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:
This individual lacks notability on his own. His entire article centers around his associations with Tony Kakkar and Neha Kakkar, rather than highlighting any significant achievements or contributions he has made independently. Also, the references are about Tony Kakkar and Neha Kakkar. Fails WP:ARTIST. Charlie (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence of notability. The previous AfD was closed as a soft delete. I searched for reliable, independent sources with significant information but found nothing to establish the subject as notable. GrabUp - Talk07:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree: no evidence of notability. Despite that, I have made a couple of corrections to overcome the absurdies about his age. Athel cb (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was deleted literally last month. Still doesn't show any notability for inclusion. Would be better suited for a Wiktionary entry. Procyon117 (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, G11, G5, take your pick. It's spam for an unremarkable company, by this week's sockpuppet of Btw Santhosh, and mainly sourced as usual with Santhosh's dire news-skinned blogs. Wikishovel (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. In fact there not even enough sourcing ( or content) to figure out what this is about. Appears to be a mashup of two different films with similar names. Aangan Ke Laxmi and Aangan Ki Laxmi Info box says 1986 film but the only two sources that actually discuss it are short "future film" type pieces from a couple years ago. Found nothing in a search for Aangan Ke Laxmi North8000 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears there have been a few mixups here. It looks like Aangan Ke Laxmi (the article title) is a 1986 film (entirely non-notable); see this mention in a book bibliography. Sources 3 and 4 in the article are referring to a film called Aangan Ki Laxmi (sometimes Aangan Ki Lakshimi), which has more coverage and was released last year. Aangan Ki Laxmi probably meets NFILM/GNG (see [2][3][4]and on Google). It would be helpful here if the creator (NIA3000) clarifies what exactly this article is about or if the two films are related. If it is about the 1986 film, then I vote delete. Otherwise, I am not familiar enough with the topic to decide what to do here. CFA💬19:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the second film is notable, would Draftifying this help? Get it sorted out and publish back in mainspace with proper sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine with me. But there's a lot to sort out, starting with the title. And there's not much to save. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This stub about an Internet personality whose channel is education based was recently accepted at AFC. I believe it to be a borderline acceptance, which is fine of itself. AFC reviewers role is to accept drafts which they believe have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. As a fellow AFC reviewer I believe that the subject is not verified to pass WP:BIO, and that the draft was below the acceptance threshold. On that basis I would not have accepted it. The referencing is independent, yes, but the content of the references is gossip column-like trivia, which simulates significant coverage, but which is not. I see the only way of resolving this is for the community to discuss it, hence AfD 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not going to vote here since my stance is clear, as I accepted the draft. At the time I saw the draft, it was not passing GNG, but I know the personality well and thought he might already have a Wikipedia article. When I found out he did not, I started to find significant coverages and added many that are currently cited. I respect Timtrent’s judgment, and we already discussed it on my talk page. We would like to get the community's views on the article. Lastly, I want to add that if the article can’t be kept, we can draftify it, as it has good sourcing, and the subject may gain more coverage to establish notability in the future. Happy editing. GrabUp - Talk13:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: It's clearly too early. This could have been speedy deleted as a recreation of content that was opposed by a majority in the last AFD.--Gan Favourite (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that the subject has received virtually no coverage in reliable sources. Based on the contents of the article, such as using the subject's personal website as a source numerous times and directing the reader to articles archived on the subject's personal website, it was possibly created as a result of self-promotion. Floralbergamot (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not quite notable activist, coverage is mostly in articles she's written, or stuff about spats she's having with one person or another...[5]. I don't see notability with a lack of sourcing as well. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, G11, G5, take your pick. It's spam for an unremarkable physician, by this week's sockpuppet of Btw Santhosh, and larded as usual with Santhosh's dire news-skinned blogs. Wikishovel (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikishovel , please kindly check newly added References !! and please close Articles for deletion/Ankit Kayal if its meeting wiki guidelines द्वारा (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find a few sites describing why the last car in Indian trains has an X symbol: [6], [7], [8], but that doesn't make it a notable concept, since these are just quirky did-you-know sort of items. Analogy: I can find articles explaining why pencils are often painted yellow: [9], but that doesn't make Color of pencils a notable concept. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with End-of-train device (as I suggested when deprodding), which is another technology with the same purpose (and likely there are others from different railways around the world). This isn't notable on it's own, but the broader concept is and the target article itself is possibly too narrow on it's own. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had double thoughts before finally agreeing that the notability of this article is very questionable. Firstly having many subscribers or views on YouTube doesnt credibly means the article is notable. There is nothing whatsoever credible about this article. There are some promotional contents in the article. For me, it doesnt meet WP:GNG, and such, I may decline in an AFC review. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!15:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It looks like there are some decent references and he has over 2 million subscribers, but I think cleanup is needed to solidify notability here. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject lacks sufficient notability and detailed coverage in reliable sources outside of local military records and local commemorations.NxcryptoMessage09:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG, 2 of the 3 sources are dead. The estimated population is very small at around 1000, and no significant coverage of their contribution to Luxembourg society. LibStar (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
K added a few sources, but still not convinced its quite notable. This article still has massive amounts of texts that are unsourced. As far as I can tell, its mostly been anon IPs adding random bits of info. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable award show sourced mainly to the parent company Bollywood Hungama. Sources I find are all unreliable or just verification of winners. Would redirect but we know how that goes so suggesting a redirect as an WP:ATD here in case full deletion is not in order. CNMall41 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bollywood Hungama. A WP:BEFORE search turned up no independent and reliable sources for the event itself on the web, Google News, Google Books, Yandex etc. Since there is a lack of independent, reliable sources with SIGCOV, the article fails WP:GNG and the supplementary essay WP:NAWARDS. However, a redirect could be made to Bollywood Hungama and a brief mention could be added there for the award. The Night Watch(talk)15:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promotionally toned article on a non-notable mother-of-pearl artist. It seems to be part of a possible walled garden on various family members of the Mushi/Munsi family. No indication from the current sourcing nor in a BEFORE search that this artist passes GNG nor meets the criteria for NARTIST. All I found online were WP mirrors. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promotionally-toned article on a non-notable artist. Possibly COI or UPE as part of a series of promotional articles on the Munsi/Munshi family. A BEFORE did not find independent SIGCOV in reliable sources. Possibly a family history or memorial project? Sourcing does not meet GNG nor NARTIST criteria. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Borderline G11, would not object to draftification for an unconnected editor to attempt an article about Munsi's contributions to the Academy, but that alone isn't grounds for notability and I do not see sourcing to pass N:ARTIST although I acknowledge age of his life is in issue there. StarMississippi15:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also in 1965, another document covers the news of exhibition by Munsi along with other painters. Although these links are available online, there were two books published offline in which Munsi was commemorated which also supports the notability of the subject. Also, in those books it was mentioned that after Munsi's death the Tata Group commemorated Munsi with all his paintings published in their calender.For an artist, is it not a notability when he gets remembered by internationally renowned conglomerate like Tata Group?Finesilpo (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Name mentions or acknowledgements or image/photo credits are not significant coverage which is what is needed for GNG. Furthermore, the majority of these links are unverifiable. A corporation like Tata Group using his images in a calendar is also not significant coverage nor does it contribute to notability. Sorry to disappoint, but he fails NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited–being a member of a notable family is not an exception, infact, it is the true definition. Having asserted above, the article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR because he only started in one or two films, and not multiple. Infact, most of the sources were about the family, and not this young actor. In regards to that, there is more to draftifying and marking as promised because this is a clear issue of WP:TOOSOON. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!06:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While doing BEFORE, I found only promotional or sponsored articles WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Most of these articles repeated the same paragraph: “She thinks that quantity is not as important as the quality you deliver, and as an influencer, they do have to maintain high quality.” After seeing this article which clearly mentions “Brand Media.”, I somewhat confirmed that these promotional tone articles are sponsored. These promotional sponsored articles cannot establish notability and meet WP:GNG or any other criteria. GrabUp - Talk02:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. This article fails WP:GNG with mostly unreliable sources and the ones that we could consider somewhat reliable does not show any significant coverage and achievements to satisfy notability about the subject and just has entries. Page also reads as WP:PROMO. RangersRus (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article seems like an advertisement, not a real encyclopedia entry. The sources all seem to be promotional pieces, and there are better places for this kind of content. Waqar💬17:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lead is not what the title of the page is about and the list of institutions in that district fails encyclopedic merit without contextual information. Wikipedia is not a directory. RangersRus (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You pointed out one extensive biography but the rest are as you say ("indicate"). We need in-depth coverage and not just mentions. Is there something other than the first reference that is in-depth?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You appear unwilling to examine sources yourself, however, the onus is on you to demonstrate why the sources I've mentioned do not satisfy the GNG/BIO. Please note WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Moreover, he can be accorded presumed notability due to NPOL. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why the pointed comments. It is as if I just came along and randomly recommended a page for deletion. I did a BEFORE and read through your links above. Mentions do not add up to notability. If you are unwilling to point out in-depth coverage, there is nothing else I can review. As far as conduct, keep in mind this is a discussion, not an argument. Please keep it corrigible. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you find this pointed, I apologise, but you have not addressed the responses to the nomination. Please address the P&G issues raised (BASIC, NEXIST, NPOL) and note the Indian Express archive where there is extensive SIGCOV reporting of Chockalingam. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did address those, just obviously not to your satisfaction. And at this point, your aggressiveness is not something I am about to entertain further. I will let the AfD play out as it will.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per points raised by Goldsztajn, which shows the subject meets notability guidelines. And as a general comment, I'm not sure why this AfD was started only three hours after the article was created. Would have been nice to first ask the editor who created the article to address any concerns before going straight to AfD. --SouthernNights (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I was opting for Delete as the page has poor to unreliable to unverifiable sources on the page but in light of sources on the subject's achievement by Goldsztajn, that still shows trivial coverage on the subject, I think Draftify is needed to improve the page with significant indepth coverage on the subject instead of trivial, passing coverage and entries in the sources. As of now, page fails WP:GNG and needs improvement with WP:SIGCOV in reliable and verifiable sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be specific; which sources are "poor", "unreliable" and "unverifiable"? The three sources I analysed present in the article fit none of those descriptions. NB: WP:NEXIST. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The three sources mentioned in my keep !vote above....and, FWIW, you've asked me a question, without replying to mine. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those three sources are on the page and neither one has indepth coverage on the subject. What three you analyzed on the page? Now because you said you analysed three sources on the page, you shortlisted the reliability yourself so I thought it is helpful for me to go over those specfic three if you would have mentioned. RangersRus (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dinamani is not a secondary independent source (subject was editor here). Sahapedia is a non-profit organization source with passing comments. Madras musings is poor with passing comments on the subject. Google book short stories (fiction) is unreliable and fails verification. Google book "in those days there was no coffee" fails verification. Pdf file by Srinivas is poor with only a passing comment (the comment also begins with "it is said that....) and the page directly copied the line from the pdf file. The last google source Tamil prose after Bharathi has no significant coverage either and all it says "Chockalingam published his magazine, Gandhi, again at a very cheap price (quarter ana). Later, he became the editor of the Dinamani. He had the skill to express ideas emotionally and with youthful verve in lively Tamil." Its same repeated on all other sources that he became editor of the Dhimani. No significant and indepth coverage on his biography, work as journalist and to be even notable as freedom fighter. RangersRus (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He died more than 50 years ago; it's not as if he exercises any control over Dinamani. Being a non-profit has no bearing on reliability. BIO, NEXIST, NPOL all indicate the thresholds for notability which are firmly established here. Best to let others express their views. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have access to Google Books? On page 144, it talks about his taking over the editorship of Dhinamani and how he increased readership. Pages 146 and 148 are not visible to me, page 157 contains a footnote discussing him starting Vandemataram in 1931, his arrest for civil disobedience, the effect on the newspaper and him starting as editor at Dhinamani in 1935. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for indepth coverage on the subject as journalist, writer and freedom fighter like the lead says but I am just finding passing comments. You said "Chockalingam is discussed in four pages (144, 146, 148, 157)" but you are not able to verify page 146 and 148. I was able to check 144 and 157 and there is no discussion of indepth coverage here but passing comments. Page 144 says "Chockalingam Pillai became the editor of the Dinamani in 1935. Under his editorship the paper's circulation increased to 11,000 in 1936." Page 157 says "Chockalingam Pillai started the Vandemataram in 21 September, 1931. He was arrested for his active part in civil disobedience. Due to his inability to pay security the paper ceased publication security." These do not help with the coverage needed on a journalist, writer and freedom fighter. Is there any indepth coverage on him as freedom fighter? RangersRus (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does there need to be indepth coverage of him as a freedom fighter? He already clearly satisfies NPOL and BIO. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any significant indepth coverage on his biography in the sources and now you mentioned politician that is no where referred on the page with no sources either. RangersRus (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was evaluating what was on the page. Source about on page 46 has an entry only and no WP:SIGCOV as politician. I will have others say on all this discussion. RangersRus (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In regards to the discussion above, per the notability guidelines for people "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." It appears there is in-depth coverage of Chockalingam but most of that isn't in English (here's an example of such a book). However, there is still plenty of coverage in English to prove notability, especially by combining reliable sources per the above guideline. For example, I just added a citation to the article from The Guardian which said Chockalingam was a "pioneering Tamil journalist," while the Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature described him as one of the most important nationalist journalists in Tamil. --SouthernNights (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all pages from 1930s but do not see "extensive coverage of Chockalingam's role in journalism, Tamil language promotion, politics and the Freedom Movement." RangersRus (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Blaze News meets the notability criteria under WP:ORG and WP:N. It has significant coverage in reliable sources and plays an important role in providing news in its region. Removing this article would diminish the breadth of knowledge on regional news organizations, particularly those significant in Kerala and India. Jigar1984 (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. None of the sources are about him. Sources (and much of the content) are about taitrs. Material on him is just resume type material. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to answer with respect to what you are seeing because there have been 104 edits to the article since I nominated this. But I did evaluate them at the time. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a lot was added after you nominated this, including several refs, but much of it was WP:PROMO, fluff, repetition, and stuff about the genre of theatre that, I think, has no direct relevance to D'Lima's career. I tried to reduce the promo, cruft, repetition and tangential stuff, but someone else should review the refs to see if they actually discuss Liima's life or career at all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new additions to the article since it's nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:29, 10 July 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!23:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Subject did receive an award Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism. Source 1 is a book review, source 2 is a blog, source 3 has a passing comment made by the subject himself, source 4 is a review by subject himself, source 5 is a bio written by subject himself, source 6 is more on bio written by subject himself, source 7 is a link to Ramnath Goenka Award and source 8 is a book written by subject himself. Many unreliable and primary sources here. Draftify would be an option to improve the page with secondary independent sources and remove primary sources like the reviews by the subject himself and the interview with the subject.RangersRus (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOI makes it under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I still do not find his books a significant monument or been a substantial part of a significant exhibition or won wide significant critical attention by well known peers and critics in secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOI falling under NEWSORGINDIA is an interpretation that I respect but with which I disagree in this case (not great journalism but not simply unreliable). The fact that the author of the book is one of the film critics of the Hindustan Times also indicates the article in the TOI should be rather independent.-- -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank: The article from TOI doesn't look like a review at all; it seems more like a promotional piece or an announcement. Additionally, the article was published by PTI. I don't think he meets WP:AUTHOR. GrabUp - Talk16:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note about the Times of India: The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I should have mentioned that I hapeen to have been the creator of this page many years back. I actually didn't even remember I was the one who created it, as I've created numerous pages for notable Indian film critics. As someone who has worked on Indian cinema-related articles, I can attest to the relevance of his reviews on dozens of film articles, including several FAs. Him being an author as well as the winner of a notable award only consolidates my position. Shahid • Talk2me18:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are considered primary non-independent source. Independent sources helps to fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. If you use interviews as source for any statement made by the subject then the subject's statements needs to be cited with secondary independent source as well. Wikipedia:Independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not convinced that he meets any notability criteria. He fails WP:ANYBIO, as the award is not exclusive, with more than 20 people receiving it. Receiving the award first or last does not make it exceptional or add to notability. Regarding WP:AUTHOR, The Times of India is not a review, merely a short promotional or announcement piece with no author, published by the Press Trust of India (PTI), therefore, it does not meet WP:AUTHOR criteria. The person does not meet the General Notability Guideline, which is already known. Also, I don't understand how interviews with celebrities establish notability. GrabUp - Talk09:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer. Keep votes are more focused on the subject's notability because of an award (not national award) but there is no argument on the unreliability of the sources on the page that are blogs, interviews with no secondary sources as attribution and self written reviews by the subject himself and part of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Two keep votes consider him notable but have no argument as to why and the two other keep vote (including the creator of the page) do not have opinion on the argument about the page and the unreliable sources that fails WP:GNG. I think the page is at best Delete but Draftify is also an option if there is any scope of improvement with secondary independent reliable sources. If this page stays a keep, then likely it opens a Pandora box to use unreliable sources like blogs and interviews and self published reviews on other pages or newly generated pages. RangersRus (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don’t understand why they are not providing good arguments for their Keep votes. It looks like @Atlantic306 is just here to go along with the majority. The question raises because how can he call it a ‘national award’? Additionally, they are posting low effort delete votes and not giving any counterarguments, which raises some questions in my mind. GrabUp - Talk02:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK and US a national award means it relates to the scope of a whole country not that it is given by the government. For example the Oscars and Grammy Awards are national awards that are given by private organisations, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The award is not exclusive enough to establish notability. Every year, more than 20 people receive the award. Are they also notable for this award? I don’t think so. GrabUp - Talk16:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated by IP 117.230.88.202 as follows: Not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", hence fails WP:GNG. It violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as listing all gazetted designations are NOT within the scope of an encyclopedic article as it is not a directory or manual. The article predominantly consists original research, with references that barely support it. Legodesk.com fails WP:RS. (end quote) - UtherSRG(talk)16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Legodesk is not the only citation of this article. There are several references/citations which are indefinitely reliable like : The Hindu, "Indian Laws" Several Official Government of India website(s), Website of Directorate of Printing, Gov of India, Other prominent news/media like Amar Ujala, The Indian Express, etc. Deleting this article would be a big loss to the encyclopedia because Gazetted officers are the officers due to whom the whole country INDIA, works in a systematic manner.
Delete appears to be a regulatory requirement for promotion, likely too limited in scope for coverage here. I don't see the need for this article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply having a biography isn't enough for inclusion. If reliable sources can be found to establish notability, the article could be rewritten and resubmitted for review. Waqar💬16:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @RangersRus:, @Iwaqarhashmi:, I found [14], [15], [16], [[17], [18], [19], [20], among many more English and Hindu sources (not to mention other Indian languages. Cleary was sigifnicant ifgure in Indian lower league football and was even called up to the senior India national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Das osmnezz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Most of these sources are interviews and paid promotions and do not help pass WP:NFOOTY. The player has not garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements because he has not played at an international level and he has not played for an entirely professional league to satisfy WP:GNG. He is an upcoming player but it is too early to warrant a page on this subject because of insufficient significant achievements.
ALl of the sources have tons of secondary coverage that I will gladly cite if asked and there is no indication that any of them are paid promotions... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I wanted to vote the opposite way, because this article is absolutely atrocious in its current state, but there is clearly enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To the closer, all delete votes are by users who seldom vote on football deletion debates who still think that players have to both meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Cleary was significant figure in Indian lower league football and was even called up to the senior India national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"called up to the senior India national team" is not notability. If he played for national team, that would be something to consider. If he was just called up then it is also case of WP:TOOSOON. RangersRus (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats one of my more minor points, my point is that he was considered such a good player and significant figure in Indian lower leagues that he was called up to senior nationl team. This proves my point that all delete votes are by users who seldom vote on football deletion debates who still think that players have to both meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Either way, he has many secondary sources about him. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said has to meet both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I am saying he passes neither. Doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL because he hasn't played professional football and the sources that exist don't justify WP:GNGCoderzombie (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me how this article doesnt meet WP:GNG. Im listening... just because he played in thje lower leagues doesnt meen he was a clear topic of interest in Indian football who is probably only lower league Indian palyer to be called up to senior national team.. Article needs improvement, not deletuon. THanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For policy based input please Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi20:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arjun Tudu's page should be deleted because he doesn't have enough coverage in reliable sources to meet the notability standards.Yakov-kobi (talk) 14:00, 05 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to the closer, nobody has explained how he doesnt pass WP:GNG which he clarly does... just because he played in thje lower leagues doesnt meen he was a clear topic of interest in Indian football who is probably only lower league Indian palyer to be called up to senior national team. Article needs improvement, not deletuon. THanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are excellent references. The article is crap, but the subject clearly meets GNG. The previous deletion discussion years ago is irrelevant, given the amount of media coverage is major national papers since then. The GNG policy clearly supports keeping. I don't see what policy supports deletion. Nfitz (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Repurpose Dratify EDIT: vote changed since one source shows potential, see below;/ @Flyingphoenixchips, moving the discussion here in the appropriate discussion channel. The movement for an independent Assam might pass WP:GNG and be worth an article. However, it should be an article about the movement, not a proposed state- and it needs to be supported by sources that talk about "Swadhin Axom" as an idea specifically rather than as an alternative name for Assam used by those who want independence. If you believe there are many sources in Google, then WP:DOIT and fix this article. We don't do original research on wikipedia. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In no way was the article I have written am original research. Additionally many such articles on proposed states exist, and a separate category in wikipedia exists as well. Will those pages be deleted or just this, since its against a particular POV Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swadhin Axom was never used as an alternate name for assam. Swadhin means Independent and the proposed independent state is just refered to as Assam or Axom- both are the same literals. Swadhin axom is used by academics to describe this proposed state. Ref: Prafulla Mohonto, Proposal for Independence. Would suggest you to read it Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To maintain neutrality, would suggest editing existing articles based on your arguments, using credible sources, instead of plain WP:I just don't like it. Wikipedia should never become a battleground of political ideologues. If you read the article its neutral, you can add additional pointers in the article, if you have sources for the same. Thanks Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't accuse me baselessly of just not liking it.
You mentioned a google search, another wikipedia article and its sources on the Talk page- that's not enough when the question is whether "Swadhin Axom" as a concept should be a WP:CONTENTFORK from Assam. Wikipedia's neutrality policy is not about giving equal weight to every political opinion. It also doesn't say that we should have a different article for every political way of looking at something.
Sources and GNG
Now let's look at the actual sources in this article:
Source 1 - Ivy Dhar has extensive discussion of the idea of Swadhin Axom, specifically in relation to the ULFA and nationalism
Source 2 - Nipon Haloi only mentions it once
Source 3 - Dutta & Laisram only mention it once
Source 4 - Udayon Misra only mentions it once
Source 5 - Not only does Santana Khanikar only mention it once (outside of the glossary), she proceeds to call the proto-state as simply the ULFA instead of Swadhin Axom.
Source 6 - Swadhin Axom is only mentioned as part of the title of a speech
Source 7 - Does not mention it
Source 8, 9 and 10 - Does not mention it- all about the 1970s Assam Movement
Source 11 - Does not mention it
Source 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 - Does not mention it, not even in the entire book of Source 17. These are all about the 1970s Assam Movement
Source 18 - cannot access myself but also looks like a book entirely about the Assam Movement
Source 19, 20, 21, 22 - Does not mention it
etc. etc.
Now, I couldn't keep going through the remaining 40+ sources but this is only to highlight one issue: the article doesn't really meet WP:GNG standards. Not every sources need to meet WP:GNG, but there should be at least one to establish that the article is notable. Source 1 is a good source for this article, and there may be more in the 40+ citations I couldn't get to.
However, I would still delete this article and draftify it (I changed my vote) because:
WP:V - Verifiability
Just from the first 20, I suspect a lot of these sources were thrown on there because they came up in the Google Scholar search for "Swadhin Axom". Wikipedia requires that the content be verified based on the content of the sources. We don't do original research by giving our own analysis of the source.
For specific example, let's take the sentence "Figures like Bishnu Prasad Rabha, a multifaceted artist and social reformer, Tarun Ram Phukan, a prominent political leader, and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, a key figure in the Assam Movement and a former Chief Minister of Assam, have played crucial roles in advancing the cause of Swadhin Axom" It's supported by Sources 14-18. If you will recall from my list above, these are all about the 1970s Assam Movement that don't mention the idea of Swadhin Axom. If Swadhin Axom is really not just a local name for the English phrase 'independent Assam', then you would need a source to connect Swadhin Axom and the Assam Movement, instead of providing the original analysis that the Assam Movement was an important part of the Swadhin Axom proposed state.
I will reiterate that I think that the article Assamese nationalism would make more sense for the sources you are using. If the article is just about providing more WP:NPOV perspectives about Assam- those should go in the Assam article. If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state. From what I see, it might be better focused on the ULFA explicitly, their governing structures etc. In its current state, this article is not fit for mainspace. And it's not because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your careful work in checking all the sources. But I am not convinced that the single source (Ivy Dhar) that you mention can save the article. First of all, the source is a Master's thesis, which is normally not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Secondly, it is only a small section (4.04) that discusses the concept, and it does so in the context of Assamese nationalism and most of the section deals with ULFA, both of which already have their own pages on Wikipedia. I don't agree that this source establishes "Swadhin Axom" as an independent topic that merits its own page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes- I'm saying that it can be draftified and potentially reworked into an article actually about the specific idea- based on assuming good faith that maybe one of the 40 sources I didnt check have something useful. Not particularly opposed to deletion, and if there are no other sources this should be a section of Assamese nationalism as you propose.
A master's thesis is a reliable source- the policy you link to cautions against blimdly accepting since many theses do original research and are therefore sometime primary sources. But that's not the case here where the author is describing existing sentiment, not coming up the idea of Swadhin Axom outright. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright let me have a look a this article again, and try finding secondary articles on the idea. However i don't feel this should be merged with the ULFA page as its solely not connected to ulfa, and is something like Dravida NaduFlyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to disagree, since the idea of "Swadhin Axom" (Independent Assam) deserves nuanced understanding and should not be exclusively linked to the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). While ULFA has prominently championed this cause of an independent Assam through armed struggle, the concept of Swadhin Axom encompasses a broader spectrum of historical, cultural, and socio-political aspirations that predate and extend beyond ULFA's formation. Also both Axom and Asom are used, you will find articles using both the terms.
Pre-ULFA Aspirations: The desire for a distinct Assamese identity and autonomy can be traced back to the colonial and pre-colonial eras. Movements and sentiments advocating for Assam's self-determination existed well before ULFA's establishment in 1979 (Guha, 1991, 56). Cultural and Ethnic Diversity: The idea of Swadhin Axom also reflects the rich cultural and ethnic diversity of the region. It includes the voices of various indigenous communities who have sought to preserve their unique identities and heritage (Baruah, 2005, 112).
Political Autonomy Movements: Throughout Assam's history, various groups and political entities have called for greater autonomy and recognition of Assam's distinct status within India. These movements have often been peaceful and democratic, emphasizing dialogue over armed conflict (Misra, 2012, 143).
Both of the 3 papers are important sources
Therefore, I propose renaming the Wikipedia article to "Proposal for Swadhin Axom" instead, because it is of relevance to the geopolitics concerning greater southeast asia as well
Ref:
Baruah, Sanjib. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Dutta, Anuradha. Assam and the Northeast: Development and Conflict. Guwahati: Eastern Book House, 2010.
Goswami, Priyadarshini. Ethnicity, Insurgency and Identity in Northeast India. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2001.
Guha, Amalendu. Planter Raj to Swaraj: Freedom Struggle and Electoral Politics in Assam 1826-1947. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research, 1991.
Misra, Udayon. The Periphery Strikes Back: Challenges to the Nation-State in Assam and Nagaland. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 2012.
@Kautilya3and @Walsh90210 @EmeraldRange Hey also wanted to point out 3 volumes of books that looked into this topic. Swadhinataar Prostab & Economics of Swadhin Axom. I feel these sources
You mentioned the following:
" If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state."
I was only looking at english sources, and there is a lack of literature when it comes to Northeast India.
I am offering a brief translation below from assamese :
However, the proposal or demand for independence is not limited to generations. After the Greco-Roman period, proposals for independence were raised. Buli commented that Tetia's memory is still alive today due to Dr. Mishra's agitation in the Indian freedom struggle. But that freedom was not real freedom, many people raised the issue of muklikoi quora during this period.
Teon Koy, 1947 The freedom that was gained in Chant country was not real freedom. That freedom was in political freedom. Without social freedom, there will be total freedom. Therefore, many of those freedoms are not complete freedom, many of them were promoting social equality and elimination of discrimination in order to achieve complete freedom.
The disillusionment was largely disillusioned with the passage of time after independence. All those who hoped for independence were disappointed. During the 60s and 70s, the common people were angry about the socio-economic inequality. About which the movement was started. Protests were held by university and college students. Around that time revolutions were starting in different countries of the world. Apart from political freedom, social freedom, social and economic discrimination, women's freedom was also raised.
This movement started in Europe and reached America. The Vietnam war was forced to end on the basis of this protest. In the next period, the black people's movement was influenced by this movement, which was the global judge. Kakat also made posters on this topic in Indian schools, and propagated about this movement through discussion.
Dr. Mishra thought that period of 60-70s was the golden age. Because there was a lot of hope in this demand or movement at that time. The literary majesty of that time was influenced by this movement. A new curriculum was being prepared with the support of intellectuals, college teachers and others who supported the movement to raise the demand for curriculum change. Slogans were being written for the liberation of poor women.
ofc the two books would be the primary source for this article, and there are several sources - secondary analysis done on these books which can be taken as the secondary supporting sourcesFlyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that "Swadhin Asom" (there is a misspelling) literally means Independent Assam, and this should be the article instead, an article that describes the motives for an independent Assam. as there are many different sources that describe this movement as a whole. — Karnataka09:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete upon review, I don't think the sources in the article necessarily support an article on this specific topic - it does not mean that there should not be coverage of those wanting independence in Assam, but this appears to be possibly about a geographical region and the sources do not support that. WP:NOTESSAY also applies. Drafitfying is fine, but I'm not sure there's a clear topic here after a BEFORE search. SportingFlyerT·C12:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective mergetoAssam separatist movementsorUnited Liberation Front of Asom. These appear to be the appropriate places for discussion of the causes for an independence movement and related activism, but there doesn't need to be a separate page for the proposed state like this. Flyingphoenixchips's sources and some of this article's content belong in those articles.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A fuller deletion rationale is preferred rather than a brief reference to a general policy. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
