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.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to India. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Aside from the abhorrently formatted title, I was unable to find anything that indicates this passes WP:NEVENT. All sources I could find are breaking news, trial updates and low quality, though there could be more in non-English languages. If kept (I could very well be missing sources, Indian news never shows up in search for me) the common title is something like ""Udupi quadruple murder" and it should be moved to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This company does not meet WP:NCORP requirements. The sources are merely press releases and therefore, not independent as they fit the description listed at WP:NEWSORGINDIA and they do not provide the stringent sourcing required to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The rest of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE due to physicswallah investing in the company. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable singer, going viral isn't the level of notability we need. [1] is an interview. Source 3 in the article is a list of many people, not mostly about this person. I don't see enough for notability at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not yet notable per WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG, with no significant coverage found in reliable sources in English (Kasturi Murali Krishna or Kasturi Muralikrishna) or Telugu (కస్తూరి మురళీకృష్ణ), just passing mentions and social media. Wikishovel (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kasturi Murali Krishna is one of the noted contemporary writer in Telugu Language at present. Article on his name is suitable to be placed in english wikipedia. Ofcourse I am searching for reliable sources for references which may took some time. Moreover this article is available in Telugu wikipedia since 2014 and didnot considered for deletion by any administrators. స్వరలాసిక (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is paid/sponsored article.- The article was used to establish Shira's role as the founder of Bharat Bhagya Vidhata Forum. Have added reference where this has been established- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFaTi2CB4Vg. This video is by Indian School of Business's Bharti School of Public Policy.
This is self published- This was used to communicate her higher education. Additional information has been published by Zee Media.
She is the most popular sanskrit singer . Sanskrit one of the oldest langauge in the world . There are more then 15 google, Bing , Baidu Auto suggest about madhvi madhukar and her song which suggest people are very curious to know about this unique singer . Keyword planner also suggest thousands of people searching about her . She has resurrected and re invented sanskrit songs . Third party app like social blade suggest 13 to 15 crore people listening her on youtube. Her wikipedia page is coming on top which suggest people are visiting her page .please don't be personal about her . Sanskrit is the mother of all langauge and she is harbinger .
I understand that the nomination for the deletion of Madhvi Madhukar’s Wikipedia article under WP:SINGER has raised concerns about her notability. However, I respectfully request a reconsideration of this nomination, as Madhvi Madhukar clearly meets the notability criteria outlined under WP:SINGER. Her article should remain on Wikipedia, and here's why:
1. Extensive Media Coverage from Credible Outlets
Madhvi Madhukar has received significant, verifiable media coverage in respected, national-level outlets, highlighting her importance as both an artist and a public figure. While it’s important to scrutinize the nature of media coverage, it’s equally important to recognize the credibility of the sources involved.
For example, Madhvi’s interview on DD News, a government-run news outlet, demonstrates her contributions to the music industry and her relevance in the broader cultural landscape. You can view the interview here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtR381zOHOc]. DD News is a well-regarded broadcaster, and her presence on this platform is a strong indicator of her notability.
Additionally, leading publications like ANI (Asian News International) and Hindustan Times have published articles featuring Madhvi’s achievements, which go beyond sensationalism. These are not fleeting mentions, but meaningful coverage in reliable media outlets with a strong reputation for reporting on notable figures.
2. Alignment with WP:SINGER Notability Guidelines
The WP:SINGER notability guideline is focused on artists who have received substantial, independent coverage from reliable sources. Madhvi Madhukar’s sustained presence in respected media outlets, including major national platforms, shows that she fits this criterion.
Her media coverage is not just superficial; it reflects ongoing recognition for her contributions to the music industry. Articles from outlets like ANI and Hindustan Times go beyond basic mentions, providing in-depth looks at her work and impact. This kind of sustained attention demonstrates her significance in the field, qualifying her for inclusion under WP:SINGER.
3. Conclusion
While it’s understandable to have questions about notability, it’s clear that Madhvi’s media presence surpasses the threshold set by WP:SINGER. Deleting her article would overlook the credible sources that validate her standing in the public eye and dismiss her genuine impact in the music world.
I would be happy to assist in further improving the article by adding additional citations or expanding the content to provide a more comprehensive overview of her career. Retaining the article would acknowledge her achievements and help document her contributions to the cultural and music landscape.
Thank you for considering this request. I believe that preserving her article is a reflection of Wikipedia’s commitment to documenting notable individuals and their contributions. Redphoenix123 (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only selected for training camp before AFC Women’s Futsal Asian Cup 2025. I didn’t found any sources which discuss the subject and this player hasn’t won any medal at international level. Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:SPORTS TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that deletion would be the best option - somebody searching for this would probably want an article covering the same area now, and maybe an explanation of why it doesn't exist any more. Perhaps merge into List of districts of Rajasthan? Adam Sampson (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But i want to share some information here that these are only announced to become a new district in future by the Ashok Gehlot government last year and now they are abolished by new government.TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's notable enough for a topic even though it's been abolished, though right now the state of the article is just marginally better than redirecting it somewhere. That's not an argument for redirecting, but it is an argument for improving it... SportingFlyerT·C02:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kepp : as there are several pages of former districts still exist on Wikipedia
Delete. Poor sources on the page with no notable coverage on the subject. Per nom fails WP:NPOL. The subject does not seem to warrant a biographical page because of no significant, interesting, or unusual enough coverage to deserve attention or to be recorded as Politician, and activist. RangersRus (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I would like to address the concerns:
1.Notability (WP:NPOL):
Kambala Srinivas Rao is the President of *Vishwa Hindu Dharma Parirakshana* and joined the BJP in December 2024, a move covered by reliable sources such as OneIndia, The Hans India*, and The New Indian Express. His contributions include cultural preservation and strengthening BJP's presence in East Godavari, which demonstrates political significance.
His community-focused efforts in temple infrastructure and cultural preservation add to his profile as a social activist.
Given the above, I believe the article meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria (WP:NPOL, WP:GNG). I am open to suggestions for improving the page help out to publish my article without any error Durgaprasadpetla (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability, and when you call approving your own AFC submission "removing an unnecessary disambiguator", it doesn't indicate a healthy understanding of policy. Sumanuil. (talk to me)20:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article lacks reliable sources to verify the information presented. Additionally, the battle appears to have limited historical significance and is not widely covered in notable sources, making the article's notability questionable. Article clearly failing WP:GNG and WP:V . Mr.HanesTalk04:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Poor to unreliable sources with no significant coverage on the series and no multiple reviews from reliable critics. RangersRus (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. A shame that the article is currently in such bad shape, but the industry definitely seems notable. It has industry publications [2], industry bodies [3][4], and has received plenty of coverage as an industry in reliable sources - [5][6][7][8] are a few examples. There are also tons of sources about the history of paper manufacturing in India [9][10][11][12] and about the environmental impacts of the industry [13][14][15]. I don't think it would be too difficult to get this article looking much more like Pulp and paper industry in Indonesia, which seems to have a roughly similar level of available sourcing. MCE89 (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a public company with 40% market share it should be notable but the references in the article certainly need improving so hopefully some new ones will be presented in this discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are passing mentions and do not provide in-depth coverage of the subject, hence failing GNG. Additionally, the person is not an MP/MLA, thus failing WP:NPOL. GrabUp - Talk12:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources on the page with no notable coverage on the subject. Per nom fails WP:NPOL. The subject does not seem to warrant a biographical page because of no significant, interesting, or unusual enough coverage to deserve attention or to be recorded as Politician. RangersRus (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP, WP:TOOSOON, and NPOL. Despite the use of weasel words and phrases that imply that the subject is important, this was an unsuccessful political candidate at the state level and is a plaintiff. We have literally deleted thousands of articles and pages of unsuccessful political candidates. We are not a web site for anyone to advocate for political or personal agendas. The Indian judiciary is notoriously slow in coming to decisions. At 26 years old, it's far too early for us to make any reasonable predictions about the likelihood of this person's future success, either at the ballot box or in court. Bearian (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These articles do not satisfy WP:GNG as there is insufficient independent and in-depth coverage in reliable sources to justify their existence. The claim of the districts being part of India de jure primarily relies on sources mentioning the Indian government’s release of maps in 2019 depicting the districts as part of India. Separate articles are unnecessary for this aspect, as the existing Mirpur District, Muzaffarabad District and Kashmir conflict articles can address India’s inclusion of these districts on its maps as part of the broader Kashmir dispute. These articles were previously CSD’d, but the author has repeatedly restored them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do these examples apply here? I do not see any duplicate or redundant WP:POVFORKS for Medog County and Lhunze County like the ones you created for Mirpur District and Muzaffarabad District. The example of Taiwan Province is not relevant here as it represents a larger entity, similar to Azad Kashmir. Are there any articles on smaller units of a disputed territory, like the ones you created for these districts, which are smaller parts of a larger disputed region such as Azad Kashmir? Furthermore, the last example you provided pertains to a governing body, not a territory. Why do you believe that creation of the disputed maps by India cannot be addressed within existing articles such as Kashmir conflict, Mirpur District, or Muzaffarabad District? Why is there a need for separate WP:POVFORKS for this? By your reasoning, we should also have articles like Ladakh, Pakistan, Srinagar District, Pakistan, and Baramulla District, Pakistan, etc., as the latter two are smaller units of a larger disputed territory controlled by India. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, the boundaries of the districts are not the same. India's boundaries reflect those pre-1947 in the area, whilst Pakistan has redrawn the boundaries since then. To respond to your point, China's Medog County claims the territory that India administers largely as the Upper Siang district, yet both articles exist separately. Furthermore, there aren't any maps from Pakistan showing district level boundaries beyond the LoC, so the debate about why they haven't been created is moot. --Rvd4life (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: duplicate articles for the districts of Azad Kashmir administered by Pakistan. As parts of the larger Kashmir region, Wikipedia do not need separate articles for the areas administered by Pakistan but claimed by India and nor for those administered by India but claimed by Pakistan. Through inclusion to maps, these are similar to older claims by both countries over the regions of Kashmir without any administrative control. The dispute and claims are already mentioned in articles: Mirpur District and Muzaffarabad District per Ind-Pak consensus of 2019, plus thoroughly explained at the main articles regarding the Kashmir region; Kashmir (specifically in section:Current status and political divisions) and Kashmir conflict (for instance the content: map legality starts with, "As with other disputed territories, each government issues maps depicting their claims in Kashmir territory, regardless of actual control.") MSLQr (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Wikipedia maintains a series of articles about claimed territories of a country, though the article needs to be expanded for further relevance.Xoocit (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also couldn't find any coverage of this person or their company in reliable sources. And this is clearly promotional - the claim that they wrote a "famous poem" seems to be sourced only to a) the poem itself and b) their appearance on a podcast. The other sources have unclear authorship and clearly don't support the claim that they are a "rising hero" in Indian entrepreneurship. Clearly not notable. MCE89 (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep I have Seen all RS. these all matches with WP guidlines.and its a early stage entreprenure and i hope that will help this entreprenure to his upcoming life.i also cheack his bussiness site this is awsome its a storytelling platform for childrens or teenagers world changing concept to bulid character of upcoming generations.that man deserves it.to be on WP.some times we have to go beyond the past rules or belif to make something great change in society StoryReader1999 (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Struck vote by sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:StoryReader1999, I couldn't help but notice that your comments on this AfD were your very first edit on Wikipedia. How did you find out about this AfD? If you have a connection to the author or subject of this article you should disclose it. MCE89 (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
account is new due to some technical fault my account is vanished. so i'm not new on WP.and i dont have any connection with this article or subject.i found it here /wiki/Wikipedia:XfD_today i have contributed in verious articles StoryReader1999 (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman, 3 of the 4 previous sources on page (which I removed) were written by the subject (linking to his instagram page in footer of website). No other significant RS coverage. Spike 'em (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of procedure, I restored the sources. Generally, it's not a good idea to remove things from an article while it is at AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I've merged the refs instead as there were multiple links to the same pages. As a review of the sources:
AtoZInsta.com the footer says Copyright 2024 : By - AtoZInsta and clicking on AtoZInsta takes you to subject's Insta page
GetExtra is the "about" page of website created by subject, so cannot be used to establish notability.
fmmarathi, footer links to same insta page as above, the about us link states the Founder and CEO is the subject.
kukufm seems to be a podcast platform, so content is likely UGC.
Speedy Delete This article doesn’t have enough reliable sources to prove the person’s notability. Overall, it feels more promotional than informative. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶05:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like WP:PROMO. All the sources on the page are primary, unreliable and paid publicity. The subject has not made a significant impact and did not make any achievement worthy of notice nationally or internationally. The subject is not notable enough to warrant a full fledged article on himself. RangersRus (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As it is, films without 2 reviews don't get articles. This film only has 1 The Times of India review. The other News18 source pertains only to the release of the film's trailer. If deleted, move Hyper (2016 film) to Hyper (film).
This is the first movie in Kannada for Ganesh, who has previously worked in Tamil cinema. It is a story that tells the importance of relationships, and the songs have been shot in many places including Jammu and Kashmir and Madikeri.
reliable for reviews only — See WP:TOI. Note that WP:RSN considers Times of India to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable (2024 RfC). Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable
Removed from the film article, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources. Nonetheless, it has crucial production information such as "The shooting for this film was held in Jammu and Kashmir, Madikeri, Bengaluru and other surroundings. The talkie portion was held in hilly region of Karnataka Madikeri. This ‘Hyper’ is not just a love story but also explain father and daughter emotional relationship".
Removed from the film article. While Kannada Prabha is reliable, this is just a video source of the trailer with the text: Hyper movie trailer The trailer of Hyper movie starring Arjun Arya and Sheela has been released. The movie is directed by Ganesh Vinayak.
Keep : It is a stub article and I am working on it. Moreover he passes multiple criteria of WP:NSINGER. He has sung in over 20 feature films in various languages for the prominent music composers including A R Rahman under various major record labels and national chart topper songs. He was won major music awards including Dada Saheb Phalke Film Festival Award. He has been featured in Times of India, Indian Express, Malayala Manorama etc. passing the Criteria 1,2,5,6,8, 9 and 10 of WP:NSINGERTaurussun (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources are not SIGCOV, and the article is a promotional piece. It fails both GNG and NCORP. I found some press releases, but nothing substantial to establish notability. GrabUp - Talk02:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources I could find that talk about Inde News seem to be WP:NEWSORGINDIA press releases about their YouTube channel reaching 10 million subscribers, none of which would count towards NCORP or GNG. While I'm no expert, their 10 million subscribers also strike me as very suspicious - their videos only get about a thousand views on average, and their most viewed video only got 25,000 views, so I'm quite sceptical that they acquired those subscribers legitimately. But regardless, clearly a promotional article for a non-notable channel. MCE89 (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page fails WP:NLIST, since none of the sources (or any others reviewed in BEFORE search) discuss Indian winners and nominees at the New York Film Critics Circle as a group. First off, there appear to be only two entries on this list, and all the sources describe their individual wins, not them as a group. Contested draftification. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable awards ceremony since more than 40 years, not something random, well sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ustadeditor2011 (talk • contribs)
Comment The awards aren't in question here, but this separate article for two items picked out because of a nation of origination is not a proper reason for an article. Nate•(chatter)17:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To kind of further explain this - the main issue here isn't whether or not the awards are notable. The issue is that as a spinoff article, this needs to justify its existence. This is generally done in one of two ways:
The topic has enough coverage to justify its own article. For this, what would be needed isn't coverage of a specific person winning an award, but rather coverage that generally talks about Indians being nominated for or otherwise participating in a given awards ceremony. You can see examples of this in the Academy Awards and Golden Globe articles.
The topic is large enough to justify a spinoff article. In other words, there would need to be so many nominees that it would make sense to spin it off into its own article. The catch here is that if there are enough nominees/winners to justify this, then there would be coverage fulfilling the first situation.
Now what makes this different and a bit frustrating is that well, the NYFCC isn't nearly as high profile as the other film festivals listed on the page. It's certainly known and respected, but it tends to receive a fraction of the attention of say, the Oscars or Golden Globes. As such, outlets are less likely to write articles focusing on a specific country at the NYFCC awards. Returning to the two points I made above, the issue here is that the article contains only two entries, so it isn't a case of there being so much content that a spinoff is obvious. There also doesn't seem to be any coverage focusing on the Indian film industry in general as it applies to the NYFCC awards - and because there are only two entries, this is the criteria that would really need to be proven (unless there are others that haven't been added). If you can find coverage of this, please add it. Now, I'm not saying that this coverage doesn't exist - I haven't looked for it so I can't say that it doesn't, just that this is where people arguing for a delete are coming from with this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。)20:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Full of OR and synth mess, likely a mix of other conflicts, with hardly any mentions of such an event in the sources, couldn't establish notability in my WP:BEFORE for "Hill States–Sikh wars," which allegedly lasted over a century. GarudaTalk!11:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Premised on original research. The individual battles appear to be well established by sources but grouping them alltogether under one series of wars is not which makes it original research. XwycP3 (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to have escaped a CSD G4 on the technicality that the CSD tag was removed not by the page creator but the by editor who moved this page into mainspace. That said, it's previously been deleted under an alternate name (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamadadil Asif Malkani) and has been repeatedly deleted.
Since we are now forced into a second AfD, here's the rationale and source analysis. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Appearing on Shark Tank India does not generate notability. It is also WP:ADMASQ, with WP:PROMO language like Qadri's journey into the world of fragrances began at an early age, driven by his passion for fine aromas and an interest in traditional perfume-making techniques and As a self-made entrepreneur, his journey serves as an inspiration to aspiring business owners looking to break into niche markets. The sources do not support notability. We have:
Keep: The article on Adil Qadri should be retained as it meets the notability requirements outlined by Wikipedia. Adil Qadri has been the subject of significant coverage in independent and reliable sources, which detail his entrepreneurial achievements and his contributions to his industry.
The article provides factual and verifiable information, offering readers a comprehensive understanding of his professional background and impact. While there may be areas for improvement, such as refining the structure or adding more citations, deleting the article would overlook the documented relevance of this individual.
I strongly recommend you not use AI tools to generate responses and actually address the source analysis in the nomination. (GPTZero rates this as 100% probability of being AI-generated.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - promotional style is visible but plenty reliable sources are present and the page requires clean up more than removing. --Kej Keir (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I made extensive research to find reliable sources and added two books that provide significant coverage. These sources now clearly meet the NCORP criteria. In addition to a few weaker references, there are also some important and useful ones that fulfill CORPDEPTH requirements—particularly several local newspapers that offer much deeper, independent context. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RodrigoIPacce, could you mention the sources that you believe provide deeper and independent context for other editors to evaluate? The Business World article you added is a trivial mention and the ProjectX India edition is merely a company listing. These do not offer significant coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He is national convener, but not the leader (ping LordVoldemort728) who's the president of BD -- currently (?) Pravin Togadia[37]. Doneria appears to have no personal sigcov, and his only appearance elsewhere currently is at the BD article in its infobox as the organisation's head, which should be corrected. It may even be that not every past president of BD meets notabity requirements (ref WP:NOTINHERITED and the table at the article), though clearly many do. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~03:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Furthermore in popular usage "Desi word" means totally different than what it's written in the article.CharlesWain (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (really more a "Don't Delete"): Given the duplication between tadbhava and tatsama, I suspect that a merged etymological classes in Middle Indo-Aryan languages or similar article would be better (though that needs expertise - "Gramya"/"Desya" distinction? Continued use of classes for later Indo-Aryan languages?). In the absence of such an article, there's not a good redirect that I can see. A rename to "Desya words" might be ok. There's more than just dictdef-level coverage on GScholar / GBooks[38][39]~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~03:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ALS, no evidence of notability. The beauty pageant organization existed from 1968 to 1975 (lacks factual evidence), with 5 representatives sent to Miss World, two of whom were semi-finalists and one placed as 4th runner-up. While this might be covered in offline sources, given India's success in Miss World, the coverage to support the organization's credibility for Wikipedia is questionable. I reviewed few sources, but they are all unreliable and lacks SigCov. Fails WP:GNG. — MimsMENTORtalk15:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films and stage performances, Passes WP:NACTOR. Also The subject has made unique contributions to a field of entertainment. Sources are Secondary which provide the most objective evidence of notability. Meets WP:SIGCOV. Tiger-in-Action (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the article has a lot of mentions because it was raided by the government...along with a bunch of other similar services. While the subject is mentioned in the articles, they do not actually discuss Cashfree, just the raids. I don't see any coverage specifically of "Cashfree." Angryapathy (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company clearly meets the WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. I understand that there are concerns raised regarding WP:NEWSORGINDIA, which is why I have provided a detailed source assess table below, including proper justification for each source. In this table, I have chosen The Hindu as a primary reliable source because it has covered the company through general news, including substantial negative coverage. If the article has any promotional tone, it can be addressed and rectified accordingly. Regarding the WP:SPA accusation, I kindly request that we focus on discussing this deletion nomination based on its merits rather than making unwarranted assumptions. Such accusations demoralises.
This is not trivial coverage, as the reporters emphasized its significance by contacting the company, though the company did not reply to their request for comment.
Potentially independent because its a policy paper jointly published by researchers who are, in turn, funded by two government-funded agencies, as mentioned in a reliable column.
WP:SIGCOV; Coverage found at the following page number 108; addresses the topic. However, please note that significant coverage is more than a trivial mention; it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, as seen in this case. Hence, it is added to Further reading MOS:FURTHER
✔Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
It is not an accusation or assumption. You have made very few significant edits outside this topic, which effectively makes you a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (SPA). I encourage you to contribute to other pages as well to avoid appearing as an SPA. More importantly, your source analysis is incorrect. Check my assessment of these sources below. Yuvaank (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When someone begins editing Wikipedia, they usually work on just one page. Instead of doubting them ASPERSION, it’s better to be more understanding. That said, I have reviewed your source assessment and, to some extent, I agree with you. To overcome it, I have added an another source analysis table. Silkroadster (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE announcement of regulatory action that does not establish the company's notability. Besides, the company is only barely mentioned in this article.
WP:ROUTINE announcement of regulatory action that does not establish the company's notability. Besides, the company is only barely mentioned in this article.
Written by two seemingly reliable authors and published by Springer Nature
Fails WP:SIGCOV, Page 108 includes two sentences about regulatory action involving this and another company. No in-depth coverage on this company itself.
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Keep: Although... I am a deletionist, I support keeping this page because the source analysis table meets the SIRS criteria. But, if the page-creating editor is found to be evading a block or anything like that, it could be easily nominated for deletion under G5. I assume this because the page has an alternate history. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has accused the page creator of being a block evader. My nomination is based solely on the quality of the sources used, and I have provided a detailed rebuttal of the source analysis table above. I was also unaware of the previously unsuccessful attempts to create a page for this company at Cashfree Payments, Cashfree, Draft:Cashfree and Draft:Cashfree Payments. Thanks for pointing this out. Yuvaank (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why HINDU says its' opinion pieces should be handled according to the appropriate guidelines. I have used clear news reports, following the RSP qualification criteria for The Hindu. No source is perfect; their coverage often has some bias. Sometimes they even apologise and retract. For example, check out the List of The New York Times controversies. Despite these controversies, have we ever banned the NYT from being considered a reliable source? You have a strong editing history, and I was hoping for better arguments from you so I can learn as a new editor. Silkroadster (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The links I cited all referred to news articles not opinion pieces so first part of your comment is a strawman, secondly a source that has a history of no fact checking and ripping off random unverified facts from Wikipedia prior to publishing news can not be trusted, especially when the sources you cited were only reiterating the unverified statements made by the company itself. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns about fact-checking and reliability. I have once again reviewed all the Hindu sources mentioned in my analysis. Apart from the company CEO's quotes, there is significant editorial input from the journalists, which should not be overlooked. My reservation is about dismissing an RSP source entirely due to past issues. To support my perspective, I have already provided the example of The New York Times. Okay, let's agree on this... The Hindu is on the RSP list based on a general consensus. If you have concerns about this source, you can raise them at RSN. My humble request is this... please try not to impose your personal judgment here solely based on your feelings. I can sense that you may be upset, so I kindly ask you to take a moment to calm down. I want to assure you that no disrespect is intended toward you. Silkroadster (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RSP entry is not the final say on the reliability of indian sources, as WP:NEWSORGINDIA tells us to exercise caution when using them. Indian sources should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Also, you should stop referring to the RSP entry, as it does not even discuss their business newspaper, which you have cited. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the first point, I agree with the view on NEWSORGINDIA.
Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients.
WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies featured in the report, with additional details provided in the introductory brief.
It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report.
Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients.
It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report.
Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients.
WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies featured in the report, with additional details provided in the introductory brief.
It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report.
Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients.
WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies featured in the report, with additional details provided in the introductory brief.
✔Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Why don't you quote the last two sources or provide their relevant scanned pages? These reports cost thousands of dollars and are inaccessible, we can't take your word for it given that you have tried to misrepresent sources before too. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I could access it, I certainly would have. Since they are mentioned in the context index and some in the introduction brief, I am accepting them. Regarding the cost of the reports, please refer to the PAYWALL guideline, which clearly states: 'Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries.' Regardless, I apologise if we haven’t been able to see eye to eye on this. Secondly, I want to clarify that I haven’t misrepresented any source—it seems you are strongly asserting that a valid RSP source is invalid based solely on your personal opinion. Let’s call it a day. Silkroadster (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should avoid waving these guidelines at experienced users, we are all aware of them. If you do not have access to sources you should not include them in your source assessment. You did misrepresent the source analysis earlier as Yuvaank's counter analysis showed. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I value constructive and guidelines-based discussions and respect everyone’s experience here. But, I think it’s best for me and for this AFD... if I step back from having any conversation with you. I want to re-assure you that no disrespect is intended toward you. Silkroadster (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: The Mint source is fine, CEO talks about the company and profits. Many items on the raid... Not the best sourcing, but more than what we normally see form Indian sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that multiple independent research firms have produced in-depth reports and analysis on the company (structure, product, market positioning, comparison with other companies, etc) is enough to demonstrate notability as per GNG/WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 16:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I read the "TOOSOON" arguments as "this subject will likely be notable but has no coverage at present", per Joseph2302, and that argument clearly has consensus. Nobody has shown that the subject meets GNG, or even that there is sufficient material for a standalone article. This AfD is no bar to recreation when more material is available, but is consensus against recreation without substantive material. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather supposed to be a redirect but checking the history will tell you that there are editors who keeps reverting the restoration of the redirect, the very last restoration of redirect was done by me and mine was just reverted by the same user. This is way WP:TOOSOON to qualify for a standalone page right now. Fails WP:GNG, etc. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I don’t see WP:TOOSOON is a valid reason for deletion in this instance. According to WP:FUTURE, notable and highly likely future events should be included (such as 2032 Summer Olympics). Given that the venue has already been confirmed, the article could simply be updated or moved after the 2025 edition concludes or closer to that time and so I strongly oppose deletion.--— MimsMENTORtalk09:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma: because, it's only the year and hosts that have been confirmed. Qualification and Format haven't been announced yet and could change, thus they are just speculations so, WP:CRYSTAL. Unlike, 2034 FIFA World Cup which at least has more confirmed stuffs rather than speculations. Vestrian24Bio (TALK)13:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A wrong understanding of WP:CRYSTAL it seems. There is no requirement that the qualification process or format for future events must be announced in advance for the article to be standalone. Speculation is unfounded, as these competitions are based on clear qualification rounds and verifiable outcomes. — MimsMENTORtalk09:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of those sources listed above are passing mentions of the 2029 tournament existence in articles mostly dedicated to the 2025 tournament or wider issues like Pakistan/India match hosting. None of them are [[WP:SIGCOV]. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please note that WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here, as the event has been announced by reliable, verifiable sources; no speculation involved. And while WP:TOOSOON is a useful essay, it does not overrule WP:GNG and other guidelines when it comes to deletion criteria. Please focus on the notability of the event based on sources, rather than your preference as to when it should be added here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎19:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to clarify my point in the way that the relister wants: it is way too soon for there to be significant coverage of this event, as the only known information is the host country (the announcement of which is WP:ROUTINE coverage). Therefore, it does not pass WP:GNG and is unlikely to do so for a few years, and thus should be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!09:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!09:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Maybe Weak Keep, if others have strong reasons to not-keep) - Although the wiki page is not quite developed, seems notable and secondary sources are using information produced by them. e.g. see this and others at google search. Asteramellus (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an initiative by NASSCOM and endorsed by the Indian government, DSCI plays a significant role in data privacy and cybersecurity in India. While the article would benefit from better structure and citations, these are editing issues, not valid grounds for deletion. The article should be retained and improved, not deleted.
Comment: Here are some of the best sources I could find. Some coverage is from the time when the company was called "Lafarge India". I'm wary of paid news but the Indian sources don't seem to me to be paid or PR. [43][44][45][46]Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Nirma: I don't think the sources I listed above provide enough significant coverage for a standalone article. Only the article about its acquisition of Emami Cement plausibly constitutes sigcov. Note that the company was renamed from Lafarge India despite what the article Nirma currently says. (see [47]) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia page for IIMUN (India's International Movement to Unite Nations) does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria as outlined in the General Notability Guidelines (GNG). While the organization claims widespread activity and recognition, the sources cited are primarily self-published or lack significant, reliable secondary coverage in independent publications. The majority of the references either originate from IIMUN itself, social media posts, or promotional material, which are insufficient to establish notability. Furthermore, the achievements mentioned, such as organizing large-scale conferences and initiatives like "Find a Bed," fail to receive substantial and consistent coverage from reputable third-party sources over a significant period. Without verifiable, independent, and non-trivial coverage, the subject cannot be deemed notable under Wikipedia's policies. Therefore, the article does not merit inclusion and should be considered for deletion. Likehumansdo (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nom should have done the review just like their username Likehumansdo. This is a clear keep, it easily passes GNG, and I can't find any reason for deletion. It seems like the rationale was pulled out of thin air, almost like asking, "Generate a reason to delete this article?".--— MimsMENTORtalk15:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The I.I.M.U.N. page passes GNG, the sources are credible. Find a Bed is covered by Forbes, moreover your whole comment is 100% AI generated without actually going through the sources. Can you point out any specific source which is not credible? IIMUN upon a single Google Search comes up in reputable non-promotional news, articles and mention in various books. Your comment falls short of appreciation, moreover when independent users like us have to keep Wikipedia alive and running. Ihsaan45 (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think the nomination looks AI-generated. The page looks somewhat fluffy. I took you up on your challenge and sampled one source I looked at, "Billabong School: Bringing Change with Students' Holistic Development". September 2018. Retrieved 2020-02-29., and it looks completely useless. The source is not very reliable and is not relevant for what it is supposed to back up in the article. Geschichte (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned already, the sources seem to be in line with the content written. Hence my take is to keep the page as it only mentions the credibility of the organization while also following the GNG. Ihsaan45 (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned above: The I.I.M.U.N. page passes GNG, the sources are credible. Find a Bed is covered by Forbes. IIMUN upon a single Google Search comes up in reputable non-promotional news, articles and mention in various books. Your comment falls short of appreciation, moreover, when independent users like us have to keep Wikipedia alive and running. As mentioned already, the sources seem to be in line with the content written. Hence, my take is to keep the page as it only mentions the credibility of the organization while also following the GNG. Ihsaan45 (talk)
*Keep: As mentioned above: The I.I.M.U.N. page passes GNG, the sources are credible. Find a Bed is covered by Forbes. IIMUN upon a single Google Search comes up in reputable non-promotional news, articles and mention in various books. Your comment falls short of appreciation, moreover, when independent users like us have to keep Wikipedia alive and running. As mentioned already, the sources seem to be in line with the content written. Hence, my take is to keep the page as it only mentions the credibility of the organization while also following the GNG.Ihsaan45 (talk)
We have run a thorough check of the resources listed, and have found that two sources lead to dead links, owing to the dated nature of the original webpages/websites. While I am in the processing of editing it, I would like to point out that multiple sources have been provided to justify the sentences stated, and most of them are from extremely credible news channels/publication houses in India, including 'Times of India', 'DNA', 'Free Press Journal', 'India Today', 'Forbes India' and more. Request you to take their authenticity into consideration. Rjain1998 (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep. As a former director of IIIM he does not automatically qualify. The staff is about 68 PhD/Dr, with a modest budget of about $0.5M (it goes further in India). Just as a Dean at a university is not automatic, he is not -- but it is a partial notability. In terms of publications his h-factor of 62 is strong, but it is a high citation field. (The 20th person in drug discovery has an h-factor of 118, and it is more an exponential than linear relationship.) The two together just about persuade me that he passes WP:NPROF, the criteria the nom used are not really appropriate. For certain the page needs work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.