefore (perhaps non-English) off-line contemporary sources might (or more likely, probably) exist (see below). I also indicate an ATD, fwiw. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- We have seen many notable actors act films that aren't notable. So, citing the notable casts of the film is good but not when there aren't sources even to verify that they acted the film. This is eventually not part of WP:NFIC#2. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Poor and unreliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Source analysis.
- Source 1 is unreliable source and the listing is copied from imdb with reference to imdb. No significant coverage on the film.
- Source 2 is same listing of cast, director, producer, musicians. No significant coverage.
- Source 3 is a link to a song on YouTube video. Nothing significant here either.
I looked for sources online to get significant coverage and WP:NFILM but after 4 pages of search, I could not find any secondary independent reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I referenced two sources in Award section and noted a film in several Marathi books such as -.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Morekar (talk • contribs)
- @User:Morekar, the books you provided here aren't verifiable. Please read WP:OFFLINESOURCES and provide the full bibliographical details, most importantly, the page numbers. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Done.@SafariScribe Allows to verify the film was a great success according to sources (not to mention the cast, plot, themes, etc). Thank you for your concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note. None of the new sources with Google books links are verifiable. All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation with page number(s) to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. RangersRus (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I hate redirects being turned up after redirecting and I would prefer deletion to an obviously non notable article. While we try to save an article as much as possible per WP:ATD, we should be careful to avoid leaving non notable ones as redirects (my opinion). This article, to all eyes, doesn't meet WP:NFILM and if the casts are notable, then there should be a bit, atleast, WP:SIGCOV. Bearing the lack of SIGCOV in mind, I would be ready to redirect to the director's article (who also clearly doesn't meet WP:NDIRECTOR) if reliable sources that could be used to verify the cast and crew of the film are provided. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- There are imv sources on the page to verify partially the cast and crew. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. All the changes have been reviewed and analyzed in my last note. RangersRus (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Most of them, indeed, the Gbooks refs, are mentioned as a whole in your general note ("reviewed and analysed" is a bit of an overstatement, I’m afraid, as yourself stated you couldn’t access them, :D); but still, the page has significantly changed. Also see WP: Systemic bias, thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not surprised by your response. As i said earlier the so called "significant changes", the Google books fail verification with no page number and inline citation and that is my review and analysis about it if you could pay attention. See WP:V. RangersRus (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I didn’t mean to surprise you but I did pay attention, thank you; that is precisely why I think that calling your note a ’review and analysis’ of those sources is a tiny bit misleading. You just couldn’t access and verify them. It would be better indeed if we could, but again see the link that I provided above. The changes are significant, maybe not satisfactory, I agree, because we cannot check the full text, but significant, they are, and stating otherwise is also rather a little misleading. People who have visited the page before nomination can check it now and see if they can verify the added sources, for example or if they find them useful; hence my insertion of the template, which your comment tries to undermine unduly, in my view. If so-called should apply to something it is not to the 'significant changes', I should say. Consider this my final reply to you as I do not care very much for the tone of your last reply, to be honest. Thank you again for your reply and concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you but it is no help and thank you for your final reply. Nothing significant as expected. RangersRus (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I didn’t mean to surprise you but I did pay attention, thank you; that is precisely why I think that calling your note a ’review and analysis’ of those sources is a tiny bit misleading. You just couldn’t access and verify them. It would be better indeed if we could, but again see the link that I provided above. The changes are significant, maybe not satisfactory, I agree, because we cannot check the full text, but significant, they are, and stating otherwise is also rather a little misleading. People who have visited the page before nomination can check it now and see if they can verify the added sources, for example or if they find them useful; hence my insertion of the template, which your comment tries to undermine unduly, in my view. If so-called should apply to something it is not to the 'significant changes', I should say. Consider this my final reply to you as I do not care very much for the tone of your last reply, to be honest. Thank you again for your reply and concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not surprised by your response. As i said earlier the so called "significant changes", the Google books fail verification with no page number and inline citation and that is my review and analysis about it if you could pay attention. See WP:V. RangersRus (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Most of them, indeed, the Gbooks refs, are mentioned as a whole in your general note ("reviewed and analysed" is a bit of an overstatement, I’m afraid, as yourself stated you couldn’t access them, :D); but still, the page has significantly changed. Also see WP: Systemic bias, thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: a rapid check allowed me to verify 3 of the sources added through Gbooks (I added the page for 2 ). I see now even less reasons to doubt the veracity of the sources added by Morekar. I thought there might have been a transcription problem but no, the title in most of the cited English sources apparently corresponds to the title of the article. I’ll do my best to add the pages of other sources cited, though, as this might be helpful.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC) (I have added the pages to all of the significant references added by Morekar, that should now be considered verifiable and verified :D; I will not re-add the AfD changed template, though :D; )
- How are these "significant references" again? Verifiability is not notability unfortunately. Are you able to show what RangerRus is requesting below? I am willing to withdraw the nomination if it turns out t be significant coverage but I cannot locate anything either. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I took time and verified all the pages on each Google sources on the page and the claims it made (even though the onus is on the editor who adds the source to provide verification), there is nothing significant. No significant coverage in any source and even the source under reception is not even a review but just a passing mention. RangersRus (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I was making that assumption based on no replies from previous requests as well. Thanks for taking the time. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- I took time and verified all the pages on each Google sources on the page and the claims it made (even though the onus is on the editor who adds the source to provide verification), there is nothing significant. No significant coverage in any source and even the source under reception is not even a review but just a passing mention. RangersRus (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- How are these "significant references" again? Verifiability is not notability unfortunately. Are you able to show what RangerRus is requesting below? I am willing to withdraw the nomination if it turns out t be significant coverage but I cannot locate anything either. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment:@Morekar: Can you please provide page numbers along with inline citation of what the sources actually say to check if it is just an entry or something significant. We need significant coverage and I googled but just found entries and nothing significant. If you can provide all the information that helps with the content for verification, it will help. RangersRus (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was able to verify all the sources you added and as expected nothing significant to pass WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- AfD participants are invited, by the template inserted above in the discussion, to read the page and not simply assume or assert the changes are not significant and the sources add no weight to notability. A single source, for example, stating the film was a ’superhit’ (source wording) is significant per se. And denying it is at best bizarre.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Being a 'super hit' does not make something notable. It must be shown so through significant coverage. What is "bizarre" is that two editors have asked for the excerpts of those references that some are citing as significant yet nothing has been provided except assertions.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis of whether the available sources provide significant coverage would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- All Source analysis.
- Source 1 Google snippet page 161, has an entry with film name, language of the film, color, length, name of director, producer, musician, and four cast members followed with "Woman fears servants ghost haunts bungalow." That's it. No significant coverage.
- Source 2, Google Snippet page 130 has an entry with translation of the film title. No significant coverage.
- Source 3, Google snippet page 22, has an entry, "crime thrillers (title of three different films, one of which is the subject)". No significant coverage.
- Source 4, Google Snippet page 139 is by a filmmaker and scriptwriter of same industry and very likely a self published through "Maharashtra Film, Stage & Cultural Development Corporation" who are also the contributor, has passing mention "Ha Khel Savlyancha ( 1976 ) , a suspense thriller interwoven with a supernatural legend , be- came a superhit but could not wean the indus- try away from its famnily melodramas ." (That is exactly how family is misspelled). Keeping the unreliability question aside, still no significant coverage.
- Source 5 Unreliable sources that is a blog indiancine.ma and the listing is copied from imdb with reference to imdb. No significant coverage on the film.
- Source 6 is same listing of cast, director, producer, musicians. No significant coverage.
- Source 7 passing mention of film critically and commercially acclaimed and one of the actor Jairam played memorable role in highest grossing film of the time. Not significant coverage on the film.
- Source 8 is link to YouTube video of a song. No coverage at all.
- Source 9, 10 are same books with Google snippet page 40, reads Best Music Director and best color photography for the film (does not mention awarded by who or what award show). No significant coverage anyhow.
- Source 11 and 13 are snippets from same book with no page numbers. One snippet with entry of DVD release in 2009 and the other snippet in few words that the film "deeply rooted in the village life of Maharashtra". No significant coverage.
- Source 12 is about one of the song from the film remade for modern audiences. Nothing significant again.
Entries, trivial and passing mention only and no source addresses the topic directly and in detail. RangersRus (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Great analysis which just reaffirms (for me) that it exists, but verification is not notability. Thanks for doing the digging. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- General note: There is a generally accepted working consensus regarding released films with notable cast and/or made by a notable director (and/or including the participation of notable personalities (musicians, writers, etc). The said consensus is that such articles are redirected to a list of films by year/country or to the article about their director when they can, if reliable sources allow verification. When such films are mentioned as critical and/or commercial successes especially pre-internet films, and, again, given coverage allows verification, their cultural and historical significance is generally considered a sufficient reason to retain a standalone page. Either way, the consensus is that such pages are generally not deleted.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect is not an issue but "not deleted" is not the same thing as "keep." WP:NFO says reiterates what you say but means that sources are "likely to exists" showing notability. Unfortunately, those sources do not exist here.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Mother Teresa#Legacy and depictions in popular culture. I see consensus that this topic is worthy of an article, but that this is not that article. Given the call for WP:TNT, a full merge seems unwarranted, but anyone looking to merge some (not all!) of this content back into the main article should feel free to do so and/or discuss specific parts on the talk page. asilvering (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Public image of Mother Teresa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Started as a WP:POVFORK [22] and since then it has changed quite a bit but it never really improved. This article is not about her public image, which is overwhelmingly positive, (and not a notable topic which does not pass WP:GNG), it is about certain criticisms of her. For some reason the article got moved [23]. Criticism should be in the main article and this POVFORK should be removed. Polygnotus (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, India, and Albania. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm COI on this because 1.) a family friend ran some of Mother Teresa's US PR stuff and 2.) Mother Teresa holds special, positive importance in a private element of my life. However, I'm of the opinion that this article, while possibly a bit OR-heavy, strikes me as generally neutral and notable. I can elaborate, but I feel my COI precludes me from seriously inserting myself any further here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Pbritti: COI users are allowed to have an opinion (even those who disagree with me ). See WP:COIEDIT and WP:COIADVICE. Do you know any reliable sources that are about her public image and not her as a person? Do you think it is a good idea that all criticism was removed from the article about her and moved to this, far more obscure, article? And that, possibly as a result of the move from Criticism of... to Public image of..., the criticism got hidden even further down the page? Polygnotus (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your encouragement to discussion! Perusing JSTOR, I'm finding some pieces like this. Generally, they come from the late 1990s and are heaving on the sociology (not necessarily bad, especially in a subjective subject). I have objections over centering criticisms like Hitchens's on her biographical article—one of a few significant marks against his legacy—but generally agree that we need to exercise caution in any diminishment of sustained and impactful criticism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is interesting to see how some people are overly cautious with anything approaching COI while others... are not. ;-) Of course, the criticism comes not just from Hitchens. People like Aroup Chatterjee and Tariq Ali and Mihir Bose and even people who worked for her like Hemley Gonzalez and Susan Shields et cetera have famously criticized her work. There are a lot of very important people who said very positive things about her; let's be fair and balance that out with some of the criticism. MLK jr got a criticism section. You can probably write a criticism section for Ghandi. I am quoting myself, and when I wrote that the Mother Teresa article still had a criticism section. No matter what happens here, the criticism will return anyway. It never left, despite attempts to hide it. Polygnotus (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Pbritti: sorry I forgot to ping. Polygnotus (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Critics say grossly inadequate medical care was given to the sick and dying. Syringes were reused without sterilisation, pain relief was non-existent or negligible, and conditions were unhygienic. Meanwhile, Mother Teresa spent much of her time travelling around the world in a private plane to meet political leaders.
-- The Guardian. Polygnotus (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)- Looking at WP:SIZESPLIT, over 9000 words means "Probably should be divided or trimmed". The main article currently got only 5000 words. I flipped it around. If it would be fair then that shouldn't matter, right? But it does cause it isn't.
Finally, how competent are the sisters at managing pain? On a short visit, I could not judge the power of the spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn the formulary includes no strong analgesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Teresa's approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer.'
Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet from 1990 to 1995. PMID: 7818649 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)92353-1 Polygnotus (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)- @Polygnotus: I still feel too COI to formally !vote, but you've convinced me. I now favor deletion. Thanks for your comments. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The article was previously nominated for deletion on August 2023. The article's current title came as a result of that discussion. I was the one who removed the criticism section but I retained the criticism against her since it would be a violation of NPOV to remove it. You do not need such a section to include criticism about a person. The NPOV policy discourages such sections anyway. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Polygnotus: I still feel too COI to formally !vote, but you've convinced me. I now favor deletion. Thanks for your comments. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your encouragement to discussion! Perusing JSTOR, I'm finding some pieces like this. Generally, they come from the late 1990s and are heaving on the sociology (not necessarily bad, especially in a subjective subject). I have objections over centering criticisms like Hitchens's on her biographical article—one of a few significant marks against his legacy—but generally agree that we need to exercise caution in any diminishment of sustained and impactful criticism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Pbritti: COI users are allowed to have an opinion (even those who disagree with me ). See WP:COIEDIT and WP:COIADVICE. Do you know any reliable sources that are about her public image and not her as a person? Do you think it is a good idea that all criticism was removed from the article about her and moved to this, far more obscure, article? And that, possibly as a result of the move from Criticism of... to Public image of..., the criticism got hidden even further down the page? Polygnotus (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, or merge - clear WP:POVFORK, and the lack of criticism in the main article is now notable by its absence. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider whether it is better to Delete this article or Merge some content back into the main article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Mother Teresa#Legacy and depictions in popular culture — Maile (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I think the topic itself is notable, having found multiple academic sources attesting the notability of the subject's public image, such as in popular discourse or media culture. A selection of examples follow:
- Arvind Rajagopal, "Celebrity and the Politics of Charity: Memories of a Missionary Departed" (Routledge, 1999)
- Gëzim Alpion, Mother Teresa: Saint or Celebrity? (Routledge, 2006), https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203087510
- Daniel T. Kline, "Digital Hagiography: Princess Diana, Mother Teresa, and Medieval Women in Cyberspace", College Literature 28, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 92–117, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25112585
- Gaston Roberge, "Mother Teresa, Abortion, and the Media" (Routledge, 2011)
- Gëzim Alpion, "Why Are Modern Spiritual Icons Absent in Celebrity Studies? The Role of Intermediaries in Enhancing Mother Teresa's Advocacy in India and Australia Prior to the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize", Celebrity Studies 11, no. 2 (2020): 221–236, https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2019.1567366
- The difficulty, of course, is that the current version of the article is not based on this literature. Instead it's a mashup of some stuff about legacy like the sainthood plus specific criticisms. I suppose there might be a case the article warrants WP:TNT, since its content is so disconnected from the literature relevant to the article's purported topic per its title (Saint or Celebrity is cited once; the rest not at all) that it'd require substantial cleanup. I'm not presently making that case, but I'd be open to hearing it from another. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Hydrangeans: Thank you, we could probably use those sources to write a section on the main article, and if there is really a lot of content that could get split. But the current article in its current form is not a good starting point to write such an article imo, so it seems like WP:TNT is the best option. Can we put those sources in a {{refideas}} template on the talkpage of the main article? Polygnotus (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete and merge to main article, per Bastun. John (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Closing as keep per consensus. !votes haven't been changed hence not a speedy keep close. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Kaalam Raasina Kathalu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NFILM. The film was moved to draft but recreated by another IP (likely the same person -- since it ia low budget film, WP:COI?)
The reason it was moved to draft is that all sources relate to Akash Puri releasing the film's trailer. This article shouldn't exist because the entire article is banking on the effect of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Marketing.
This source shows Akash Puri being given flowers beforing watching the film's trailer on a laptop [24]. How is any of this notable?
Regarding Bru Times, the source is obviously unreliable and a compilation of many sources. Although you may think it is a review, it says Upon its release, "Kaalam Raasina Kathalu" received critical acclaim for its storytelling, direction, and performances. Critics praised the film for its nuanced portrayal of complex human emotions and the depth of its characters.
If you want to know wheter Bru Times is reliable read another review like [25], ("has been praised", etc.) prove it is unreliable. DareshMohan (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 8. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 08:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Redirect toList of Telugu films of 2024 -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I just added so many reliable references such as News18 India, Eenadu, NTV (India), The Hans India, Sakshi (newspaper), and Zee News. I think it also meets WP:HEY. Jorge Crew (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. No reception or reviews. Sources are poor and mostly on the release event and one source by Bru Times is clearly unreliable that says it is a people's platform where anyone is free to write news and become a jounalist. There is no significant coverage and reviews in reliable independent secondary source. RangersRus (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Nothing that shows significant coverage in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Withdraw - I withdraw my nomination in regards to the NTV and Sakshi success meet sources. In light of new sources, @Mushy Yank: do you stand by your vote? DareshMohan (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, I concur that this can be a Keep. Thanks. (But, as you know, you need all users to change their !votes for this to be SpeedyKept as withdrawn.) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I'm closing this as Keep as the deletion rationale is not true. The content of this article hasn't been merged to Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Police which is a redirect, not an article. If editors are interesed in a Merge, that's a discussion that can happen outside this AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Daman and Diu Police (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Daman and Diu Police is now merged with Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Police. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 02:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 8. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 02:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid deletion rationale. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Daman and Diu#Administration. Not really much to sustain an article that goes beyond the basics, and it can be split out again if it grows. Geschichte (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Article needs cleanup and could do with some more content, but I find it highly unlikely that a police force of a union territory of India would not be notable. The nom has also not provided a clear rationale for deletion, as simply the fact the organisation no longer exists is irrelevant per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. AusLondonder (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Swaroop Puranik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:NDIRECTOR or WP:FILMMAKER. Awarded or recognised by the governor doesn't highly show any impact tones career and fails WP:ANYBIO. While we expect to see notable films he directed, there appears bit promotional and likely COI creation.
Citing unreliable sources (WP:REFBOMB for a non notable film, Journey of a Queen, shows no WP:SIGCOV for his major work, hence doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and India. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed the promotional content from this article now its clear Dgtrox (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Appears to be resume and WP:PROMO based page. Fails notability. The entrepreneur and his achievements are not notable that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice. RangersRus (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I see a consensus now to Keep this article. Thanks for continuing this discussion through its relisting. Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Mor Chhainha Bhuinya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non notable films that doesn't meet WP:NFILM. No existence of WP:SIGCOV, and likewise, the remake. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and India. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
*Delete, not seeing its notability. Sources are not RS. Ednabrenze (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)- Struck out my vote/comment based on the analysis by other editors who have more knowlege about the history of the film and the latest sources presented by S0091. Ednabrenze (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- hi,
- Keep kindly understand that 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' was 1st film to be made in local chhattisgarhi language in over 30 yrs. so no one believed in this movie to have successful run, as such there was virtually any coverage. but after its release thanks to word of mouth publicity the film became a blockbuster leaving behind 'Mohabatein' and 'Mission Kashmir' in the state. Today this film has acquired a cult status as it gave birth to Chhollywood, an entirely new film industry in the state. Remember 'Andaz Apna Apna' despite huge star cast the film was declared massive flop but today it has gained a cult status. As such wiki page on 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' too deserves a page in wikipedia. Whatever sources that have been added are the only sources available online besides youtube (which is not accepted here). Most importanly this page is the most complete and well prepared page on this movie unlike previous attempts. As such 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' wikipedia page should be kept. If anyone can help improve it they are welcome. Bonadart (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
hi, Ednabrenze kindly understand that 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' was 1st film to be made in local chhattisgarhi language in over 30 yrs. so no one believed in this movie to have successful run, as such there was virtually any coverage. but after its release thanks to word of mouth publicity the film became a blockbuster leaving behind 'Mohabatein' and 'Mission Kashmir' in the state. Today this film has acquired a cult status as it gave birth to Chhollywood, an entirely new film industry in the state. Note that local media doesnt focus on Chhollywood, as such chhattisgarhi language films barely find mention. Remember 'Andaz Apna Apna', a wiki page on 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' too deserves a page in wikipedia. youtube has lot of info, but not accepted here. Most importantly this page is the most complete and well prepared page on this movie unlike previous attempts. If anyone can help improve it they are welcome. Bonadart (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, sorry but you cannot !vote twice. Kindly remove one of your two "Keep"s in bold, please -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- hi actually i was giving a reply i will correct it Bonadart (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, sorry but you cannot !vote twice. Kindly remove one of your two "Keep"s in bold, please -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: and improve; seems to be a commercially important film in Chhattisgarhi cinema. A redirect might be considered, if the sequel is not redirected too. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chhattisgarh-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the analysis but keeping an article here solely depends on the number of reliable sources that could be used to verify claims made in the article. I am not from that state and I would not know the historical background of the film but if there had been enough RS sources I would not have supported deletion. Ednabrenze (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
solely depends on the number of reliable sources
, yes and no, it also depends on what they say and if one reliable source proves the film is important in the local culture that can be considered a sufficient reason to keep the page. At least, that is my understanding. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Only one source by Rediff that has some coverage and all other sources are poor and unreliable with director's recognition and announcement on the news of the sequel. I would also opt for Redirect but I am not sure where to redirect this page to. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- @RangersRus kindly understand that 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' was 1st film to be made in local chhattisgarhi language in over 30 yrs. so no one believed in this movie to have successful run, as such there was virtually any coverage. but after its release thanks to word of mouth publicity the film became a blockbuster beating 'Mohabatein' and 'Mission Kashmir' released same day in the state. Today this film has acquired a cult status as it single handly gave birth to Chhollywood, an entirely new film industry in the state (very few films can be credited for that anywhere in india), just this is strong reason to keep the page i think. Remember 'Andaz Apna Apna' despite huge star cast the film was declared massive flop but today it has gained a cult status. As such page on 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' too deserves a page in wikipedia. Whatever sources that have been added are the only sources available online besides youtube (not accepted here). Most importanly this page is the most complete and well prepared page on this movie unlike previous attempts. As such 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' wikipedia page should be kept. Bonadart (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- We need reliable secondary independent sources with significant coverage to consider the page's notability and so far I have found nothing significant. Its important that we follow the wikipedia guidelines for notability. RangersRus (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- there is lot of informattion about the film in youtube, but point is, if it is accpted here Bonadart (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- We need reliable secondary independent sources with significant coverage to consider the page's notability and so far I have found nothing significant. Its important that we follow the wikipedia guidelines for notability. RangersRus (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- @RangersRus kindly understand that 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' was 1st film to be made in local chhattisgarhi language in over 30 yrs. so no one believed in this movie to have successful run, as such there was virtually any coverage. but after its release thanks to word of mouth publicity the film became a blockbuster beating 'Mohabatein' and 'Mission Kashmir' released same day in the state. Today this film has acquired a cult status as it single handly gave birth to Chhollywood, an entirely new film industry in the state (very few films can be credited for that anywhere in india), just this is strong reason to keep the page i think. Remember 'Andaz Apna Apna' despite huge star cast the film was declared massive flop but today it has gained a cult status. As such page on 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' too deserves a page in wikipedia. Whatever sources that have been added are the only sources available online besides youtube (not accepted here). Most importanly this page is the most complete and well prepared page on this movie unlike previous attempts. As such 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' wikipedia page should be kept. Bonadart (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:NFIC as culturally significant as one of the major hit films in the chhattisgarhi language. imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Since I am from Chhattisgarh I know how important this film is in reviving Chhattisgarhi film industry after 30 years. This film gave us a great director Satish Jain who has previously been a writer of big Hindi films and actor Anuj Sharma who is a Padmashri award winner and MLA and gave many great actors and this film has also been dubbed and remade in other languages. Before creating this article I originally tried to create it from a draft article but the draft kept getting rejected. This article is an important part of the history of Chhattisgarhi culture. I know there are not too many reliable sources on the internet but this film is remembered by the people of Chhattisgarh. Tushar (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- hi Tushar3011 (talk) thanks for acknowleding the importance of the film, if you can help improve the article with more info its better. Bonadart (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !voters are arguing that the film is very important, but are there any sources we can use for this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)- hi, asilvering (talk)
- i will again say it, bcoz kindly understand that 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' was 1st film to be made in local chhattisgarhi language in over 30 yrs. This film single-handedly gave birth to a new film industry in the state, all actors made debut with this film. Note that no one believed in this movie to have successful run when it was being made, as such there was virtually any coverage. till this date the local media rarely follows the Chhollywood. This despitre fact that films made here are of better quality and value than bhojpuri films known for crass dialogues and provocative song/dance (as per me). Its history that after its release thanks to word of mouth publicity the film became a blockbuster leaving behind 'Mohabatein' and 'Mission Kashmir' in the state. As such with no media coverage Chhollywood doesnt get mention in media, despite that people love these films. Today this film has acquired a cult status. Remember 'Andaz Apna Apna' despite huge star cast the film was declared massive flop but today it has gained a cult status. As such wiki page on 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' too deserves a place in wikipedia. Whatever sources that have been added are the only sources available online besides youtube (which is not accepted here). Most importantly this page is the most complete and well prepared page on this movie unlike previous attempts. As such 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' wikipedia page should be kept. If anyone can help improve it they are welcome.
- Bonadart (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Struck! Voted twice
- You were told before by another user to not vote twice and yet you did it again and repeated the same wall of texts. Please remove the second vote. RangersRus (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- The page has some sources....including a review by Komal Nahta. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a review by Komal Nahta in rediff source but some coverage with interview of the filmmaker. I already said about this in my vote and all other sources are poor and unreliable. RangersRus (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe not technically a "review", but it IS significant coverage by a notable film critic and it certainly can be used on the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- (And I can't locate your mentioning of Komal Nahta in your !vote, for the record) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't Rediff enough? RangersRus (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Depending on what you want to do of it. If you say you already mentioned "this" and I mention the name of the critic and you don't, no, it is not and it is therefore inaccurate to say you "already said about this". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why it matters whether the name of the source Rediff or the critic who wrote an article in it is mentioned? Nothing inaccurate here. RangersRus (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, please! You say you have said something and you haven't. That's all. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why it matters whether the name of the source Rediff or the critic who wrote an article in it is mentioned? Nothing inaccurate here. RangersRus (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Depending on what you want to do of it. If you say you already mentioned "this" and I mention the name of the critic and you don't, no, it is not and it is therefore inaccurate to say you "already said about this". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't Rediff enough? RangersRus (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- it is already on the page but not independent of the filmmakers self claimed coverage. RangersRus (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it is. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can be attributed to Komal Nahta:
The story behind the making and release of Mor Chhainha Bhuinya, which has celebrated a 100 day run in Chhattisgarh, is such dramatic fare that it could easily pass off as a good subject for a hit film! Satish Jain, its writer-producer-director, is not new to the Hindi film world.
The worst came when Govinda and director Manoj Agarwal found his Hadh Kar Di Aapne screenplay unsuitable and replaced him, keeping only his story. Dejected, Satish returned to his hometown, Raipur in Chhattisgarh, with the subject for a Chhattisgarhi film in his mind, a little money in his pocket and a lot of tension.Making a Chhattisgarhi film was not easy, especially because until then, only two films had been produced in that dialect.Besides, there was no finance available for the film.
The film was mainly shot in Bhilai, besides other places. Once the film's shooting was completed, Satish thought his woes were over.But it had only just begun. No distributor was ready to touch the film. Depressed, but not daunted, Satish and his brother decided to distribute the film themselves.Without any knowledge of distribution, this was only the beginning of a further harrowing experience for the Jain brothers.Exhibitors were anything but co-operative. Some of those scoffed at the idea of screening a Chhattisgarhi film. But Satish and his brother used all their persuasive powers and released the film in Raipur, Durg and Bilaspur on Diwali (October 27).The rest, as they say, is history...The film, which opened with 3 prints, has 12 prints engaged today, 100 days later. The film completed a hundred day run on February 3 in Raipur, Durg and Bilaspur. Of these, cinemas in Raipur and Bilaspur had five shows daily -- an unprecedented record! In Durg too, the film was screened five shows daily for several weeks before it was brought down to four shows.The blockbuster, which cost less than Rs 15 lakhs to make, is expected to do a business of over Rs 2 crores. It is now heading for a hundred day run at Bhilai, Rajnandgaon, Korba, Dhamtari, Ambikapur and Shakti.At Rajim, which has a population of 25,000 and only two cinemas, the film is being screened at both cinemas! State transport buses are doing such brisk business, carrying loads of people to and fro the cinemas screening the hit that new bus-stops have sprung up outside such cinemas at Rajim and other smaller centres.In fact, people not only come in busloads, but in bullock carts and tractors too! So cinemas halls now display sign boards indicating parking space for the tractors and carts!In Bhilai, a British lady, running an institute where she teaches students to make video and documentary films, saw the film 70 times! She was so impressed by the film's message that the education system is not suitable for preparing the youth for jobs, that she even telephoned Satish to congratulate him. The film is about a family returning to their village after facing tough times in the impersonal city where they had gone with hope and dreams.The film's success means that about 25 Chhattisgarhi projects are in various stages of planning and production. Of these, five are in advanced stages of production or post-production.(...)But the film's collections picked up from the third day, and the collections have been rising since.The film, which looked too insignificant to merit a mention in front of the other two Diwali releases -- Mohabbatein and Mission Kashmir -- soon left the Bollywood flicks far behind in Chhattisgarh.Satish now plans to add a song to the film. This song, which already appears on the film's audio cassette, has the names of all the railway stations in Chhattisgarh and may well lure audiences all over again!The song is scheduled to be shot this month and will be included in all the prints from March. Satish is also contemplating dubbing the film in Bhojpuri.
- I hate to make those long quotes. But do we have a choice? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- And I mention it can be used, although it is on the page, because asilvering's question is "are there any sources we can use for this"? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- But you omitted the claims/interview of the filmmaker from the same source that it uses for coverage and like I said earlier, it makes the article not indepedent of the claims made by the filmmaker. In the same source, the filmmaker says
RangersRus (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Recalls Satish, "We sold our family land at Rana Pratappur, near Bastar. My brother-in-law also mortgaged his land, while my brother borrowed money from his friends. But we still ran short of money. So my father literally begged for funds, knocking door-to-door in our village. My entire family supported me in my time of need. "If the film has a running time of only one hour 50 minutes, it is because we decided to do away with the shooting of 20 scenes and a song as we had no money left."..."The film had a very slow start. In fact, for the first two days, I felt it wouldn't work. The worst fears overtook me. I would not have had the courage to face my family after what they had done for me. I thought I may have to run away..." Satish recalls.
- This is the only source like i said couple of times before that we can consider some coverage but it is not independent of the filmmaker himself and per notability we need 2 or more secondary independent reliable source with indepth coverage and that can not be found on the page. RangersRus (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't OMIT it!!!! I left it out of the quotation on purpose, to cite only what can be attributed to the critic. Your quoting it here is almost bizarre....We needed a reliable source showing the cultural significance of the film. Here you are. I'm leaving it at that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- hi Mushy Yank (talk) thanks for this detailed response. I have tried to reason that its unfortunate that local media doesnt focus much on Chhollywood unlike telugu, tamil, bhojpuri, bangla, kannada, or malyalam movies. But some want to ignore the cultural significance and importance of the film that gave birth to an entirely new film industry. Hope this clarifies their doubts, once n for all. Bonadart (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- But you omitted the claims/interview of the filmmaker from the same source that it uses for coverage and like I said earlier, it makes the article not indepedent of the claims made by the filmmaker. In the same source, the filmmaker says
- Yes it is. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- (And I can't locate your mentioning of Komal Nahta in your !vote, for the record) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe not technically a "review", but it IS significant coverage by a notable film critic and it certainly can be used on the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a review by Komal Nahta in rediff source but some coverage with interview of the filmmaker. I already said about this in my vote and all other sources are poor and unreliable. RangersRus (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I found this source ([26] - not sure about reliability) that says that this film revived the industry after 30 years and that the Indian state of Chhattisgarh was created 3 days after the release of this film. That in of itself sounds very significant. The Hindi name is मोर छैंहा भुइंया. DareshMohan (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @DareshMohan: that source is unreliable personal BLOG of a user and with Gmail contact and says that it does not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of information. I saw this source before when trying to find a secondary independent reliable source but because of its unreliability, ignored it. RangersRus (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- The source comes from a blog that was only created this year. A WHOIS search shows it is about eight months old. That with other factors show it is absolutely unreliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Only source which could possibly be used to support notability would be this from Rediff.com. Although that is up for debate above. Assuming it is acceptable, that only leaves one reliable source that has significant coverage. I do understand the desire to want to keep this, but the sources simply do not support notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- hi the local media doesnt follow or profile the Chhollywood as such media coverage isnt there except youtube (not accepted here) its neither the film or industry's fault. the significance is huge for giving birth to san industry. Raja Harishchandra and Alam Ara 2 important films, practically none review and virtually no coverage most mentions are books yet they have pages here, so why not this film Bonadart (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- That is the fourth time you have stated such. It does not help your case as it is actually admitting that there is no significant coverage. The sources is what shows notability. Without them, the topic is not notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- so does it change facts, i say NO it doesnt, if Raja Harishchandra and Alam Ara casn have pages why not this film Bonadart (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- That is the fourth time you have stated such. It does not help your case as it is actually admitting that there is no significant coverage. The sources is what shows notability. Without them, the topic is not notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I found a TOI article used in Chhattisgarhi cinema published in 2010 and coverage in this book published in 2019, both a decade of more after this film's release, about the history of Chhattisgarhi cinema which talks about the significance of the film. The TOI article is not a promo piece like we often see in TOI. Between these and Rediff, I believe the film meets WP:GNG and demonstrates the historical significance of the film. S0091 (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @DareshMohan, @CNMall41, @Ednabrenze and @RangersRus for their consideration. S0091 (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for pinging me. I will now withdraw my vote. Ednabrenze (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi S0091 (talk) thanks a lot for the vote Bonadart (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oops, I missed @SafariScribe. S0091 (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @DareshMohan, @CNMall41, @Ednabrenze and @RangersRus for their consideration. S0091 (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree the TOI article is reliable as it is NOT part of the run of the mill NEWSORGINDIA they have put out lately. However, unless I am missing something, it is a simply mention of the film which only verifies it existed. Verification is not notability. The book is a little better but again, very little information other than verifying it was made and what it grossed. I think these get it closer but still not over the mark. Maybe a redirect to the cinema page with a mention would be appropriate. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Respectfully @CNMall41, you and I have a different definition of a "mention". This book I also found is what I consider to be a mention that only privides verification (a Chhattisgarhi language film titled Mor Chhainha Bhuinya was released in 2000). Of course you can argue TOI is not WP:SIGCOV because we don't have a firm definition of what constitutes SIGCOV, other than it's more than a sentence, but it is certainly more than a mention (non-trivial). It is eight sentences and 139 words (not counting the quote). The article also states
The movie's stunning success propelled the rise of Chhattisgarhi film industry.
(not included in Daresh's snip below). According Chhattisgarhi language, there are 16.25 million speakers of the language and this is the film that launched an entire industry representing those millions of people. That's not mere existence. S0091 (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Respectfully @CNMall41, you and I have a different definition of a "mention". This book I also found is what I consider to be a mention that only privides verification (a Chhattisgarhi language film titled Mor Chhainha Bhuinya was released in 2000). Of course you can argue TOI is not WP:SIGCOV because we don't have a firm definition of what constitutes SIGCOV, other than it's more than a sentence, but it is certainly more than a mention (non-trivial). It is eight sentences and 139 words (not counting the quote). The article also states
- I agree the TOI article is reliable as it is NOT part of the run of the mill NEWSORGINDIA they have put out lately. However, unless I am missing something, it is a simply mention of the film which only verifies it existed. Verification is not notability. The book is a little better but again, very little information other than verifying it was made and what it grossed. I think these get it closer but still not over the mark. Maybe a redirect to the cinema page with a mention would be appropriate. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Passing mention? TOI says
DareshMohan (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Then in 2000, Jain returned to Raipur after parting ways with Govinda and decided to make a Chhattisgarhi film Mor Chhaihan Bhuinya (My shadow and earth). Soon enough, he realized he had to produce, direct and finance the movie himself because nobody thought a Chhattisgarhi movie would work. "We had to sell off our family land near Bastar. My brother-in-law mortgaged his land. My brother Tiku sang a few songs because we couldn't afford a playback singer," he remembers. No one else was willing, so the Jains distributed the movie themselves. Mor Chhaihan Bhuinya was released on October 27, 2000. Three days later, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced the creation of Chhattisgarh state. The crowds expressed their happiness by thronging the theatres. Produced at just Rs 20 lakh, the film grossed an eye-popping Rs 2.5 crore. It ran for 27 weeks in Raipur's Babulal theatre. In the two cinema halls of Razim and Nawapara qasbah, it ran 24x7.
- I think we do. I would agree that the TOI is reliable, especially since it is bylined. The book is also good coverage but it is more about the filmmaker. Why I said passing mention is because it is more about the history of cinema and includes that as an example. It doesn't say anything about the film other than it was created. Genre? Review? I think agreeing to disagree is appropriate but still do not see this as enough for notability. Based on it being discussed in association with the history of cimena, it may be appropriate to include a snippet there as I sated above. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, we disagree. There is no guideline that requires the genre or reviews. While reviews are one of the criteria for WP:NFILM so is #2 (historical significance) which includes
Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
We'll agree another time though as we have several times before. S0091 (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, we disagree. There is no guideline that requires the genre or reviews. While reviews are one of the criteria for WP:NFILM so is #2 (historical significance) which includes
- And fwiw, I highly doubt my opinion will be factored in anyway, given the other votes above. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think we do. I would agree that the TOI is reliable, especially since it is bylined. The book is also good coverage but it is more about the filmmaker. Why I said passing mention is because it is more about the history of cinema and includes that as an example. It doesn't say anything about the film other than it was created. Genre? Review? I think agreeing to disagree is appropriate but still do not see this as enough for notability. Based on it being discussed in association with the history of cimena, it may be appropriate to include a snippet there as I sated above. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:NFILM. There aren't significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and India. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi
- Keep Note that local media doesnt focus on Chhollywood, as such chhattisgarhi language films barely find any mention except youtube, which is not accepted here. But it doesnt dampen people's interest in Chhattisgarhi film. Note Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 is the biggest and highest grossing film in last few years in Chhollywood and its theatrical run was longer than Kalki 2898. Also the 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2' wikipage is well structured and complete page created using whatever sources available. Also note it is an important film in Chhollywood that has been a trend setter for sequals. If anyone can help improve it they are welcome. Bonadart (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: seems to have cultural significance, at least, as first sequel in Chhattisgarhi cinema. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chhattisgarh-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. All sources are poor and unreliable on this page. The poor sources have just passing mention and interview on the film by the director. Others are unreliable sources like Instagram, imdb, sacnilk, personal blog like jayjohar.com. No significant coverage and no reception and reviews in independent secondary sources. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- @RangersRus please mote that local media doesnt focus on Chhollywood films, as such chhattisgarhi language films barely find any mention except youtube, (not accepted here). But it doesnt dampen people's interest in Chhattisgarhi film. Note Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 is the biggest and highest grossing film in Chhollywood in last few years/ Its theatrical run was longer than Kalki 2898 and did better business than Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha. Also the 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2' wikipage is well structured and complete page created using whatever sources available. Also note it is an important film in Chhollywood that has been a trend setter for sequels. these are reason enough to keep their page in wikipedia. Bonadart (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- We can not go with word of mouth. We need reliable secondary independent sources with significant coverage to consider the page's notability and so far I have found nothing significant. Its important that we follow the wikipedia guidelines for notability. RangersRus (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- @RangersRus please mote that local media doesnt focus on Chhollywood films, as such chhattisgarhi language films barely find any mention except youtube, (not accepted here). But it doesnt dampen people's interest in Chhattisgarhi film. Note Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 is the biggest and highest grossing film in Chhollywood in last few years/ Its theatrical run was longer than Kalki 2898 and did better business than Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha. Also the 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2' wikipage is well structured and complete page created using whatever sources available. Also note it is an important film in Chhollywood that has been a trend setter for sequels. these are reason enough to keep their page in wikipedia. Bonadart (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as per WP:NFIC as culturally significant as one of the most successful films in the chhattisgarhi language, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Atlantic306, nobody is doubting that the film may meets WP:NFIC. My question is, "how do we know?". Pls provide reliable sources that says it or are we now considering original researches? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not finding much at all on Google. Is there a Chhattisgarhi language search engine? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note that local media doesnt focus on Chhollywood, as such chhattisgarhi language films barely find any mention but in youtube, there is lot of info but it is not accepted here. Bonadart (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Youtube channels that are the official channels of reliable sources such as newspapers or major magazines are acceptable. Do any of them meet that standard ? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- there is lot of informattion about the film in youtube, but point is, if it is accpted here Bonadart (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can you show us some of those sources? Here is what is said on Youtube. "Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK". If you have sources from verifiable reliable official account, please let us see. RangersRus (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- hi RangersRus (talk)
- Can you show us some of those sources? Here is what is said on Youtube. "Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK". If you have sources from verifiable reliable official account, please let us see. RangersRus (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- there is lot of informattion about the film in youtube, but point is, if it is accpted here Bonadart (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Youtube channels that are the official channels of reliable sources such as newspapers or major magazines are acceptable. Do any of them meet that standard ? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note that local media doesnt focus on Chhollywood, as such chhattisgarhi language films barely find any mention but in youtube, there is lot of info but it is not accepted here. Bonadart (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not finding much at all on Google. Is there a Chhattisgarhi language search engine? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.youtube.com/@VIDEOWORLDRAIPUR
- https://www.youtube.com/@AVMGANA
- https://www.youtube.com/@sundranifilms
- https://www.youtube.com/@Cgliv
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvgW-dBMYKE
- https://www.youtube.com/@saregamaregional
- https://www.youtube.com/@aarugmusicofficial
- https://www.youtube.com/@sangwaritlm870
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J2fqbib53Q
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iIUu_Pvyqk
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdFXT0M6wrw
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y9l4satlTc
the list includes some for 2000 film and some for 2024 film and is endless but best reliable are attached Bonadart (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- These sources are poor to unreliable. First 3 youtube are music channels and looks like link to music videos, after that the 2 are self published youtube channels. Then 6 is again music channel and 7 too but looks self published and all the remaining clearly look like uploaded content by a unverified official accounts. Even the last source by Vistaar News has not significant coverage. There is no "lot of information" in any of the sources setting aside the problem with their reliability. RangersRus (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- hi you may consider them not reliable but lthese are the top search results, btw if reliability is bar then you have lot of reliable info on Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha but what has happened to the film, its super flop compare it to this movie - 1st sequel, longer run than kalki 2898, biggest hit in last 5 yrs, these are reason enough as per me to keep the page Bonadart (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I do not understand what you are saying. I do not know what Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha and kalki 2898 films have to do with the YouTube videos you showed that you found in top search and yet no significant coverage in any of them. We do not want to see youtube videos with stars and interviewer mingling and having fun but need a reliable source from verifiable official account that has significant coverage. If these above were your top searches, it is clear there is not much to go with. RangersRus (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- hi you may consider them not reliable but lthese are the top search results, btw if reliability is bar then you have lot of reliable info on Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha but what has happened to the film, its super flop compare it to this movie - 1st sequel, longer run than kalki 2898, biggest hit in last 5 yrs, these are reason enough as per me to keep the page Bonadart (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Sufficient sources mentioned for notability, A search found coverage of this films in many other languages News Sites. Monophile (talk) 8:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Monophile: Which sites? [27] DareshMohan (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are many !keep votes, but so far no reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)- Hi asilvering (talk)
- Note that local media doesnt focus on Chhollywood, as such chhattisgarhi language films barely find any mention in print media except youtube, which is not accepted here. But it doesnt mean people dont like these movies, infact despite that people's interest in Chhattisgarhi film has grown. Note Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 is the biggest and highest grossing film in last few years in Chhollywood. Its theatrical run was longer than Kalki 2898 and made more monwy than Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha. Also the 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2' wikipage is well structured and complete page created using whatever sources available. Also note it is an important film in Chhollywood that has been a trend setter for sequals being the 1st such film. All these are reasomn enough for Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 to have a page in wikipedia. If anyone can help improve it they are welcome.
- Bonadart (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Struck! voted twice
- You were told before by another user to not vote twice and yet you did it again and repeated the same wall of texts. Please remove the second vote. RangersRus (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Bonadart, it's important to remember that a subject can be popular, even very popular, and some people can think it's "important". But Wikipedia only judges articles based on notability as established by reliable secondary sources. If the sources don't exist, then, for now, there shouldn't be an article. It's not a critique of the subject, just whether or not it meets Wikipedia's standards which are unique to this project and often do not make sense to readers or infrequent editors. But, they are the basis for decision-making in AFDs. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- hi Read!|Liz|Read! (Read!|talk) you said unique!!! well this film Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 is a remake or spiritual sequal to Mor Chhainha Bhuinya, a film that gave birth to an entire film industry in a state, not just that, also it gave chance to all actors to make debut, was such a blockbuster that it pushed other established Bollywood films behind. As for the remake Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 in 2024, note that it is the biggest film in last 5 yrs, made the max. money at BO, had a longer theatrical run than Kalki 2898, did better business than a big film like Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha, and is the trendsetter for sequels in Chhollywood; are these not reason enough to make it unique and derserving a page in wikipedia. As for sources I have repeatedly said local media rarely profiiles Chhollywood movies but a lot of info is available in YouTube, which is not accepted here. It's not a film/ film industry fault if it is not profiled in local media. So I strongly believe this movie deserves a place in Wikipedia, and also its well-structured and well made page. Also, the film is such a big success that another sequel, Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 3 is set to release next year.Bonadart (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- As Liz explained very clearly, Wikipedia requires notability established by reliable secondary sources. Please understand this requirement. RangersRus (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- hi RangersRus (talk) what good has notability done to Thugs of Hindustan or Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha both are blockbuster flops. Where as this film is 1st remake, has longer theatrical run than biggest film, done better business in a state than biggest flops nationwide business, and is trensetter for sequels. These are enough reasons to keep this page, different matter that i have seen many pages without any source. Also the local media rarely profiles any Chhollywood film, so its not the film or industry's fault. I rest my case. Bonadart (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- You also continue to bring up things that fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is best to stick to the reasoning THIS page should be kept without comparing it to others. Specifically, cite the reliable sources that show how this meets notability guidelines (outside of YouTube which you have already provided - all of which cannot be used to establish notability). --CNMall41 (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- hi RangersRus (talk) what good has notability done to Thugs of Hindustan or Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha both are blockbuster flops. Where as this film is 1st remake, has longer theatrical run than biggest film, done better business in a state than biggest flops nationwide business, and is trensetter for sequels. These are enough reasons to keep this page, different matter that i have seen many pages without any source. Also the local media rarely profiles any Chhollywood film, so its not the film or industry's fault. I rest my case. Bonadart (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- As Liz explained very clearly, Wikipedia requires notability established by reliable secondary sources. Please understand this requirement. RangersRus (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- hi Read!|Liz|Read! (Read!|talk) you said unique!!! well this film Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 is a remake or spiritual sequal to Mor Chhainha Bhuinya, a film that gave birth to an entire film industry in a state, not just that, also it gave chance to all actors to make debut, was such a blockbuster that it pushed other established Bollywood films behind. As for the remake Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 in 2024, note that it is the biggest film in last 5 yrs, made the max. money at BO, had a longer theatrical run than Kalki 2898, did better business than a big film like Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha, and is the trendsetter for sequels in Chhollywood; are these not reason enough to make it unique and derserving a page in wikipedia. As for sources I have repeatedly said local media rarely profiiles Chhollywood movies but a lot of info is available in YouTube, which is not accepted here. It's not a film/ film industry fault if it is not profiled in local media. So I strongly believe this movie deserves a place in Wikipedia, and also its well-structured and well made page. Also, the film is such a big success that another sequel, Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 3 is set to release next year.Bonadart (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Reviewing this and the original (also up for deletion), the sources simply do not support notability. On its face, it may seem notable but sourcing must support. Even creator says "Note that local media doesnt focus on Chhollywood, as such chhattisgarhi language films barely find any mention except youtube" which sums it up. YouTube is not reliable and the media has not written about it significantly enough to meet threshold for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- hi the local media doesnt follow or profile the Chhollywood as such media coverage isnt there except youtube (not accepted here) its neither the film or industry's fault. the significance original is huge for giving birth to san industry it even pushed other flicks behind. Raja Harishchandra and Alam Ara 2 important films, practically none review and virtually no coverage most mentions are books yet they have pages here, so why not this film you say notability, so what good has notability done for Thugs of Hindustan or Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha both are mega flops but have pages here, a different matter there are mamy pages without 1 source here too Bonadart (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your want to keep this, but you stated yourself that the industry is not covered significantly in the media. Reiterating the same statement is not helpful and only leads to WALLSOFTEXT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- User:DareshMohan has added sources addressing the question raised by the nominator during this discussion imv. Also, this film being a sequel, a redirect should be considered if notability is challenged. Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Three sources were added recently and unfortunately after analyzing them, they all are found to be unreliable.
- Source Vedant Samachar disclaimer says "Some elements of the site will contain material (news/photos/videos etc.) submitted by users. Vedanta Samachar accepts no responsibility for such material. The correspondent/reporter will be solely responsible for such material published in Vedanta Samachar; Vedanta Samachar or its owners, printer, publisher, editor will have no responsibility for it."
- Source Kelo Pravah is a BLOG and gets its contribution from the users as it's a citizens journalism. It says "If you come across any important incident, accident, corruption, motivational story, story, social issue or any other matter around you, please share it with us. We assure complete protection of your privacy. Your contribution will enable us to provide better and meaningful news."
- Source TheRuralPress says "The opinions and views expressed in articles, blogs, comments, or other content on TheRuralPress.in are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of S S B Media House." "While we strive to ensure that the information on this Website is accurate and up-to-date, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to the Website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the Website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk."
User:DareshMohan you are well aware of the WP:ICTFSOURCES talk page and recommend you to initiate the reliability concerns of the sources on the talk page for concensus before adding them on the page. RangersRus (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I added the above sources since that's what I could find. Since I wasn't sure about notability, I didn't vote here. Although there are reliability concerns, those sources should have some edge over database sources #1-2, 8-9 and 10-13. 13 is very questionable to say the least. If you are keen to know my vote, it can be considered as weak delete (not opposed to redirect). DareshMohan (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am not sure standard disclaimers on news websites are enough to discard any source as ’unreliable”, but that’s just me. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Eh, it depends. When the Terms are absent of any claims about being accurate that to me is a red flag. For example, TheRuralPress at least states they strive for accuracy which means they would need likely need prove that if came to lawsuit (i.e. they make corrections, retract, etc.). Unfortunately, my anit-virus software gives me a security warning for TheRuralPress, which has nothing to do with reliability but I will not assess it myself. The Hindu simply states it is up the reader to evaluate their accuracy. However, they explicitly disclaim accuracy for opinions, third parties, etc. which is typical (same for NYT). It is not typical to state the reporters are responsible. That's crazy and strongly indicates they have no staff journalists and no editorial oversight. S0091 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Premier Energies Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject is receiving attention due to its recent IPO. Anyways, after searching for in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources, I was unable to find any. The cited sources are trivial, as per WP:ORGTRIV, and the subject does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 13:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. GrabUp - Talk 13:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have tried to find old news which are not for the IPO, that was before. It might be more coverage due to IPO but I guess we will get more and more updates in coming months as this a listed company now. Njoy deep (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify the situation might change within a few months seeing the amount of coverage around the IPO. Broc (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with the points, due to IPO many news are around that too. Njoy deep (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: All I see are press releases, stock analysis/prediction reports, expansion plans and funding rounds, i.e., routine announcements. The sources fail the WP:SIRS check and the coverage around the IPO does not guarantee notability. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- This company has recently been in the news due to its IPO, with substantial media coverage spanning 30 pages of Google News. Notably, 95% of the news comes from reliable sources. Deleting this article isn't a valid option. While Draftify could be useful to some extent. Especially since I'm not able to build a policy-driven case for keeping this article, it's not the perfect solution either. Hitro talk 17:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. As indicated by the source review, sources don't establish notability for this subject. Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Kadambari Jethwani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just like previous AfD, no evidence support this individual's page meeting WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Currently, sources cover this person only in the context of a single event which is a sexual harassment case which is still under investigation WP:BLP1E. WP:TOOSOON. Charlie (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Charlie (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Gujarat. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: has at least 3 significant roles in notable productions and meets WP:NACTOR -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- In line with WP:BEFORE, I checked IMDb, and it appears that none were lead roles. However, if reliable sources indicate otherwise, it could meet the WP:HEYMANN. Charlie (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not lead roles, perhaps, but significant roles, not minor. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- In line with WP:BEFORE, I checked IMDb, and it appears that none were lead roles. However, if reliable sources indicate otherwise, it could meet the WP:HEYMANN. Charlie (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Sources are poor and most are written from the perspective of subject herself. She is a very minor actress who has not made a significant achievement worthy of notice in her minor career. Fails WP:N and WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Essentially a bit-part actor. No indication of significance. Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creepTalk 06:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Has significant roles mentioned in filmography. meets WP:NACTOR clearly. Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLP1E isn't correct too. Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Thewikizoomer At the moment, there are no reliable sources that mention her roles in the movies listed in the article. If you find any, you are welcome to update the page or share a source analysis at this AfD. Please avoid using interviews or self-quotations. Also, please include any other events or supportive information that would elevate her beyond the BLP1E criteria. Charlie (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLP1E isn't correct too. Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Stand as per - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kadambari Jethwani (2nd nomination)#c-Thewikizoomer-20240909075000-CharlieMehta-20240903172200 Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC) (struck duplicate !vote — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC))
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis now would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Source analysis.
- Source 1.2,3,4 are interviews with the subject and are NOT independent with no secondary verification for the claims in the interview made by the subject.
- Source 5 is an unreliable source moviemint.com that was a blog and the domain does not exist anymore. This source was about interview with a director of the film the subject acted in and just has a passing mention of the subject.
- Source 6 is also by unreliable moviemint.com and just has an entry name of the subject.
- Source 7,8,9,10,11 are about routine news on subject's allegations about harassment by the IPS officers and these sources do not have the subject's name maybe to hide the identity but I did verify from other sources online that the subject was the actress behind the allegation news.
There is no significant coverage on the subject's biodata and career or any achievement that is noteworthy to warrant a page on by any secondary independent reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for spending the time to sort this out, RangersRus. Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent work @RangersRus: scope_creepTalk 06:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak delete: Really needs some sources to show multiple significant roles - reviews that do more than just mention her would be quite helpful. The existing sources are underwhelming - interviews and minimal coverage other than the harrassment issue. Is that enough for notable? Not enough for me. Some of the claims aren't sourced - dancer and beauty pageants. They wouldn't be enough for notability, but really should be sourced to include. Just reinforces my weak delete !vote. Ravensfire (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Police Officers (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NFILM, no WP:SIGCOV anywhere, no critical reception whatsoever. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Kannada films of 2022:see article talk page -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)- Weak Keep. 2 strong sources, the second of which is very long [28]. The film had an alternative title of Police Officer. @Mushy Yank: @Vanderwaalforces: What do you think of the second source, which mentions box office? Did you do a WP:BEFORE? DareshMohan (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I had looked vaguely at the time of the discussion but I’ll change my !vote. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Given the review presented and coverage about production, there’s enough all in all to keep an article, I think. Very opposed to deletion anyway.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. 3 sources on the page. Source 1 by rediff is not a review. It talks about the film based on real life crime and the first half of the article is about the actual crime that took place and the second half of the article are claims/interview of the maker of the film, making the source not independent of the maker. Source 2 talks about the actual incident and just has a passing mention that the maker based his film on this actual incident. Source 3 is just a music site to listen to the songs. No significant coverage on the film itself from secondary independent sources. No multiple critical reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. If anyone can find 2 or more secondary independent reliable sources with significant coverage on just the film itself, I will reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Found a similar source about another one of the director's films, which is unreleased [29]. DareshMohan (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete and SALT. None of the Keep views carried any P&G weight, and there was no support for the draftification proposal. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Legends League Cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreation of a deleted article following this AfD. Apparently because the wording and WP:REFBOMBS are different, it cannot be a G4 speedy... Non-notable, just as it was a month and a bit ago, with WP:REFBOMBS and no establishment of WP:GNG. Just because retired players are taking part, doesn't mean notability is inherited. Coverage within the refbombs is routine. AA (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. AA (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep As I previously commented that the page should not be deleted because this is known cricket league. And In this all are international cricket players. And this is the main page of league not season page and also old league. I think it should be not be deleted because a lot of news references are available.
- PQR01 (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- You didn't actually contribute at the last AFD (at least not as this logged in user). But WP:NOTINHERITED applies- just because notable people compete, that doesn't make this event notable. If you didn't like that it was deleted, WP:Deletion review would have been the proper process, not re-creating the article and thus forcing another AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, the previous comment PQR01 is referring to is on the talk page of the article. -- asilvering (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- You didn't actually contribute at the last AFD (at least not as this logged in user). But WP:NOTINHERITED applies- just because notable people compete, that doesn't make this event notable. If you didn't like that it was deleted, WP:Deletion review would have been the proper process, not re-creating the article and thus forcing another AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- PQR01 (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Oman, Qatar, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete and salt as per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legends League Cricket. Nothing has changed in the 1 month since the last AFD, and re-creating an article after a clear AFD consensus like this is just disruptive. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- There is a sockpuppet investigation here, as I am sure many, if not all, of these accounts are linked. AA (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - As per above rationale. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- There is a sockpuppet investigation here, as I am sure many, if not all, of these accounts are linked. AA (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I think the league is quite notable as it's the most watched league in India after IPL as per BARC with reference to the news. Also the league was started back in 2022 and from then, a total of 4 seasons have happened and the 5th season is about to start from 20th September. The league is approved by Oman & Qatar cricket associations & several state associations in India. Taplow45 (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- So that's a lot of personal opinion... where's the WP:GNG, WP:OFFCRIC, WP:EVENT pass? AA (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Among other things, let's see how that sock investigation goes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep:Seems noteworthy [30] [31], covered in other news sources as well. Although, article should be improved to include a bit more info such as champions, scorecards, stats etc. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)- Draftify: Move to mainspace once the article is complete and ready. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Big Legends play and it has continuously grown in stature. Lot of media attention shows that fans want to know about the league thus i think it should be on Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegendaryFan88 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thats a good point. Move the page to main space 103.70.152.141 (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. The above and below keeps should be discarded as they are likely sockpuppets. I have added LegendaryFan88 to an ongoing sockpuppet investigation... curious isn't it, that LegendaryFan88 has made a handful of edits yet stumbles across this AfD. AA (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It seems like someone has an agenda against the league for not having got a chance to work with them. One of the comments shows that an agency is supporting the author. This league is creating jobs for retired cricketers and other staff. And it is visible on top sports networks across the world. Thus i feel it should have a Wiki page for dissemination of information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.141 (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: SPI is hopelessly backlogged,but I've protected this discussion for some laundry free discussion as there's no consensus among established editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: The creator of the page, along with the associated pro-page IDs and IPs, clearly shows signs of WP:UPE. Also, the page focuses on a cricket league filled with retired players, making it seem more like a promotional one. Charlie (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also, the so-called league is not run by a sports governing body or organization, but by a company named Absolute Legends Sports Pvt. Ltd. This highlights that it is not primarily a cricket league to begin with. This information should be taken into consideration until and unless it's proven otherwise. Charlie (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Just noting the re-protection is not related to the initial SPI but rather the ongoing AfD troll. Closers should not see this as action re: the SPI. Star Mississippi 13:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Procedural delete and SALT. Even if not G4-eligible, a community consensus just two months ago determined this to be a non-notable subject for an article. If the page creator wanted to bring this article back, the appropriate forum was first a Deletion Review to overturn that AfD. I see no need to engage with the sources again without a clear rationale offered that the previous AfD was flawed (and it doesn't appear to be). Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining delete proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anjum Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:REFBOMB doesn't help matters and this draft doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. A recurring character in a film doesn't sometimes show notability. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, and India. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: at least 2 significant roles in notable productions so that deletion is not necessary in my opinion. Trimming of references is a cleanup issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- What roles? It is absolutely not close to meeting WP:NACTOR since there isn't any significant coverage about this person. If you really think trimming is the problem, then do it, because I see non notability and less clean up issue. We are arguing about meeting our general notability guidelines and how the content matches with the sources. Additionally, having two significant roles isn't the problem because it's less of WP:NACTOR, which is a
an essayguide to help us in knowing how possible can a person be notable. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- What roles? It is absolutely not close to meeting WP:NACTOR since there isn't any significant coverage about this person. If you really think trimming is the problem, then do it, because I see non notability and less clean up issue. We are arguing about meeting our general notability guidelines and how the content matches with the sources. Additionally, having two significant roles isn't the problem because it's less of WP:NACTOR, which is a
- It's not an essay it's a policy guideline as it states at top of the page, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is a guideline. As for
If you really think trimming is the problem, then do it
, that's asked so kindly, thank you, but I am not the one who sees an issue here. As for what the roles are, at least roles in the recurring cast in Mizapur and in the main cast of Sultan of Delhi. For the rest, the guideline is clear but I am not sure I understand what you say. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is a guideline. As for
- It's not an essay it's a policy guideline as it states at top of the page, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep notable person, yes it's need to cleanup references. Xegma(talk) 17:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as a withdrawn nomination. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Shekar Natarajan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promo article. Fails WP:BIO. Refs are mostly interviews and profiles. No indication of being notable. scope_creepTalk 07:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is so many citations on his work in this article and he is well known in the world of Supply Chain. 75.149.50.222 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to address the concerns regarding the notability and reliability of the references in this article.
- Notability and Achievements:
- Shekar Natarajan is a recognized expert in the field of supply chain management. His contributions to the industry have been significant, as evidenced by his receipt of the Medallion Award from the Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE) in 2010, which is awarded for notable contributions to the field. It was awarded to only 10 people over the last decade. This award recognizes individuals that have made a notable impact on the industrial engineering profession. The full list of awardees, including Mr. Natarajan, can be viewed here - https://www.iise.org/awards.aspx?id=10802.
- Reliable Sources:
- In addition to the IISE recognition, Mr. Natarajan has been acknowledged by various reputable industry sources. For example, Material Handling and Logistics News has recognized him as an expert in supply chain logistics. More details about his work and expertise can be found in their coverage here - https://www.mhlnews.com/shekar-natarajan-expert.
- Given these points, I believe Mr. Natarajan's notability is well-established within his field, supported by reliable third-party sources.
- Thank you for considering these points. 75.149.50.222 (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Shekar Natarajan has received several prestigious awards and recognitions throughout his career, acknowledging his significant contributions to the supply chain and logistics industry.* Medallion Award (2010): Awarded by the Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE), recognizing his contributions to the field of industrial engineering and systems.
- DC Velocity Rainmaker (Year): Named as one of the "Rainmakers" by DC Velocity magazine, which highlights professionals who have made substantial impacts in the logistics and supply chain field. Source.
- Consumer Goods Visionary (2010): Recognized as a visionary by Consumer Goods magazine for his forward-thinking strategies in the consumer goods industry. Source.Given the multiple awards and recognitions that Shekar Natarajan has received, it is clear that he has made a noteworthy impact in his industry. Deleting this article would mean removing valuable information about a recognized leader in supply chain management, whose work continues to influence the field. This article serves as a credible and informative resource for those interested in learning about influential figures in the industry.
- 2601:644:9385:FB0:542B:A7A2:4997:3559 (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion needs to see more participation. Looking at the comments thus far, it seems like this subject might have won some prestigious industry awards. Notable awards go beyond the Oscars and Nobels, by the way. A source review would also be helpful here as this is a heavily referenced article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment These are corporate awards and are non-notable here. scope_creepTalk 10:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Strong keep Highly notable as a high-level executive who has worked at or been contracted by major Fortune 500 companies such as Coca-Cola Consolidated, PepsiCo, Anheuser-Busch, and also Disney, Walmart, Target, American Eagle Outfitters.
- Parts of the article look promotional but can be cleaned up, but that does not mean that the subject is not notable. Clearly meets WP:BIO, with copious citations all over the web (WP:SIGCOV). Also search for Chandrashekar Natarajan. Plenty of Google Scholar contributions.
- Some awards and sentences about him being a "thought leader" can be trimmed since I believe they're too promotional, but the sources clearly demonstrate that this is a notable Fortune 500 company executive. Natarajan is covered by the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, New York Times, Harvard Business Review, and many other top-tier sources that can also be included.
- Copyediting needed? Yes. But notability fail? Definitely not. I'd recommend keeping and then cleaning up. Nyangaman4 (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- No. On the Google Scholar citation list , only one paper is above 100 cites which means that record of achievement is invalid. Too low a h-index/citation count to count towards WP:NACADEMIC. Being contracted or having worked at place isn't inherently notable. Only coverage denotes notability and its not here. We will look at the references today. scope_creepTalk 08:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I could not find any WP:SIGCOV piece on this person in a quality independent national RS, a zero in an international one. His awards are not notable and "working for" major US corporations in a local country is also not notable. Article is very WP:PROMO and written like his resume. Getting into WP:G11 territory but regardless, no evidence of notability on any basis. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: This is the best article, but it's penned by this person [32], unfortunately. There just isn't enough about this fellow to show notability here. Brief mentions in the few sources used in the article that are RS aren't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I have just removed promotional resume-like content and puffery. This article has been up since 2010, but it appears that different people have been inserting promotional content over time. But that does not mean this person is not notable. If cleaned up, it will meet Wikipedia criteria and can be kept. Nyangaman4 (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- I could not find a single piece of WP:SIGCOV on this person in any quality Indian RS. This was probably a WP:UPE case that should never have been a BLP, but somehow it survived. 15:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm normally opposed to having a third relisting, but we may need time to consider changes that removed some self-promo content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I did consider those changes, and while there is still a lot of non-notable awards and positions listed, the main issue remains, which is that there are no WP:SIGCOV pieces - never mind WP:3REFS - on this person in any quality independent WP:RS. They are just not a notable person. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - a blatant attempt to create a wall of citations and AstroTurf an AfD. By any objective view, the subject badly fails significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Proposed deletions
Files for deletion
Category discussion debates
Template discussion debates
Redirects for deletion
MFD discussion debates
Other deletion discussions
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 16:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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 ITalk to my owner:Online 18:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)