Knowledge:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India

19680:: There is a generally accepted working consensus regarding released films with notable cast and/or made by a notable director (and/or including the participation of notable personalities (musicians, writers, etc). The said consensus is that such articles are redirected to a list of films by year/country or to the article about their director when they can, if reliable sources allow verification. When such films are mentioned as critical and/or commercial successes especially pre-internet films, and, again, given coverage allows verification, their cultural and historical significance is generally considered a sufficient reason to retain a standalone page. Either way, the consensus is that such pages are generally not deleted.- 18112:: There is a generally accepted working consensus regarding released films with notable cast and/or made by a notable director (and/or including the participation of notable personalities (musicians, writers, etc). The said consensus is that such articles are redirected to a list of films by year/country or to the article about their director when they can, if reliable sources allow verification. When such films are mentioned as critical and/or commercial successes especially pre-internet films, and, again, given coverage allows verification, their cultural and historical significance is generally considered a sufficient reason to retain a standalone page. Either way, the consensus is that such pages are generally not deleted.- 9637:: There is a generally accepted working consensus regarding released films with notable cast and/or made by a notable director (and/or including the participation of notable personalities (musicians, writers, etc). The said consensus is that such articles are redirected to a list of films by year/country or to the article about their director when they can, if reliable sources allow verification. When such films are mentioned as critical and/or commercial successes especially pre-internet films, and, again, given coverage allows verification, their cultural and historical significance is generally considered a sufficient reason to retain a standalone page. Either way, the consensus is that such pages are generally not deleted.- 11596:, and to a book by a sociologist who describes the emergence of the university and calls it a "milestone". Notability is arguably established, and even if it isn't, more references with nontrivial material can be found. One of the primary purposes of notability guidelines is to ensure that there is sufficient material to create an informative article, and there is clearly enough published material on this university (even though one might wish for more so that an even meatier article would be possible). For further expansion, there just needs to be effort put in to tap that material and integrate it into the article. -- 9119:- This article has already survived two attempted AfDs easily, and neither of those had a single vote to delete. The nominator this time was also the nominator of the second AfD, and this latest nomination has no acknowledgement of any of the successful arguments made by "Keep" voters previously. The second AfD did have some discussion of how the article is tough to maintain due to the singer's enormously prolific career, and perhaps splitting into multiple articles (perhaps by decade) could be considered. Otherwise this nomination is merely an attempt to pretend that the idea didn't already fail twice. --- 3708:, though firstly to nom, you didn't have to accept the draft if you thought it non-notable, even though it had waited a while (the fact it had waited suggests others felt the same). That aside, reviewing a number of refs doesn't sway me away from concurring with the nom statement. The entire "early life" section is cited to a google drive(!), and the apparent relevant file doesn't give me confidence in its integrity. The second paragraph isn't even about the subject, less the last paragraph, which tries to imply notability because he "built a big house". 12293:- article seems well sourced, and several sources are in the late 2010s, some 40 years after the conflict itself, making a nonsense of the “no lasting coverage” claim… it’s… difficult not to see this as politically based spamming since the last couple of nominations on Indian-Bangladeshi border skirmishes from this same editor are just cut and paste, and they have nominated other similar articles last week too… I’ll assume good faith though, and just say that I disagree that the article meets the criteria for deletion based on the merits. 16981:. These discrepancies undermine the article’s reliability. The incident story have various contradiaction as compared to Indian news site with Bangladesh based news site. Additionally, minor conflicts like these, which lack significant international coverage, often do not meet the notability criteria required for inclusion on Knowledge. The comparison to India-Pakistan conflicts is not relevant here, as the notability and coverage of each conflict should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. 379: 31: 15818:

ZEE TV, it has many indecisive things, for exmaple some sources say it aired from '93 to '96 while others say it's aired from '93 to '96 but later shifted to DD1, some other say that it was aired in '99 on ZEE TV for the first time and some that it aired on DD2-Metro and shifted to ZEETV and/or DD, It's very hard to find truthful sources, as all talk about the same thing but say it differently. for say the example mentioned above.

9218:. As someone mentioned in the previous AFD not having this list will be stupid. If you folks personally can't handle it, then post about it on relevant wikiprojects, and stop working on the article. When the article "list of missing persons" got big, it was not deleted, it was split in decades — something which had been suggested to you already. Kindly stop nominating same notable article again-and-again. —usernamekiran 5295:. The sack of Surat in 1664 which the article presents as the beginning of the conflict was carried out by Shivaji prior to his coronation. This conflict is then connected by the article to the raids by the Dhabade Maratha clan which has no connection to Shivaji's raid. This is then listed with the Peshwa-Gaekwad conquest of the region which again has nothing to do with the beforementioned conflicts. No 19152: 138: 19089: 19085: 9230:(but improve). I already commented above but will formally vote here, because no viable argument has ever been made to delete this article. Two previous AfDs passed with flying colors with all votes to keep in compliance with policy, which the current nominator ignored. The one delete vote here, on how to "handle" the article, is invalid per several sub-policies at 11694:"News India Times" is not even a RS in all probabilities. And, a couple of articles in India Abroad — a now-defunct publication aimed exclusively at the Indian diaspora with a peak circulation of ~ thirty thousand — do not make the entity wiki-notable; if anything, such meager coverage in such a niche publication only goes to demonstrate the non-notability. 17095:

include both local and international news publications (including BBC and Al Jazera), and give details which are consistent between the different articles. The wiki page itself could use some editing for clarity / grammar / neutrality etc, but this does not warrant deletion, it should be edited instead (and I’ll have a go at that tomorrow if I have time).

6668:. 4 sources on the page where source 1 domain does not exist anymore, source 2 is a deadlink, 3 is advertising site (fits unreliable) and just about announcement on the opening of the channel and source 4 is unreliable source with page not found. No significant coverage on the channel and fails to meet organization criterias to pass notability. Fails 10256:, appears to have been created under this title to circumvent the salting. Tagged for G4 for an administrator to check if it was the same as the deleted version, as, despite most sources having a retrieval date of 2024-09-21, they were much older and possibly already in use at the time. Speedy was declined twice by an IP, so here we are again. 19349:, they are, and stating otherwise is also rather a little misleading. People who have visited the page before nomination can check it now and see if they can verify the added sources, for example or if they find them useful; hence my insertion of the template, which your comment tries to undermine unduly, in my view. If 9501: 18385:. This is not G5 eligible, as the creator was not a sock of a then-blocked editor: as such the creator's block is not relevant. And the basic facts provided in the article do check out, it's obviously not a hoax. Whether it's notable, I'm less certain: there is coverage, including articles focused on on this channel: 17094:

The suggestion that different source articles are confused about the dates / give different dates seems to be based on a confusion between the dates the articles were published, and the dates the events themselves were said to have occurred. The sources seem both independent and robust, are numerous,

16477:

After making the successful TV show Ramayan, producer Ramanand Sagar wanted to tap into another epic show — the Bhagavat Puran. Produced by Ramanand, Subhash Sagar and Prem Sagar, and directed by Ramanand, Anand Sagar and Moti Sagar, Shri Krishna was one of the biggest grossers for Doordarshan during

8085:

Child actor with a major role for one season of Baalveer Returns, but otherwise appears to be cameo's and minor roles. Source coverage outside of the primary sources and interviews is short / passing mentions and some publicity puff pieces. Many of the sources are this person's Facebook / Instagram

5907:, as a few other editors have worked on this, but at least two socks have edited this, and most of the rest comes from IP addresses that have edited the same articles as the socks and geolocate to the same city, suggesting block evasion. I also have concerns about the sources, many of which look like 1856: 1522: 18513:

page has comments from Knowledge and the disclaimer says that it does not take responsibility for the reports by contributors. Source 3 is about the Journalist Anmol Pritam who works for YouTube channel National Dastak and was forced to chant a slogan by a mob and the article has also claims made by

17447:

Hmm, Well Not Really, How would you know that they think it is significant or not? Also, you cannot just say that they would have written something about it by now, That is a person's choice if they want to write about it or not regardless of it being significant, My argument might have some issues,

17001:

I’m a NZer, so totally outside the local political discussions here, but reading the three sources you cite, they all seem to say that the battle took place on Saturday 16, 2005 (all reference it occurring on Saturday). The different dates (16, 17, 18) were the dates the three stories were published

12329:

The 1979 clash is very notable and it does not violate Knowledge's standards for inclusion. Nxcrypto for some reason is copying and pasting the same message in multiple AfD Discussions, And some people will not check the page and just want to delete it, So they will say "It does not establish WP:GNG

4120:

The majority of coverage from reliable sources pertains to Mount Everest, while the remaining sources appear unreliable and lack in-depth coverage of the subject. Apart from climbing Mount Everest, she has no notable achievements in mountaineering, and the references related to her Everest climb are

3887:

This article has gotten a lot of attention from a series of Indian milhist sockpuppets that are particularly interested in embellishing histories of non-notable "battles" that are lost by Muslim forces. I find only two hits on google scholar at this title, and zero for its original title, "Battle of

19488:

Can you please provide page numbers along with inline citation of what the sources actually say to check if it is just an entry or something significant. We need significant coverage and I googled but just found entries and nothing significant. If you can provide all the information that helps with

19440:

I took time and verified all the pages on each Google sources on the page and the claims it made (even though the onus is on the editor who adds the source to provide verification), there is nothing significant. No significant coverage in any source and even the source under reception is not even a

18309:

I have multiple reasons for proposing this article for deletion. Firstly, the page creator is blocked. Secondly, all the references provided are fabricated. The page creator has deceptively used the term 'National Dastak' in the title to mislead other editors. The article fails to meet the criteria

10648:

The article makes no claim to notability - he runs a department at a hospital, no named chair professorship, nothing showing he's a big player within his discipline. I have reviewed all the citations and see nothing but routine mentions and quotes, other than what looks like a complex spine surgery

18452:

has misleading title on the page that says "As per a report of the National Dastak, Riya Singh, a Dalit will pursue Ph D in Women's Studies" but the actual title of the source is "Riya Singh, a Dalit, tops TISS entrance exam". This source has nothing except for passing mention that is shown in the

15817:

Again, after some research, I'm just finding out that 160 episodes were filmed with the actor "Swapnil Joshi" but then they were deleted and refilmed from episode 73, Tilak has also wiped some articles too just because they contained some footage. and while deleted by some user, It also did air on

10812:

None of the reliable sources here provide any in-depth information about Sonawane as a person, they are all either about his surgeries or his comments as an expert on medical topics. Had those surgeries been made on high-profile individuals (like federal politicians or other important figures), or

19399:

check allowed me to verify 3 of the sources added through Gbooks (I added the page for 2 ). I see now even less reasons to doubt the veracity of the sources added by Morekar. I thought there might have been a transcription problem but no, the title in most of the cited English sources apparently

11677:

acknowledges that "If a reliable source decides to fact check a press release and write a story about it, it then meets the definition of coming from a reliable source" - that raises the question of whether an absence of named author is enough grounds to treat this article as unreliable when it's

9327:: (and split?) I think the article meets NLIST. The maintenance rationale is invalid, in my view. We can't delete an article because it is not being maintained, and I think we could solve the maintenance issue, in this case, by splitting the article as was discussed in second deletion nomination. 12724:

and per nom. Sources are poor to unreliable with no significant coverage. Maybe after the release of the film, some sources with reviews and other significant coverage might come forth, and then the page can either be recreated or reedited with sources that meet secondary independent reliability

10695:

It is with great regret that I have to say There are Millions of editors and users on Knowledge, they should get a chance to review the page and see how it is done. The page is targeted without checking the references without checking the page itself These users should be stopped from doing this

8790:

Because if we know where the article on Santadas Kathiababa is, we can keep an eye on the content. If a new sock wants to improve the article, he/she will need to read sources and use them to write statements that really are backed by those citations (which is not the case now). Until then the

6094:

non-bylined articles might be challenged so I won't even mention it (but I suppose you had a look). I had redirected this myself at some point, I think (I seem to remember I did at least!), but that was challenged too, apparently. There are a lot of adaptations of the Tamil (5, 6 ?) original and

18433:

misleading title on the page is "National Dastak, which provide reportage and videos from a Bahujan perspective to counter the perspective of the upper caste-dominated mainstream English and Hindi media" but the actual title is "BSP war room is turning up the heat on BJP and SP". The source has

17895:, if you really want a corresponding supplemental page to refer my !vote to. My point is: off-line sources probably exist and when I mention that, I generally suggest an ATD (a redirect to a list or to the director, as you do below; when it's verifiable of course.) Thank you for your concern. - 17040:

Thanks. As far as I can tell, the only way to get the experience is to actually do the work to get it, which is what I’m trying to do here. If we are all working in good faith (which I assume we are), statements of fact such as “the articles are confused about dates” should be reasonably easily

11666:, all with named authors, and arguably all from reliable sources. All of these provide "more than a trivial mention," and in some cases the university was indeed "the main topic of the source material", so each of these arguably contributes "significant coverage" for meeting general notability ( 8241:

The show article has him as the teenage version of the main actor, and the provided source just says he will appear. There's nothing I can see to say that Sayani had a significant role. Can you find a good source to support this? I realize I'm probably missing some context here, but that's the

2206:. I would have possibly declined for the second time, but it does appear that the creator has made up their mind that she ranks the 6th in an unknown women category of a chess competition. The subject has participated in non notable competition, and has appeared in few sources, but there aren't 2053:

isn’t only that it’s written by Jhalas. It’s that one of the authors claims to be the head of the dynasty (see link above) and the book is an effort to launder legends into a historical account. The other reliable sources to discuss the Jhalas do not do this, as I noted above. The appropriately

1914: 19184:

None of the new sources with Google books links are verifiable. All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation with page number(s) to a reliable source that directly

18426:

misleading title on the page is "#BeingADalit: How the Online Boom news websites like National Dastak that talk of Bahujan samaj" but the actual title is "#BeingADalit: How the Online Boom is Helping Dalits Reclaim and Reassert Their Identity". There is nothing in the source except for passing

2030:

being that the co-author is a Jhala doesn't seem valid considering that there are probably a million of Jhala people and shouldn't make them ineligible to write on the subject. Both the authors are also scholars in anthropolgy with Jhala having served as the Professor of Anthropology at Temple

16856:

The description of events is one-sided, lacking verification from multiple credible sources. Additionally, there are significant discrepancies in the reported details and conflicting accounts that make it unreliable. The article's content does not meet the standards for inclusion and accuracy

19612:

Source 4, Google Snippet page 139 is by a filmmaker and scriptwriter of same industry and very likely a self published through "Maharashtra Film, Stage & Cultural Development Corporation" who are also the contributor, has passing mention "Ha Khel Savlyancha ( 1976 ) , a suspense thriller

19523:

AfD participants are invited, by the template inserted above in the discussion, to read the page and not simply assume or assert the changes are not significant and the sources add no weight to notability. A single source, for example, stating the film was a ’superhit’ (source wording) is

10614:. This is a malformed AfD Apparently the page is being targeted for deletion because the page had so many bugs it was straight up targeted for AFD instead of being cleaned and fixed a lot. should consider why the page is being targeted for deletion. which the article subject easily meets, is 1071:

if not improved: The article is extremely sparse at present and everything there is already covered in other articles. But the historical-cultural idea of "northwest India" (as opposed to specifically the Indus Valley, Punjab, etc.) does seem to have some scholarly attention, at least from

17041:

proven or disproven simply by reading the articles in question, and without a deep knowledge of Knowledge policies (which I am never the less trying to gain). Then it’s just a matter of clearly articulating what we think - which I hope I have done, in service of moving towards consensus.

2034:

I do believe more context can be added regarding the tradtional sources the authors have used. But deleting the article would be an extreme step. The subject is very much notable. Many later kingdoms, states and principalities claimed descent from the members of this dynasty. Thank you.

16485:

Music composer Ravindra Jain composed the music for this serial. The title song, ‘Shree Krishna Govind Hare Murari’, became popular in India and abroad. The show ran for more than seven years, and had over 200 episodes. The show covered Krishna’s life, from his birth to the time of his

19340:

pay attention, thank you; that is precisely why I think that calling your note a ’review and analysis’ of those sources is a tiny bit misleading. You just couldn’t access and verify them. It would be better indeed if we could, but again see the link that I provided above. The changes

17572:

Relisting as this discussion is still active. Remember, your arguments should be grounded in policy and your assessment about whether or not the sources in the article, that have been bought into the discussion or that you have found, are sufficient to provide SIGCOV and establish

16443:

I cannot make it any more clearer than what the journalist himself said on the top of his article about the maker talking about the show and anything that journalist wrote in that article is the outcome of the interview. It is not an indepedent source at all. I am leaving at that.

8264:(not the best of sites but for an uncontroversial statement, it might serve) states he plays one of the "lead roles"; "this time the main lead of Baal Veer will be played by child artist Vansh Sayani. Vansh was last seen playing the role of of Kohra's son in Nazar. ", states the 9495: 12750:: The creator himself had reDrafted it so that Draftification although not procedurally standard seemed pretty consensual among all contributors. This is therefore a (fair) procedural AfD and a consensus seems easy to reach if the creator confirms he agrees to Draftification. 19081: 10322:

Should be speedied in case the original author is a sock. I also believe this is a case of undisclosed paid editing: promotional tone, lots of weasel words, as well as a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources. In case this person is actually notable, I suggest TNT-ing.

11678:

from an otherwise reputable source (have you found any duplicate versions of the same material on numerous sites?). (By the way, friend, I suspect you know that a statement that something "is arguably established" is different than stating that it is "not established") --

10792:

Alternate explanation, common for this sort of situation, is that it was stolen from social-media or a similar site. But we do need an immediate and clear explanation from the uploader on commons (need to keep license concerns on that site) or it will be promptly deleted.

19097: 19425:

How are these "significant references" again? Verifiability is not notability unfortunately. Are you able to show what RangerRus is requesting below? I am willing to withdraw the nomination if it turns out t be significant coverage but I cannot locate anything either.

17323:(please sign your comments). What are you trying to say here? It sounds like you are making accusations about someone or maybe just about the way AFDs work on Knowledge. You are not assuming good faith of our discussion closers. Please refrain from casting aspersions. 1830:

for an appropriately sourced version not created by a sockmaster. The core sources for these articles are books of purported genealogy published by Jhala family descendants. This article takes a legendary genealogy and launders the sources to present it as history:

18434:

nothing significant except for passing mention that says "There are also news portals like National Dastak, which provide reportage and videos from a 'Bahujan' perspective to counter the perspective of the upper caste-dominated mainstream English and Hindi media."

16137:"I think, you're actually right. I think deletion would be ok, as there's no adequate source to find" - This is written as if you are. At least, it does agree there is no adequate sourcing so without it I am wondering your policy-based reasoning for keeping it. -- 19544:

Being a 'super hit' does not make something notable. It must be shown so through significant coverage. What is "bizarre" is that two editors have asked for the excerpts of those references that some are citing as significant yet nothing has been provided except

16957:- It is a notable clash. If you would like to delete this, Please also delete some pages About clashes between India and Pakistan. I Will attempt to add more sources, I kind of forgot about this page, that I created. I should have added more sources earlier. 4696: 8743:

Whenever the article was deleted, Srabanta Deb or his socks recreated it, usually under a slightly different name; then after a few days he/she usually moved the recreated article to a new name to confuse people and to create redirects. Names used include:

11626:

This article is at AfD because I (and others) believe that notability is not established and I am happy to see you accept that. Regrettably, we cannot speculate about sourcing esp. that we are discussing an organization in USA and not, say, Sudan! Further,

1503:

on the Jhala family created by a now-blocked sockmaster. The core sources for these articles are books of purported genealogy published by Jhala family descendants. This article takes a legendary genealogy and launders the sources to present it as history:

6095:

their mentions are regularly removed from the tables, so for me, navigation-wise, as this seems quite popular and given the basic facts (including popularity) are verifiable with various sources, either R or K are good. Also, a detail, the fact that it's

14249: 19613:

interwoven with a supernatural legend , be- came a superhit but could not wean the indus- try away from its famnily melodramas ." (That is exactly how family is misspelled). Keeping the unreliability question aside, still no significant coverage.

19602:

Source 1 Google snippet page 161, has an entry with film name, language of the film, color, length, name of director, producer, musician, and four cast members followed with "Woman fears servants ghost haunts bungalow." That's it. No significant

16207:

If you're talking about cast, I just corrected some errors, and if you're talking about the above para, It's common knowledge to know DD didn't stream it in '97 and hence it was handed to ZEE TV, and Sony & Star did stream it following 2001.

15997: 2910: 15982: 8975: 4759:

this appears to be mainly OR, stitched together from snippets of material that are not about the topic in hand. Also from the language used it’s pretty clear that the creator had copied some material verbatim and not used their own words.

19317:

Not surprised by your response. As i said earlier the so called "significant changes", the Google books fail verification with no page number and inline citation and that is my review and analysis about it if you could pay attention. See

14573: 13925: 13601: 19353:

should apply to something it is not to the 'significant changes', I should say. Consider this my final reply to you as I do not care very much for the tone of your last reply, to be honest. Thank you again for your reply and concern.

18030:

It's difficult to find sources for something that appeared in 1962 and didn't endure. There was a TV show with the same name which seems to be quite popular and that is what pops up in searches. I did find that a CD had be made of the

9516: 8932: 8878: 8873: 4653: 16825: 9483: 12173: 6273: 9777: 3628:. Owing a non notable company doesn't show notability in any way. The article is very promotional, and doesn't appear to be notable in the future (eye sighted observation). A community consensus would clearly address its problem. 19632:

Source 11 and 13 are snippets from same book with no page numbers. One snippet with entry of DVD release in 2009 and the other snippet in few words that the film "deeply rooted in the village life of Maharashtra". No significant

17448:

If so, Please reply. Also, What do you define as significant coverage and lasting effect? I am not asking for the community's answer, I am asking for your answer. As what do you think is significant coverage and lasting effects.

16478:

the seven years it was on air. The national broadcaster had a limit on the number of episodes it could air in the ’80s, but the ’90s brought about a change in these rules. A producer could now make a show for a longer duration.

5260: 15630: 12614:

as no in-depth coverage of the subject has been found from reliable independent sources. The cited sources are mostly unreliable, and the reliable sources only provide passing mentions. Additionally, the article fails to meet

11415: 11124:

This article has a long history of sockpuppetry, as shown in the linked SPI and its archive. It should have been speedy deleted G5, but the latest creator account is stuck in the SPI backlog, so it's not technically eligible.

10666:. Had you done this you'd probably agree the deletion rationale is clear. Continuing to create these articles may be a waste of time, both yours and other editors', if the article subjects are unable to meet notability rules. 7842: 990: 9477: 6122:

Thanks for pointing out that NFILM doesn't apply — that was a silly error on my part! However, the same issue prevents the subject from meeting GNG, and the links you've shared here don't help in that regard, except maybe

3313: 3082: 16971:

Article most of the current citations are Bangladesh-based like Dhaka report, The Daily Observer Bangladesh, bdnews24. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies in the reported dates of the clash—some sources mention April

14170: 9849:: As the page creator, I attempted to improve it by including a GlobalData report in the Further Reading section. However, if the majority of votes on this Afd support deletion, my only request is to merge this page with 4959: 2643: 18082:

Replying also to Liz. (I would prefer a Keep but) if a Redirect is chosen, the target suggested by SafariScribe clearly makes sense; however, I would tend to think that regarding a film a redirect to the director should

17002:

in their respective newspapers, and do not show a confusion about the date on which the shootings themselves occurred. This seems fairly well covered in several different newspapers to me, with similar details in each.

731: 18918:

We have seen many notable actors act films that aren't notable. So, citing the notable casts of the film is good but not when there aren't sources even to verify that they acted the film. This is eventually not part of

18821: 8578: 9473: 9438: 7275: 13018: 12314:

It is a notable incident, Lasting effect? It did have some. Nxcrypto, I noticed that you are copying the same message in similar AfD Discussions, Without even checking the page and It's content and aftermath a lot.

11818: 4690: 2377: 18278: 17734: 15318:

Won't the inclusion in the list be challenged if he has no page himself? If the inclusion seems OK, I could support that outcome too, given the so-so coverage he received in Nepalese and the sourced list of films.

10924: 10525: 6783: 3856: 1189: 13323: 10653:

suggests this would need to have lasting impact). GScholar shows some papers with low citation counts (there's a DP Sonawane who has some high-citation counts, but U.S. based and unlikely to be this gentleman).

10419: 9964: 7533: 6541: 2171: 14919: 9523: 5991:- The IPs have removed the redirect three times now despite the three editors who disagreed so I guess here we are. Sad we have to be here over SOCKing. Judging notability outside of the editor conduct, it fails 1787: 8054: 5864: 4626: 4621: 15998:

https://www.jansatta.com/photos/entertainment-gallery/shri-krishna-actor-mahendra-muralidhar-dhule-played-bhima-ramanand-sagar-serial-sri-krishna-3-times-played-kumbhakaran-still-looks-like-young-boy/1439996/3/

15952: 10221: 5576: 4089: 17312:- Do you even know about the nomination? And, check the page Again, If this AfD goes successful for deletion just because of votes, It would be a violation of the Administrator Instructions in the edit notice. 4630: 1468: 16063:. Won't waste time looking at the rest as it seems to be a misunderstanding of what constitutes a reliable source. A redirect is acceptable as we can verify it exists, but nothing that shows it is notable. -- 15983:

https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/photomazza/tv-photogalleries/janmashtami-2023-top-show-shri-krishna-1993-cast-where-is-yashoda-maiya-damini-kanwal-shetty-now/photoshow/msid-103423057,picid-103423197.cms

6074:

It's not a film but a TV series, so, I don't mind you and other users judging it by NFILM standards, if you wish to do so (that could make sense, actually), but in general it's GNG that applies for TV series

4381: 3593: 16022: 15167: 14494: 14206: 13846: 13522: 7029: 18958:

was it by mistake? And sources have been added since nomination, some allowing partial verification of the cast (or simply look at the poster if you wish), some looking reliable but not allowing it so far.

18656:, it's the responsibility of editors wanting to Keep an article to go out and locate those reliable sources as Vanamonde93 has done. I'm not sure who else you thought would spend the time in this "search". 15874:

All articles talk about the same thing, just their matter is different, even with some or for say a lot of digging can be done but it results to the repetitive articles. Though for me deletion is not okay.

12579: 11955:

I am a bit cautious with CSD nowadays, as I have made mistakes in the past and my NPP training is not yet over. It's better to put this page through AfD. Let's hope this page gets updated and qualifies for

14243: 4613: 2867: 11372: 11319: 9214:, nor some indiscriminate collection of information, as the information in list is factual list of songs that were recorded. Asha Bhosale has been included in the Guinness book of world records for that 19628:

Source 9, 10 are same books with Google snippet page 40, reads Best Music Director and best color photography for the film (does not mention awarded by who or what award show). No significant coverage

12835:

AfD and am rather aware we should wait for a close, mind you; just trying to make sure we can reach consensus as you can see if you read my comment with attention. Please amend your comment, thank you.

9489: 14612:

exists which is also likely not notable so not seeing how this would meet notability guidelines. Cannot find enough coverage to establish it for this specific year. Attempted (twice) to redirect as an

14288:

13964:

13640:

8868: 2904: 17231:

Oh really, What do you even define as reliable sources? Have you even read the page? According to your logic, Al Jazeera and BBC News are unreliable and also other sources, You are very incorrect, @

9184:

I'm relisting this discussion given the large participation on the 2nd nomination and the lack of participation here. Also, given two previous AFDs, this discusion is not eligible for Soft Deletion.

8969: 16746: 19622:

Source 7 passing mention of film critically and commercially acclaimed and one of the actor Jairam played memorable role in highest grossing film of the time. Not significant coverage on the film.

7943:

page with two sources with one clearly unreliable BLOG and the other not secondary independent. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability.

2021:. Looking at the article page, it does not seem to contain any far-fetched claims except the Origin section which should be renamed to 'Origin legend' or clarified that it is a traditional legend. 16012: 15889:

Page has been up since 2009, and by now we all realize after quite some digging that no reliable sources with indepth significant coverage is to be found. Redirect is better than to keep. Right?

6087: 17469:

I encourage those who have !voted keep to consider changing their recommendations, and those who have given only brief delete reasons to consider elaborating to show a clearer consensus. The no

14567: 13919: 13595: 17490: 16973: 14530: 13882: 13558: 10629:

I don't believe the nominator checked all sources. However, there does appear to be in-depth coverage in sources which I assess as probably reliable, covering multiple events / aspects of this

7685:. The youtuber has not made a remarkable or significant achievement, enough to deserve attention. The sources on the page do not have significant coverage on the subject and his career to pass 15972: 4844:

This is more of a personal essay than an article, and very much full of OR. No evidence that secondary sources have covered this as a specific topic. Even if they had, this would still merit

14750:

We have been through this before. SPLITLIST is not a notability guideline. Can you point out the references that talk about this as a whole? This vote is a continued fallacy by assertion. --

17486: 16819: 1851:(legendary geneaologies of high-caste Indian families), for example one figure defeating a ghost in battle and marrying a goddess who supernaturally rescues their children from an elephant. 16389:

Not sure your assessment is completely correct. Taking just one example, source 5 offers very significant coverage beside an interview, in a bylined article in a very reliable newspaper. -

12167: 6267: 17478: 16738: 16730: 12344:- The page has several citations including from books and newspapers, some require subscription or have limited information but I think the page meets with General Notability Guidelines. 9771: 8535: 8467: 8462: 16007: 1078:. If the article weren't fairly new, I would be a firm delete, but I'm willing to give the author the benefit of the doubt for now. But the article as it is isn't ready for mainspace. 17918:. No secondary independent reliable sources with indepth coverage on the film. One source on the page that claims to be a review is just a Google snippet and is not review. Page fails 16042: 15962: 11157:, I would highly recommend the closing administrator match the extended-confirmed creation protection on this title and related titles to discourage further disruption on the subject. 18491:

Notability is based on the sources that exist, not ones that are in the article. When I have provided other sources above, you need to demonstrate that they do not confer notability.

16782: 15987: 14179: 14174: 8435:- The actor is notable for playing major roles in two shows and recurring role in a movie. Instead of redirecting or deleting the page, it must be improved by adding reliable sources. 8261: 5254: 4600: 228: 15624: 11409: 14183: 12130: 11701:) paid-coverage frequently engaged in by business entities. So, we look for sources that do not mechanically reproduce what the organization says and show some critical engagement. 6230: 4617: 2840: 2835: 6106:

not the best option. For me a Keep would help the reader more efficiently but I understand the current coverage is not of extremely high quality, hence the suggested compromise. -

18235: 18182: 9734: 7836: 3813: 3760: 2844: 984: 19297:

note ("reviewed and analysed" is a bit of an overstatement, I’m afraid, as yourself stated you couldn’t access them, :D); but still, the page has significantly changed. Also see

13188:: The Nominator is doing nothing except marking the pages up for the deletion. They should read and understand the basics of Notability first. The subject passes the guidelines. 3307: 3076: 16519:

years.....) and I think that the material, if the page was redirected, would be lost, which would be detrimental to the encyclopaedia. (And that's just one source). Thank you. -

15942: 14166: 11491: 8905: 8900: 4990:

Couldn't find any sources with Googling (it returns information about the British royalty when you exclude Knowledge). I tried draftification, and it was immediately recreated.

4953: 2637: 2462: 4750: 725: 18569: 18392: 15953:

https://www.aajtak.in/entertainment/television/story/krishna-janmashtami-2022-date-18-or-19-august-know-where-is-ramanand-sagar-shri-krishna-show-cast-tmovf-1519979-2022-08-18

10585: 8909: 8811: 8773: 6084: 5404: 2827: 2438: 19202:: I hate redirects being turned up after redirecting and I would prefer deletion to an obviously non notable article. While we try to save an article as much as possible per 18815: 17836:: I would tend to think that a 1962 film with notable cast, notable director, notable musicians is notable for historical reasons but if the various results of GBooks (added 15977: 10704:

are checked, they are just constantly targeting this pages. Continuously targeting a page should not be acceptable on Knowledge. It is a violation of Knowledge's guidelines.

8572: 268:. 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: 16081:, I think, you're actually right. I think deletion would be ok, as there's no adequate source to find. (Ignore this here I was trying not to start an argument but oh well.) 15927: 15587: 4880: 178: 16023:

https://www.jansatta.com/photos/entertainment-gallery/shri-krishna-radha-reshma-modi-played-in-many-bollywood-movie-after-27-years-he-looks-changed-photos-covid-19/1404748/

10618: 9432: 7269: 17263:, It's also not a logical vote, Since the person voting for deletion was warned several times for saying cuss words without becoming more mature later on, and apologising. 15922: 15224: 13012: 11812: 10125: 8892: 8769: 8475: 8119: 7593: 5660: 5217: 4711: 4609: 4601: 2442: 2371: 18272: 17728: 17546: 10918: 10813:

even received more in-depth coverage by high-quality reliable sources, I would probably have leaned more to keeping, but the current sources are pretty run-off-the-mill.

10519: 6777: 3850: 1183: 14503: 14498: 13855: 13850: 13531: 13526: 13317: 11314: 10423: 10415: 9958: 8765: 7527: 6535: 5012: 4678: 2165: 1623: 14913: 11083:

per nomination. Tried searching for SIGCOV in reliable sources in English and Malayalam (റിയൽ മലബാർ എഫ്.സി.), and the best I could come up with was routine coverage in

1781: 17952: 15741: 14507: 13859: 13535: 10775: 8048: 5858: 5407:. Basically the two articles presented the same issue where users compiled a bunch of unrelated conflicts into one single war. Article should be deleted per WP:SYNTH. 947: 280:

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

10215: 5570: 4083: 1892: 1957:

sources. The independent coverage, such as it is, does not establish facts about this dynasty as presented in the article. With an adequately sourced article on the

1462: 291:

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.

15992: 15947: 4375: 3587: 19119: 15161: 14490: 13842: 13518: 11102: 8761: 8753: 8685: 7799: 7023: 1918:

discusses the Jhala Rajputs but says of the earlier stories, "Bardic tales about their migrations from the Himalayan region to Sindh seem to contain little truth."

522: 477: 19418:

of the significant references added by Morekar, that should now be considered verifiable and verified :D; I will not re-add the AfD changed template, though :D; )

17429:. The event was nearly 20 years ago. If historians believed it was significant, they would have written something about it by now, and they haven't. Knowledge is 12573: 1287:. How was this article not nominated at the time of creation? Candidacy does not inherently make someone notable. Also, thanks to TheSlumPanda for nominating it. 1076: 17482: 14264: 9038: 8757: 3624:

Editors tend to believe that AFC is fabricated with accepting special drafts and abandoning others. Very funny. I don't see how this drat, now an article, meets

3270: 3039: 2412:. It's just the blatant non adherence to the reviewer's comment/decline reason by the page creator/submitter. If we are considering the sources, they are mostly 517: 18552: 16013:

https://zeenews.india.com/hindi/entertainment/photo-gallery-krishna-janmashtami-2022-know-how-much-shri-krishna-cast-serial-1993-cast-change-in-29-years/1306669

6088:

https://malayalam.samayam.com/tv/celebrity-news/actress-gopika-anil-says-that-no-one-from-first-part-is-acting-in-the-santhwanam-2/amp_articleshow/110149785.cms

18401: 16755: 16750: 16002: 14231: 10446: 8749: 5684: 4916: 2966: 2600: 401: 396: 391: 221: 18459:

has passing mention that says "In Uttar Pradesh, BJP is the single largest party across the polls except for National Dastak which is predicting BSP victory."

11261: 4672: 3121:

was unable to find any significant coverage showing how this would be independently notable. Two editors (including myself) attempted to redirect to original

17143: 16759: 15973:

https://www.latestly.com/entertainment/tv/how-marathi-actor-swwapnil-joshi-became-the-common-link-between-dd-shows-uttar-ramayan-and-sri-krishna-1724038.html

14995: 13395: 12103: 12098: 11978: 10350: 7454: 7383: 6203: 6198: 5329: 4784: 4160: 3650: 2450: 2026: 1839: 1509: 821: 688: 547: 472: 18698: 18359: 16286: 16217: 16104: 16054: 16036: 15957: 15917: 15841: 15827: 10036: 9030: 5058:

I didn't really know what to put, but feel free to change it all to something more appropriate. They were unofficially known as the queen consorts, though.

2954: 2925: 17532: 17457: 16711:‎. Several of the arguments here, on both sides, lack basis in P&G. In the end, biased content can be cleaned up, but the fundamental issue of failing 15228: 14301: 12107: 11046: 10691:

are being targeted this page will be created from my account. It can be clearly seen in the previous AFD how they like to target and vote for delete pages.

10052: 9707: 9702: 8482: 6395: 6207: 5086: 3729: 2454: 853: 617: 439: 386: 17226: 17124:

Government, When Indian troops opened fire, We should add that to the page, It has many sources. the argument above by Absurdum4242 appears to be correct.

16222:

Common knowledge? I certainly didn't know about it. In Knowledge we are allowed to state the obvious (e.g., the sky is blue), but what you added would be

15846:

Two mentions that verify it exists is hardly enough to establish notability. If that were the case, pretty much every television show would be notable. --

8990: 6338: 5676: 5029: 4635: 2892: 19805: 19770: 19616:

Source 5 Unreliable sources that is a blog indiancine.ma and the listing is copied from imdb with reference to imdb. No significant coverage on the film.

19609:

Source 3, Google snippet page 22, has an entry, "crime thrillers (title of three different films, one of which is the subject)". No significant coverage.

19131: 19115: 19093: 18778: 17379: 17282: 17254: 17100: 17042: 17017: 17003: 16996: 16966: 16742: 15932: 13189: 12294: 11126: 9711: 8457: 6354: 4668: 2814: 2232: 1545: 492: 18719: 18573: 18389: 14625: 13977: 13653: 11038: 8957: 7418:. Poor to unreliable to deadlink sources with no significant coverage on the channel and fails to meet organization criterias to pass notability. Fails 6387: 5982: 4542: 2773: 1551: 18938:

film, therefore (perhaps non-English) off-line contemporary sources might (or more likely, probably) exist (see below). I also indicate an ATD, fwiw. -

18368:

The sources do exist, but they're all trivial mentions in lists or attributions - not the kind of discussion of the subject needed to show notability.

16008:

https://www.naidunia.com/entertainment/bollywood-ramanand-sagar-shri-krishna-will-be-retelecast-on-dd-national-form-3-may-2020-know-its-timings-5530789

15937: 14726: 14402: 14078: 13754: 13427: 12090: 11190: 10060: 9311: 8776:(they all have deletion histories). So if you want to delete this article, you need not only to salt it, but to salt all likely variations on the name. 7121: 6875: 6190: 5497: 4857: 2831: 1823: 1598:. The independent coverage, such as it is, does not establish facts about this figure as presented in the article and is not sufficient SIGCOV to pass 1241: 849: 622: 612: 552: 18648: 18471:

has passing mention "Videos on National Dastak have over 88 crore views." All the sources are poor with no significant coverage on the channel. Fails

18377: 18145:

Still no consensus seen here. I'm not sure that a few more days will resolve this, along with the competing suggestions for a Redirect target article.

14588: 13940: 13616: 9820: 7564:

Non-notable youtuber. None of the sources in the article provide significant coverage of Sharma, and web searches reveal nothing that contributes to

2541: 18898:: because this is a 1976 film and cast, music director and director are all notable and it contributes to the notability of the film. Or redirect to 18412: 18339: 16884: 16043:

https://www.bhaskarhindi.com/city/mumbai/union-minister-piyush-goyal-congratulated-mahant-swami-maharaj-on-his-91st-birthday-1066201?infinitescroll=1

15963:

https://www.bhaskarhindi.com/city/mumbai/union-minister-piyush-goyal-congratulated-mahant-swami-maharaj-on-his-91st-birthday-1066201?infinitescroll=1

15770: 15560: 15555: 14637: 14313: 13989: 13665: 12654: 12247: 11898: 11283: 10086: 10048: 9694: 9395: 8857: 8123: 7339: 7232: 7093: 6847: 6605: 6440: 5949: 5474: 5395: 5133: 4647: 3196: 3150: 2744: 597: 214: 19588: 18484: 16547: 16270: 15988:

https://www.financialexpress.com/life/entertainment-sri-krishna-telecast-time-on-dd-national-doordarshan-sri-krishna-broadcast-timing-daily-1946373/

15912: 15898: 14555: 14225: 13907: 13583: 11240: 11200: 10605: 8262:

https://www.latestly.com/entertainment/tv/baalveer-returns-dev-joshi-and-vansh-sayani-had-a-fun-time-exploring-the-street-food-of-delhi-1561972.html

7910: 5744: 5112: 4718: 3985: 3971: 18633:

with million subscribers, this channel is one of the most important YouTube news platform and I think a lot of reference will be found if searched.

16872: 15564: 14153: 13423: 13086: 12975: 11890: 11775: 11479: 11072: 10358: 10354: 10104: 8896: 7363: 7097: 6851: 6633: 6609: 6421: 5698: 5643: 5416: 5190: 5185: 5059: 3937: 2807: 2781: 2736: 2728: 2334: 2265: 1265: 602: 587: 562: 532: 527: 18585: 16595: 16361:

Source 6 is intervew with Govind Khatri, an actor from the show about what role was originally offered to him and about his life after the series.

16256: 16235: 16202: 16188: 16160: 16146: 16132: 16118: 16090: 16072: 15884: 15869: 15855: 15808: 15716: 12227: 12038: 11642: 11179: 11142: 8193: 8173: 6165: 6117: 6069: 6038: 5753:- The article creator appears to be connected with an advertising agency and writes in a promotional style. Notability has not been demonstrated. 5053: 18343: 18177: 17278: 17250: 17139: 16922: 16840: 16511:

program, can be given a certain credit and at least contributes to the apparent notability of the show (that had, as I am sure you have noticed,

15774: 13435: 12243: 11483: 11345: 11340: 11108: 11005: 10881: 10589: 10482: 10286: 9862: 8630: 7918: 7894: 7673: 7625: 6740: 6047:: Could you point to the sources you believe have the most significant coverage so we can better evaluate the subject's suitability under NFILM? 5361: 5194: 5158: 3913: 3755: 2740: 2495: 1146: 1042: 878: 572: 297: 284:

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.

202: 19704:

says reiterates what you say but means that sources are "likely to exists" showing notability. Unfortunately, those sources do not exist here.--

17956: 17415:

says notable topics are those that have received "significant attention ... over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Knowledge."

16383: 15241: 14188: 12413: 12188: 11910: 11507: 11467: 11225: 10822: 10787: 10759: 10311: 7952: 6288: 6012: 5310: 5000: 4501: 3663: 3491: 2471: 2249: 2010: 1639: 1366: 1257: 19837: 17691: 16807: 15547: 15313: 15283: 15031: 14221: 14162: 14154: 13280: 13118: 12500: 12392: 12362:. Creating an article by collecting outdated archives instead of modern sources ensures that the subject failed to attract lasting coverage. -- 12239: 11541: 11515: 11495: 11349: 10734: 10711: 10640: 10384: 9921: 9792: 7930: 7882: 7629: 7490: 6498: 5714: 5423: 5357: 5082: 4780: 4463: 3909: 2886: 2716: 2521: 2458: 2446: 2128: 1994: 1675: 920: 915: 861: 837: 607: 567: 557: 512: 507: 173: 19240: 19224: 19174: 19163:

Allows to verify the film was a great success according to sources (not to mention the cast, plot, themes, etc). Thank you for your concern. -

19144: 18949: 18929: 18509:

news about union government asking YouTube to take down ‘National Dastak’ from its platform. Source 2 is likely unreliable as Mumbai Mirror's

18386: 18102: 18077: 17906: 17870: 16586: 16572: 15943:

https://www.filmibeat.com/television/news/2020/after-ramayan-and-mahabharat-doordarshan-to-bring-back-ramanand-sagars-shri-krishna-298001.html

15678: 12155: 12017: 11584: 9840: 9162: 6255: 5449: 4814: 4520: 3461: 1345: 887: 870: 19821: 19786: 18621: 18527: 18500: 17827: 17204: 16918: 15330: 15220: 14991: 14876: 14641: 14477: 14317: 13993: 13829: 13669: 13505: 13391: 12302: 12271: 11987: 11710: 11689: 11658: 11607: 11563: 11013: 10402: 10253: 10020: 9759: 9318: 9256: 9222: 9141: 8951: 6350: 5957: 5718: 5656: 5345: 5177: 4244: 4224: 4156: 3738: 3646: 2823: 2815: 2732: 2434: 2274: 2236: 2228: 1744: 1684: 1274: 1220:

This person does not qualify for a standalone Knowledge page because he lost the election and he is not a member of the respective assembly.

924: 592: 582: 577: 542: 537: 194: 19691: 19535: 19516: 19498: 19411: 19379: 19365: 19331: 19312: 19288: 19266: 19194: 18970: 18123: 17976: 17939: 17851: 17108: 17050: 17035: 17011: 16530: 16453: 16438: 16418: 16400: 14114: 14071: 13219: 13197: 12877: 12861: 12847: 12477: 11646: 10675: 9648: 9629: 9604: 8398: 8369: 8352: 8331: 8305: 8283: 8255: 8236: 8143: 6901: 6085:

https://malayalam.oneindia.com/entertainment/santhwanam-2-asianet-released-a-new-promo-video-goes-viral-here-is-how-fans-reacted-461819.html

5762: 5377: 3929: 3391: 2067: 2044: 1931: 1875: 1533: 1087: 17304: 16724: 15978:

https://www.indiatvnews.com/entertainment/tv/enjoyed-watching-ramayan-now-ramanand-sagar-s-shri-krishna-set-to-return-on-doordarshan-611513

15257: 15253: 15019: 14200: 13465: 13439: 13431: 13144: 13114: 11332: 10560:

here. The best sources in the article look like human interest coverage of surgeries by the subject, and I think they fall a bit short of

10056: 9577: 9110: 9084: 9061: 8425: 8011: 7772: 7767: 7655: 7409: 7147: 6659: 6362: 5821: 5710: 5275: 4643: 4164: 3946: 3725: 3435: 3426: 3375: 3363: 2849: 2483: 2261: 1927: 802: 497: 487: 482: 19713: 19668: 19554: 19464: 19450: 19435: 19001: 18913: 18327: 17514: 17442: 17165: 17082: 16949: 16340: 15928:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/after-ramayans-end-viewers-welcome-ramanand-sagars-shri-krishna/articleshow/75547221.cms

15788: 15759: 15732: 15645: 14784: 14759: 14740: 14719: 14438: 14416: 14395: 14271: 14092: 14048: 13790: 13768: 13747: 12802: 12786: 11969: 11946: 11430: 9675: 9076: 8851: 7698: 7431: 7375: 7173: 6927: 6681: 6083:(and 5-6 similar articles by the same media outlet, in English) ; in Malayalam, also bylined, this kind of things (not great journalism) 5067: 4836: 4769: 4684: 3714: 3210: 3189: 2882: 1302: 1030: 18873: 18395: 17797: 16931: 15690: 14549: 13901: 13577: 12646: 12280: 12263: 11096: 10178: 10120: 10008: 9564: 9336: 8914: 8888: 8858: 8672: 7776: 7597: 5533: 5242: 4455: 4338: 4046: 3243: 3238: 3012: 3007: 907: 371: 246: 168: 158: 18889: 18044: 17892: 16906: 16646: 16364:

Source 7,8,9,10,11,12 are all about Sarvadaman D. Banerjee (main lead of the show) and interview with him, on his life after the series.

15923:

https://www.indiatoday.in/television/soaps/story/after-ramayan-ramanand-sagar-s-shri-krishna-to-return-on-doordarshan-1670255-2020-04-23

15706: 15612: 15345: 15011: 14696: 14657: 14372: 14333: 14009: 13724: 13685: 13411: 13102: 12826: 12769: 12742: 12448: 11397: 10993: 10802: 9593:

if other users think it is suitable (added things to verify notable cast and music director, myself) and off-line sources might exist. -

9234:. Granted, the article is indeed unwieldy, and like the above voter I recommend splitting it up into several new articles by decade. --- 9053: 8947: 7613: 7355: 7113: 6867: 6625: 5044:, but I'm not sure what to retitle that to include queens consort. Maybe "Royalty of Awadh", and have Nawabs of Awadh redirect to that? 4594: 4566: 3166: 3138: 18667: 17612: 17020:

Welcome to Knowledge! It seems you're in a hurry since you've just created your account. I believe that gaining experience takes time.

16608: 15526: 15495: 12371: 12069: 10337: 7857: 7740: 5291:

The article attempts to present very different and completely unrelated conflicts as a single conflict. The article is a clear case of

4889: 4884: 4639: 3700: 3247: 3016: 2979: 2573: 2568: 2487: 1668: 1425: 1005: 502: 62: 19651: 19071: 12914: 12708: 12689: 10573: 8646: 4279: 3328: 3097: 2861: 1058: 18159: 18018: 16677: 16017: 14512: 14145: 13864: 13540: 11878: 11129:

is EC-protected, but it's been recreated under several spelling variants in draft and main space: this one was originally created as

10095:: Some coverage from when he was on TV, but nothing since... I don't think he meets celebrity notability, seems to have faded away. 8814:, but if you do delete this article, I suggest salting that one too, because it fits the pattern of variations that he/she has tried. 8805: 8738:

shows that some previous versions of it were speedy-deleted, in addition to the previous versions deleted after deletion discussions.

7824: 7759: 6079:

being an essay, as I am sure you know, but just stating it for the record). Among bylined articles in English you have articles like

5995:

as there is no significant coverage. Out of the 12 sources on the page, only one could possibly be used. The rest are unreliable per

5937: 5620: 4974: 4893: 3550: 2932: 2658: 2577: 2422: 972: 661: 656: 190: 70: 19400:

corresponds to the title of the article. I’ll do my best to add the pages of other sources cited, though, as this might be helpful.-

18861: 18505:

I did not look at the sources you provided in your vote but I did now. Source 1 is giving me 404 error, source 2,4,5,6 are all same

16801: 16176: 15742:

https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment/television/after-ramayan-twitterati-welcome-ramanand-sagars-shri-krishna#google_vignette

14545: 13897: 13573: 13049:

The primary citations center around the IPO listing and fundraising efforts. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in

12672: 9552: 9215: 8926: 8824: 8242:

problem with the article, there isn't much context. A review would be greatly helpful - but only a publicity source? Not as much.

6027:

at all given the existing coverage. Opposed to deletion. Note: the page was accepted through the AfC process, for what it's worth. -

4481: 4186: 3295: 3064: 1326: 1229: 746: 272: 19032: 17587: 17334: 16976: 16729: 16599:: where it will only need to be verifiable, which it is, rather than to have reliable sources proving notability, which it lacks. 15414: 15124: 15063: 14815: 14469: 13821: 13497: 13176: 12149: 10746:

page. The subject has not made any significant achievement notable, nationally or internationally, to warrant a page on him. Fails

9292: 9198: 8997: 8618: 7715: 7568:, just social media profiles, interviews, and paid-for advertorials. I don't think his work is significant enough for him to pass 6986: 6249: 4941: 3230: 3126: 2999: 2625: 2216: 665: 18836: 15745: 9753: 8593: 7327: 4254:. Per Helpful Raccoon and GrabUp, this is a case of BLP1E and a person who has zero notability in the climbing world (nothing in 3897: 1982: 713: 19659:

Great analysis which just reaffirms (for me) that it exists, but verification is not notability. Thanks for doing the digging. --

18751: 18746: 15993:

https://amarujala.com/photo-gallery/entertainment/television/shri-krishna-actor-krishna-aka-sarvadaman-d-banerjee-now-where-is-he

15948:

https://hindi.news18.com/news/entertainment/tv-ramayan-will-end-today-on-doordarshan-shri-krishna-will-start-from-ss-3073219.html

15903:

We could've redirected, if for say there was any good mention of it anywhere, but any mentions of it are exotic across wikipedia

14486: 14478: 14196: 13838: 13830: 13514: 13506: 13074: 12536: 12077: 11697:

Further, NCORP has a higher standard for sources to contribute toward notability. This is due to the levels of (undisclosed; see

11571:. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails 8508: 8503: 6177: 5023: 4994: 4876: 2560: 18803: 17785: 16764: 14524: 14237: 13876: 13552: 10274: 9453: 8560: 7290: 6835: 19101: 18869: 18755: 18335: 17793: 16914: 16880: 16797: 15766: 15686: 15249: 15216: 14987: 14633: 14595: 14309: 13985: 13947: 13661: 13623: 13419: 13387: 13379: 13110: 13082: 13033: 12642: 12235: 12112: 12094: 11886: 11833: 11475: 11001: 10581: 10346: 10282: 10044: 10016: 9681: 9560: 9303: 8791:

article will remain adorned with improvement templates making it clear to readers that the contents of the article are suspect.

8626: 8609:

This has already been deleted four times and repeatedly recreated with unsatisfactory sourcing. I think it needs to be salted.

8512: 8115: 8107: 7890: 7621: 7589: 7581: 7335: 7089: 6843: 6601: 6593: 6346: 6212: 6194: 5945: 5706: 5652: 5353: 5078: 5008: 4776: 4451: 4152: 3905: 3721: 3642: 3371: 3146: 2962: 2724: 2479: 2430: 2392: 2257: 2224: 1990: 1905: 1619: 1611: 1237: 1038: 845: 648: 250: 163: 145: 78: 17: 19046:

Source 1 is unreliable source and the listing is copied from imdb with reference to imdb. No significant coverage on the film.

18446:

has passing mention that goes "Web channel National Dastak played the video of Chandrashekhar Azad addressing the protesters."

18293: 17749: 17350: 16374:

and no reliable source independent of the makers and actors of the show with indepth significant coverage to pass notability.

14979: 12145: 10939: 10540: 9716: 9420: 7257: 6798: 6245: 5236: 3871: 3634: 1565: 1204: 19565: 19012: 18680: 18596: 18398: 18134: 18060: 17989: 17561: 17274: 17246: 17135: 16657: 16619: 16409:" This source is not independent of the claim by the makers themselves. Source needs to be completely secondary independent. 15606: 15506: 15466: 15208: 15043: 14795: 14449: 14192: 14125: 13801: 13477: 13338: 13156: 13000: 12894: 12424: 12049: 11800: 11673:

Regarding the Orlando Sentinel article, that may now be moot, but it's worth noting that the newspaper is reputable, and the

11649:

from among the very few hits in Newspapers.com — but that they are trivial and/or they are routine run-of-the-mill coverage.

11391: 9979: 9749: 9698: 9368: 9363: 9267: 9173: 8723: 7548: 7205: 7200: 6556: 2359: 2186: 19214:. Bearing the lack of SIGCOV in mind, I would be ready to redirect to the director's article (who also clearly doesn't meet 19206:, we should be careful to avoid leaving non notable ones as redirects (my opinion). This article, to all eyes, doesn't meet 18260: 17716: 17339:

Also, please do not challenge every editor who has a different opinion from your own. It's called bludgeoning a discussion.

16003:

https://www.hindustantimes.com/tv/shri-krishna-the-show-that-turned-swapnil-joshi-into-god/story-pRZnHUDgao6rAmuqEwsInL.html

14934: 10906: 10507: 8272:. There's more in more or less reliable sources. I would say it allows to verify the significance of that particular role. - 6765: 3838: 2857: 1802: 1308: 1171: 18738: 18711: 17948: 17222: 16776: 16355:

Source 4 is primary source sagarworld founded by the son and grandson of Ramanand Sagar, Director and Producer of the show.

16277:

If you need further source, here's an image of it airing on Zee TV, (footage is now deleted and replaced with SD Banerjee)

15569: 13305: 12948: 12943: 12619:. It could potentially be recreated if multiple reviews from reliable independent sources are published after its release. 12030: 11748: 11743: 9946: 9372: 8728: 8718: 8495: 8381:. 17 sources on the page and all are poor. 11 of these sources are unreliable, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and unreliable 8069: 7515: 7209: 6523: 5879: 2898: 2307: 2302: 2153: 1021:

Article about a non topic, consisting of snippets of information we already cover properly and in depth in other articles.

19455:

Thank you. I was making that assumption based on no replies from previous requests as well. Thanks for taking the time. --

18420:. Reviewed the page and the sources and I do see where the mislead was attempted where title of the sources were changed. 16847: 14901: 12124: 10236: 8922: 7818: 6224: 5591: 5199: 4443: 4144: 4104: 1769: 966: 19842: 18208: 18203: 17542: 17528: 17502: 17453: 17386:'s original rationale for deletion is flawed. Being one-sided or containing discrepancies is not a good reason to delete. 17370: 17178: 16962: 15958:

https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/tv/news/when-and-how-to-watch-shree-krishna-on-doordarshan/articleshow/75501800.cms

15918:

https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment/television/krishna-cast-here-is-a-list-of-actors-and-the-characters-they-play

15534: 14682: 14358: 14034: 13710: 12952: 12349: 12335: 12320: 12195: 11752: 11354: 11288: 11275: 10854: 10849: 10455: 10450: 9728: 9250: 9135: 8963: 8036: 7081: 6896: 6713: 6708: 6295: 6143:. I think keeping would be out of reach here, but the target you've mentioned for a possible redirect sounds good to me. 5846: 5232: 3786: 3781: 3289: 3058: 2311: 1483: 1119: 1114: 798: 321: 15602: 11387: 11249: 11208: 10414:

that is sourced from paid placements and passing mentions which are insufficient to write a neutral verifiable article.

10203: 9850: 9799: 7160:

news about launch and annocement and passing mention and fails to meet organization criterias to pass notability. Fails

5558: 4935: 4396: 4071: 3608: 2853: 2619: 929: 464:

removes and archives closed debates from this page a few times a day, so there is no need to manually remove such pages.

19123: 18212: 17664: 17659: 17073:

The above argument against the deletion that "delete some pages About clashes between India and Pakistan" is baseless.

16468:, based on her interview with Sagar; the media outlet being considered generally reliable, they can be used to verify 15551: 15182: 14772: 14609: 14426: 14285: 14102: 13961: 13778: 13637: 13253: 13248: 10858: 10658:

you should spend some time familiarizing yourself with the various notability policies and guidelines especially those

10459: 10307: 10270: 9894: 9889: 9355: 8787:

Because its article history has been useful in supporting sock puppet investigations against new socks of Srabanta Deb.

8693: 7463: 7458: 7192: 7044: 6717: 6471: 6466: 5164: 3790: 2101: 2096: 1450: 1123: 707: 425: 414: 366:

for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

325: 15933:

https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/coronavirus/news/after-ramayan-shri-krishna-returns-to-dd/articleshow/75359729.cms

15581: 14520: 13872: 13548: 12634: 12594: 8918: 7781: 4363: 3575: 18797: 17822: 17668: 17498: 15278: 15149: 14849: 14844: 14561: 13913: 13589: 13460: 13257: 13139: 12935: 12086: 12078: 11735: 11536: 11304: 11067: 10379: 10081: 9898: 9105: 8713: 8708: 8698: 8554: 7814: 7650: 7467: 7404: 7142: 7011: 6654: 6475: 6416: 6186: 6178: 6076: 5739: 5444: 5211: 5181: 5107: 4809: 4267: 3456: 3252: 3021: 2802: 2516: 2294: 2105: 1717: 1712: 962: 86: 18852:

Cannot locate sources to show notability. There are a few mentions but nothing that amount to significant coverage.

15938:

https://www.indiatvnews.com/photos/entertainment-swapnil-joshi-shri-krishna-ramayan-comedy-circus-mahasangram-611899

12561: 11366: 5282: 4898: 3285: 3054: 2582: 18548: 18427:

mention that says "Yadav has previously worked with news websites like National Dastak that talk of Bahujan samaj."

18195: 17963: 17782: 15652: 14853: 11674: 11437: 11336: 11296: 11257: 10841: 10442: 9690: 9682: 9549: 9414: 8703: 8366: 8328: 7984: 7979: 7251: 7072:. Note that you will find a few in-depth sources but they are talking about the main Dangal channel, not Dangal 2. 6700: 5794: 5789: 4931: 3773: 2615: 1721: 1106: 941: 894: 670: 18440:

has passing mention that goes "There are YouTube channels widely watched by Dalits, including National Dastak...".

14516: 13868: 13544: 12994: 11794: 11117: 10696:

continuously, this is the urine of Vandalism is being done continuously on Knowledge etc. of their account edits

2353: 703: 18760: 18254: 17710: 17651: 17422: 17260: 17232: 17218: 16772: 14605: 14281: 13957: 13633: 13240: 10900: 10501: 10151: 10146: 9881: 8517: 7988: 7793: 7450: 6759: 6458: 5798: 5506: 5501: 4311: 4306: 4019: 4014: 3832: 2088: 1165: 911: 363: 265: 261: 82: 18955: 18793: 18087:

be favoured when it is possible, as it is closer to the subject than a more general list (in the present case,

16813: 15577: 13299: 12120: 9940: 8550: 7864: 7509: 6517: 6220: 3264: 3033: 2147: 1559:

Meanwhile, the independent/reliable sources do not present any of this legendary material as fact or otherwise.

1012: 17860:

that says we should keep films because it has notable casts? Definitely not going to be the second criteria of

17840:

2) search are not judged sufficient, please redirect to the director's filmography. VERY opposed to deletion. -

17538: 17524: 17494: 17449: 17366: 17320: 17270: 17242: 17174: 17131: 16958: 14895: 14836: 12345: 12331: 12316: 12161: 10155: 9724: 9377: 9278:

Relisting. I'd be interested in hearing the nominator's response to those editors arguing to Keep this article.

7746: 7214: 6261: 5510: 4910: 4853: 4315: 4023: 3422: 3403:. I don't see how the article is promotional and its a well sourced list. It serve as a informational list per 3335: 3104: 2686:

did not uncover anything promising. There's also a concern that the creator of this article has an undisclosed

2594: 1763: 1704: 1398: 1393: 15799:: As Mushy Yank said above, remove some sources, and find more reliable sources, but very opposed to deletion 12957: 11757: 9765: 9410: 8030: 7247: 5840: 4981: 2665: 2316: 682: 19751: 18217: 17673: 16768: 15543: 15535: 12990: 11790: 10863: 10464: 10197: 9660: 7971: 7763: 6722: 5781: 5552: 4065: 3795: 3523: 3518: 3217: 2986: 2349: 1402: 1311:

to the NPP editor who marked this article as reviewed, which is the reason this article wasn’t taken to AfD.

1128: 937: 753: 18772: 18250: 17706: 16358:

Source 5 is interview wirh Moti Sagar, the youngest son of Director and Producer Ramanand Sagar of the show.

15748:

etc etc); or redirect (/as a historically important series for/) to the network. Very opposed to deletion. -

13262: 12116: 11147:

I didn't want to bring up the sockpuppetry allegations until the SPI had gone through, but the page creator

10896: 10497: 9903: 8529: 7472: 6755: 6480: 6216: 3828: 2110: 1444: 1161: 19606:

Source 2, Google Snippet page 130 has an entry with translation of the film title. No significant coverage.

19584: 19105: 18843: 18694: 18355: 18323: 17395:

don't address, however, is that although there are multiple, independent, reliable sources, except for the

17121: 16642: 16543: 16282: 16252: 16213: 16198: 16156: 16128: 16100: 16086: 16050: 16032: 15908: 15880: 15865: 15837: 15823: 15804: 15097: 15092: 14858: 13295: 10138: 10032: 10004: 9936: 9720: 8600: 7505: 6959: 6954: 6513: 5493: 5470: 5391: 5207: 5173: 5165: 4863: 4555:: a standard ATD when director is notable and informations are verifiable. Therefore opposed to deletion. - 4497: 4357: 4298: 4006: 3967: 3569: 3527: 3234: 3003: 2547: 2537: 2143: 1726: 15143: 14891: 11919:: The article reads like an advertisement. Maybe you should have tried G11 first. The sources do not meet 11849:

This dairy organization does not satisfy Knowledge's notability criteria for corporations, as outlined in

11362: 9659:: The cast is certainly notable, but all I could find was a blog that mentioned that the movie was a flop 9389: 7993: 7226: 7005: 5803: 5248: 1759: 18782: 18544: 18239: 18068: 18051: 18004:. Also, since a Redirect was brought up, please supply a link to the suggested target article. Thank you. 17695: 16786: 15618: 15591: 15128: 15101: 14880: 14534: 14210: 13886: 13562: 13284: 12979: 12969: 12555: 12540: 12509: 12504: 12134: 11779: 11769: 11403: 11376: 11328: 11305: 11253: 11087: 10885: 10486: 10182: 10160: 9925: 9738: 9655: 9585: 9460: 9399: 8936: 8539: 8026: 8015: 7803: 7669: 7494: 7297: 7236: 6990: 6963: 6744: 6502: 6234: 5836: 5825: 5672: 5616: 5537: 5515: 5221: 5026: 4997: 4920: 4657: 4342: 4320: 4050: 4028: 3817: 3554: 3274: 3174: 3043: 2871: 2604: 2564: 2338: 2328: 2132: 1748: 1429: 1385: 1150: 951: 692: 635: 317: 58: 19636:

Source 12 is about one of the song from the film remade for modern audiences. Nothing significant again.

18465:

has passing mention that says "Speaking to National Dastak after organizing ‘Blood donation’ programme".

18229: 17685: 16459: 15573: 13040: 11840: 11592:. I've expanded the article by adding several references, including to a fairly in-depth profile in the 10875: 10476: 10193: 8663:. Sources are just random book on sale and couple others with not even passing mention from what I see. 6734: 5548: 4061: 3807: 2399: 1868: 1407: 1140: 18576:

one provides some detail but isn't in-depth (and if considered in-depth, that leaves one reference). --

18300: 17756: 13274: 12513: 12409: 11170: 11029: 10984: 10946: 10547: 9915: 8169: 7789: 7484: 6805: 6492: 6378: 6329: 6156: 6060: 5973: 5928: 5412: 5203: 5145:

for now and perhaps list notable Queen consorts there. If that list grows large enough, we can restart

4538: 4516: 3878: 3532: 3510: 2764: 2707: 2122: 1440: 1211: 903: 895: 652: 17173:- Okay, Can you please clarify and tell how it does not establish WP:GNG? Keeping is a better option. 15967: 15438: 15106: 14870: 14616:

but IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point.

14292:

but IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point.

13968:

but IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point.

13644:

but IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point.

13345: 11358: 9986: 7830: 7555: 6968: 6563: 4353: 3565: 3260: 3029: 2193: 1738: 978: 18725: 17629: 16699: 15139: 15084: 15027: 14967: 14941: 12518: 12388: 8836:

All I can see is a bunch of modern unreliable sources dedicated to the glorification of this person.

8446: 8005: 7307: 7061: 7001: 6946: 6815: 6573: 5815: 4906: 4849: 4220: 3301: 3070: 2590: 1935: 1809: 933: 359: 19642:

Entries, trivial and passing mention only and no source addresses the topic directly and in detail.

19576:

Further analysis of whether the available sources provide significant coverage would be appreciated.

13202:

If you are familiar with the notability guidelines, would you mind adding them here by conducting a

12551: 10172: 8076: 5886: 5527: 4947: 4332: 4040: 3125:

but IPs (likely LOGOUTSOCKin) have challenged so here we are. Would have recommend a redirect as an

2631: 1939: 678: 19135: 18742: 18715: 12496: 12034: 11447: 10601: 10569: 10243: 9158: 8499: 7906: 7878: 7785: 7755: 7747: 5628: 5598: 4111: 1897: 1515:

one who presents himself as the current head of the Jhala dynasty and heir of its legendary founder

1419: 719: 18768: 17537:

The page about the clash between East Pakistan and India and the one with Bangladesh and Myanmar.

17070:

has to be satisfied. Even right now, Bangladesh is saying that Indian BSF is killing Bangladeshis.

16018:

https://hindi.scoopwhoop.com/entertainment/where-is-1993-shri-krishna-show-sudama-actor-mukul-nag/

11114: 8525: 3544: 3256: 3178:: given the existing coverage; not opposed to Keep if other users think a standalone page is OK. - 3025: 1490: 19580: 19370:

Thank you but it is no help and thank you for your final reply. Nothing significant as expected.

19298: 18809: 18690: 18351: 18319: 17200: 16539: 16278: 16248: 16209: 16194: 16152: 16124: 16096: 16082: 16046: 16028: 15904: 15876: 15861: 15833: 15819: 15800: 15301: 15118: 11292: 11279: 11090: 10028: 10000: 9816: 9342: 9315: 9246: 9219: 9131: 8566: 7179: 6980: 5466: 5387: 4902: 4493: 4403: 3963: 3615: 3487: 3226: 3218: 2995: 2987: 2586: 2533: 1083: 1073: 794: 336: 117: 19736: 19731: 19218:) if reliable sources that could be used to verify the cast and crew of the film are provided. 15189: 13054: 12530: 9385: 7222: 7051: 674: 18644: 18565: 18373: 17104: 17046: 17007: 16568: 16371: 16241: 16078: 16060: 16059:

Not worth entertaining a discussion when the first reference you supplied falls squarely under

15746:

https://theprint.in/india/after-ramayan-and-mahabharat-now-shri-krishna-to-return-on-dd/407561/

15662: 13193: 12965: 12922: 12601: 12473: 12298: 11965: 11906: 11874: 11765: 11722: 11706: 11654: 11503: 11463: 11237: 11197: 10303: 10266: 9858: 9426: 9359: 9231: 9006:

Monstrously huge and growing unmaintainable fancruft list where most of the tracks do not pass

8735: 7665: 7263: 7196: 6914:

announcements and one has no coverage at all. No significant coverage on the channel and fails

6019: 6000: 5668: 5612: 5146: 5020: 4991: 4872: 4864: 4263: 4200: 3976:

gptzero's false positive rate isn't great - but I agree, I believe this is an LLM creation. --

3114: 2556: 2548: 2324: 2281: 2063: 2006: 1978: 1819: 1635: 1607: 1500: 1362: 1253: 1225: 19080:

I referenced two sources in Award section and noted a film in several Marathi books such as -.

18764: 18225: 17681: 17638: 16688:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

13006: 11806: 10871: 10719:

Every editor has the right to give his opinion on AFD lmatters, the manner in which two User @

10472: 8521: 6730: 5040:

comes up on Knowledge, so maybe it could be more of a list-class article. I'd say redirect to

4328: 3803: 2365: 1136: 18496: 18408: 18266: 18167: 17817: 17722: 17624:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

17297: 16695: 16694:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

15309: 15273: 13455: 13270: 13134: 12939: 12405: 11739: 11531: 11160: 11062: 11019: 10974: 10912: 10828: 10774:

the image used in the article is a posed photo of Sonawane, which you uploaded to Commons at

10513: 10429: 10374: 10076: 9911: 9100: 8845: 8440: 8382: 8165: 8161: 7645: 7480: 7399: 7137: 6891: 6771: 6687: 6649: 6488: 6436: 6411: 6368: 6319: 6146: 6050: 5996: 5963: 5918: 5734: 5439: 5408: 5306: 5102: 4804: 4744: 4534: 4512: 4417: 3844: 3745: 3451: 3357: 3122: 2797: 2754: 2697: 2511: 2298: 2118: 1177: 1093: 644: 636: 14866: 13311: 10963:. Many of the sources cited in the article are unreliable, and the ones that are don't have 9952: 9381: 7521: 7218: 6529: 2159: 1734: 19813: 19797: 19778: 19762: 19681: 19647: 19525: 19512: 19503:

I was able to verify all the sources you added and as expected nothing significant to pass

19494: 19446: 19401: 19375: 19355: 19327: 19302: 19284: 19256: 19230: 19190: 19164: 19111: 19067: 18997: 18960: 18939: 18903: 18523: 18514:

the journalist himself to another news media. This is all routine news. Not enough to pass

18480: 18199: 18113: 18092: 17935: 17896: 17841: 17779: 17520: 17510: 17438: 17266: 17238: 17161: 17127: 17078: 16945: 16582: 16520: 16449: 16428: 16414: 16390: 16379: 16330: 16266: 15894: 15778: 15749: 15728: 15320: 15023: 14907: 14780: 14730: 14709: 14434: 14406: 14385: 14110: 14082: 14061: 13786: 13758: 13737: 13227: 12961: 12867: 12857: 12837: 12822: 12792: 12759: 12738: 12384: 12013: 11761: 11612:

Have you noted that this "fairly in-depth profile" has no author? So, no — an advertorial (

11580: 11138: 10845: 10818: 10783: 10755: 10692: 9868: 9638: 9625: 9594: 9546: 9011: 8668: 8394: 8363: 8348: 8325: 8295: 8273: 8251: 8244: 8226: 8183: 8139: 8132: 8103: 8096: 8001: 7948: 7694: 7437: 7427: 7169: 6923: 6704: 6677: 6445: 6107: 6028: 5811: 5688: 5633: 5337: 5321: 4590: 4583: 4556: 4216: 4212: 3981: 3925: 3893: 3777: 3200: 3179: 2320: 2075: 1775: 1341: 1110: 829: 813: 74: 19345:

significant, maybe not satisfactory, I agree, because we cannot check the full text, but

19062:

but after 4 pages of search, I could not find any secondary independent reliable sources.

18221: 18088: 17677: 17497:

should be familiar with the reason for deletion since two of those are his creations. His

10867: 10468: 10168: 8042: 6726: 5852: 5523: 4735:

sources. There is no academic source that has given significant coverage to this subject.

4036: 3799: 1132: 110: 8: 19619:

Source 6 is same listing of cast, director, producer, musicians. No significant coverage.

19215: 19049:

Source 2 is same listing of cast, director, producer, musicians. No significant coverage.

18734: 18726: 17856:

Yank, I have seen you say this in different AFDs, could you please point out the part of

17655: 16577:

Demonstrate so called reliable sources present that has not already been analysed above.

16464: 14823: 14705: 14381: 14057: 13733: 13367: 13266: 13244: 13062: 12259: 11685: 11603: 11559: 10731: 10724: 10708: 10688: 10637: 10597: 10565: 10398: 10209: 10100: 9907: 9885: 9836: 9332: 9154: 8745: 8491: 8447: 8421: 7926: 7902: 7874: 7476: 7311: 7065: 6819: 6577: 6484: 6462: 6080: 5632:

and her career as a teen beauty pageant has received some coverage. Maybe an ATD exists?-

5564: 5373: 5063: 5049: 4573: 4551: 4530: 4077: 3387: 2114: 2092: 1691: 1415: 124: 16261:

Production company is considered primary and not secondary independent reliable source.

14862: 12330:

and WP:Lasting", Even when, It is clearly notable event with coverage many years later.

6308:. The sources in the article have only passing mentions of the subject, if that, and no 3540: 1847:

and the current head of the so-called "dynasty." It includes fantastic stories from the

1730: 1456: 19801: 19766: 19709: 19664: 19550: 19460: 19431: 18885: 18857: 18581: 17392: 17192: 17030: 16991: 16901: 16867: 16231: 16184: 16142: 16114: 16068: 15851: 15702: 15674: 15478: 15114: 15007: 14975: 14840: 14755: 14692: 14653: 14621: 14368: 14329: 14297: 14044: 14005: 13973: 13720: 13681: 13649: 13407: 13375: 13215: 13098: 13070: 12909: 12782: 12704: 12685: 12440: 12222: 11221: 9812: 9671: 9236: 9211: 9121: 9070: 9047: 9024: 8265: 7997: 7958: 7609: 7577: 7371: 7351: 7323: 7109: 7077: 6976: 6863: 6831: 6621: 6589: 6008: 5807: 5768: 5325: 5154: 4578: 4369: 4275: 4255: 4196: 3581: 3483: 3418: 3404: 3162: 3134: 2040: 1708: 1079: 817: 767: 103: 95: 19746: 19741: 18063:

is small but showed that the film may be historical as well as added to the career of

15155: 12526: 10164: 7017: 5519: 4324: 4032: 2532:- not notable, self-published sourcing, and editor has not taken into account advice. 1844: 1514: 264:. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at 19220: 19160: 19140: 18925: 18653: 18640: 18561: 18506: 18369: 18073: 17866: 17608: 17600: 17474: 17470: 17430: 17426: 17210: 16712: 16564: 15293: 15237: 15204: 12721: 12567: 12469: 12367: 12359: 12209: 12205: 11961: 11931:. The article includes the company’s products in a way that is entirely promotional. 11902: 11870: 11854: 11702: 11650: 11572: 11499: 11459: 11234: 11194: 10294: 10257: 10110: 9854: 9351: 9343: 8642: 8614: 7975: 7736: 7306:

References are brief mentions or routine announcements. Parent page was soft deleted

7188: 7180: 7157: 7060:

References are brief mentions or routine announcements. Parent page was soft deleted

6911: 6814:

References are brief mentions or routine announcements. Parent page was soft deleted

6572:

References are brief mentions or routine announcements. Parent page was soft deleted

6140: 5785: 5480: 5127: 4832: 4765: 4285: 4122: 3993: 3659: 3630: 2467: 2418: 2413: 2245: 2212: 2059: 2002: 1974: 1631: 1603: 1411: 1358: 1249: 1221: 1054: 1026: 16498:

Swapnil had a huge fan following because of the show. People thought he was Krishna.

10556:

Moved to mainspace, perhaps before it is ready. I certainly do not see any pass of

3536: 1569:

gives a brief mention to Ajja Jhala (p. 49 and the same anecdote repeated on p. 87).

328:

etc.) related to India. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except

19211: 18989: 18540: 18492: 18404: 18040: 18032: 17972: 17923: 17806: 17292: 16638: 16493:

The show was shot in Gujarat’s Umbergaon and Vadodara, where they put up huge sets.

15666: 15341: 15305: 15262: 15199: 15110: 14963: 14959: 14666: 14342: 14018: 13694: 13444: 13363: 13123: 13050: 12931: 12923: 12730: 12667: 12629: 12001: 11957: 11941: 11920: 11858: 11731: 11723: 11628: 11593: 11551: 11520: 11130: 11051: 10968: 10964: 10798: 10701: 10671: 10411: 10363: 10142: 10065: 9809: 9617: 9089: 9007: 8838: 8820: 8801: 8656: 8413: 8386: 8225:

for example) and coverage allowing verification. Remove social media if you wish. -

8216: 8179: 8157: 7689:. The reception segment on the page is also wrong and not supported by the source. 7682: 7634: 7569: 7388: 7126: 6972: 6880: 6638: 6432: 6400: 6313: 6309: 5912: 5723: 5428: 5300: 5091: 4793: 4737: 4476: 4438: 4413: 4302: 4239: 4181: 4139: 4010: 3679: 3440: 3350: 3118: 2950: 2786: 2683: 2679: 2500: 2290: 2282: 2207: 1946: 1886:

Meanwhile, the independent sources do not present any of this legendary genealogy.

1583: 1517:. It presents a fantastic story of Ajja Jhala leading an army into battle headless. 1372: 1321: 1297: 451: 346: 46: 42: 19138:

and provide the full bibliographical details, most importantly, the page numbers.

18829: 18286: 17742: 16833: 15638: 15364: 15175: 14927: 14581: 14257: 13933: 13609: 13331: 13026: 12587: 12522: 12181: 11826: 11637:

is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.

11458:

of the subject in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject.

11423: 10932: 10533: 10229: 9972: 9785: 9509: 9446: 8983: 8879:

Articles for deletion/List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (3rd nomination)

8874:

Articles for deletion/List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (2nd nomination)

8586: 8062: 7850: 7541: 7283: 7037: 6791: 6549: 6281: 5872: 5584: 5268: 4967: 4704: 4389: 4097: 3864: 3601: 3321: 3090: 2918: 2651: 2385: 2179: 1795: 1476: 1197: 998: 739: 19809: 19774: 19686: 19643: 19530: 19508: 19504: 19490: 19442: 19406: 19371: 19360: 19323: 19307: 19280: 19261: 19235: 19207: 19186: 19169: 19063: 19059: 18993: 18985: 18965: 18944: 18920: 18908: 18899: 18519: 18515: 18476: 18472: 18191: 18168: 18118: 18097: 18056: 18001: 17931: 17919: 17901: 17857: 17846: 17774: 17770: 17625: 17506: 17434: 17418: 17157: 17074: 16941: 16719: 16603: 16578: 16525: 16445: 16433: 16410: 16395: 16375: 16335: 16262: 16245: 15890: 15783: 15754: 15724: 15325: 14776: 14735: 14714: 14674: 14430: 14411: 14390: 14350: 14106: 14087: 14066: 14026: 13782: 13763: 13742: 13702: 13207: 13058: 12872: 12853: 12842: 12818: 12814: 12797: 12775: 12764: 12734: 12726: 12616: 12009: 12005: 11928: 11866: 11850: 11576: 11134: 10960: 10837: 10829: 10814: 10779: 10751: 10747: 10743: 10663: 10650: 10561: 10557: 10438: 10430: 9643: 9621: 9613: 9599: 9541: 9537: 9150: 9015: 8664: 8390: 8358: 8344: 8338: 8320: 8300: 8278: 8231: 8188: 7944: 7940: 7690: 7423: 7419: 7165: 7161: 6919: 6915: 6696: 6688: 6673: 6669: 6112: 6044: 6033: 5992: 5908: 5896: 5693: 5638: 5333: 5292: 5142: 5122: 5041: 4728: 4561: 4425: 4208: 4204: 4126: 3977: 3921: 3889: 3769: 3746: 3497: 3471: 3345: 3205: 3184: 2942: 1574: 1543:

The article also cites two explicitly fictional works to support factual claims:

1389: 1337: 1102: 1094: 825: 10393:: Still a !delete, appears to be PROMO. Recreation after salting is a bad sign. 5903:

this article has attracted. I didn't think it was appropriate to tag this under

19052:

Source 3 is a link to a song on YouTube video. Nothing significant here either.

18934:

My point is: The cast+the director+the music director are notable, and it is a

18064: 18000:

Relisting. I'd like to hear more opinions on whether or not this subject meets

17861: 17647: 17639: 16926: 15071: 14955: 13359: 13236: 13228: 13203: 12275: 12255: 11982: 11679: 11597: 11555: 11451: 11111: 11105: 10769: 10728: 10705: 10655: 10634: 10626: 10394: 10096: 9877: 9869: 9832: 9572: 9328: 8784:

Because whenever it has been deleted, it has been recreated shortly afterwards.

8417: 8290: 8205: 8086:

account which does not help show notability. Article should return to being a

7922: 7446: 7438: 6933: 6454: 6446: 6305: 6102:

but not a real sequel, as it has different characters, makes a redirect to the

5900: 5369: 5045: 4727:

POVCRUFT dedicated to the glorification of a particular caste largely based on

3941: 3733: 3514: 3383: 2974: 2691: 2675: 2269: 2084: 2076: 1679: 1354: 1284: 1269: 882: 865: 461: 307: 54: 19726: 19721: 19831: 19705: 19701: 19660: 19546: 19456: 19427: 19203: 18881: 18853: 18577: 18315: 18311: 17927: 17766: 17412: 17399:

retrospective from a couple of weeks after the fact, and the one sentence in

17383: 17188: 17067: 17021: 16982: 16892: 16858: 16227: 16180: 16138: 16110: 16064: 15847: 15698: 15670: 15088: 15003: 14971: 14951: 14832: 14824: 14751: 14688: 14649: 14617: 14613: 14364: 14325: 14293: 14289: 14040: 14001: 13969: 13965: 13716: 13677: 13645: 13641: 13403: 13371: 13355: 13211: 13094: 13066: 12904: 12811: 12778: 12753: 12700: 12681: 12611: 12483: 12461: 12434: 12401: 12380: 12213: 12026: 11924: 11862: 11698: 11667: 11217: 11213: 10956: 10659: 10630: 10615: 10332: 9996: 9667: 9533: 9065: 9042: 9019: 8660: 8269: 7711: 7686: 7605: 7573: 7565: 7367: 7347: 7319: 7315: 7105: 7073: 7069: 6950: 6859: 6827: 6823: 6617: 6585: 6581: 6004: 5758: 5608: 5459: 5150: 4845: 4732: 4421: 4271: 3959: 3694: 3675: 3625: 3414: 3158: 3130: 2687: 2409: 2203: 2036: 1970: 1962: 1954: 1950: 1923: 1700: 1692: 1662: 1599: 1591: 1587: 763: 186: 19700:

Redirect is not an issue but "not deleted" is not the same thing as "keep."

7156:. Poor sources with no significant coverage on the channel and all are just 4215:

individual; she documented her activities on Instagram and gave interviews.

3129:

but doesn't seem that is an option at this point since that was challenged.

19483: 17604: 16352:

Source 3 has passing mention with sale of VCD and the price being sold for.

16223: 16123:

no. I am not. This show is of significance and deserves a page, no arguing

14771:. Too many unneeded statistical data and the winners are already listed in 14425:. Too many unneeded statistical data and the winners are already listed in 14101:. Too many unneeded statistical data and the winners are already listed in 13777:. Too many unneeded statistical data and the winners are already listed in 12465: 12363: 10697: 8680:. The current article was created by the following block-evading socks of 8638: 8610: 8221: 7967: 7959: 7732: 7724: 5904: 5777: 5769: 5465:

of the same sockmaster. Agree with nominator's original reasoning as well.

5296: 4828: 4824: 4761: 2055: 1958: 1827: 1050: 1022: 241:

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to

50: 19229:

There are imv sources on the page to verify partially the cast and crew. -

12400:

The incident was itself so insignificant that it makes sense why it fails

6134: 5299:

has been provided that treats these separate conflicts as a singular one.

19319: 18036: 17968: 16634: 15720: 12658: 12620: 11997: 11952: 11932: 11084: 10794: 10720: 10684: 10667: 10622: 10134: 10111: 8817: 8798: 5489: 5481: 5462: 4467: 4429: 4424:

as no multiple critical reviews were cited, and therefore, it also fails

4294: 4286: 4230: 4172: 4130: 4002: 3994: 3710: 2946: 2027:

Genealogy, Archive, Image: Interpreting Dynastic History in Western India

1966: 1840:

Genealogy, Archive, Image: Interpreting Dynastic History in Western India

1595: 1510:

Genealogy, Archive, Image: Interpreting Dynastic History in Western India

1312: 1288: 370:

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

19293:

Most of them, indeed, the Gbooks refs, are mentioned as a whole in your

17191:. There're independent sources added, and perhaps worth reconsidering. – 17071: 12852:??? Why are you making big fuss about it? It is just a general comment. 9612:. 4 poor sources where 2 are entries and other 2 passing mention. Fails 8268:(and again, can be considered an uncontroversial statement). Also see: 5611:

and general notability guidelines. No significant contribution to films

17491:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/2014 Bangladesh-Myanmar border skirmish

16979: 16716: 16600: 15860:

Absolutely true, but it takes some time to find some reliable sources.

12817:, please page should not be moved to draft while this AFD is in place. 11613: 8385:

and the other 6 are passing mention and not independent. Subject fails

5037: 4581:

the article (or actually both!). Not enough there to show notability.

1381: 1373: 18403:, and a handful of others. There's not a lot of detail, hence "weak". 452:

Points to remember when debating in India related deletion discussions

17487:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/1958 East Pakistan-India border clash

16240:

I can't find any adequate source as all would "apparently fall under

15389: 14663:

Also pinging the three other participants from the 2023 discussion -

14339:

Also pinging the three other participants from the 2023 discussion -

14015:

Also pinging the three other participants from the 2023 discussion -

13691:

Also pinging the three other participants from the 2023 discussion -

11099: 11093: 6139:

shows that they have no editorial team, and the latter seems to be a

3506: 3498: 17479:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/August 2022 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes

4511:: Nothing in the article or from BEFORE to substantiate notability. 1864:

book that repeats and embellishes the same rather fantastic legends.

1530:

book that repeats and embellishes the same rather fantastic legends.

382:

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

19210:

and if the casts are notable, then there should be a bit, atleast,

19023: 18658: 18612: 18150: 18009: 17947:

per Mushy Yank, notable cast , notable director, notable musicians.

17578: 17362: 17361:

Yeah and it is true, A lot of them have not done it in Good Faith.

17341: 17325: 16668: 15968:

https://www.thelivemirror.com/doordarshan-brings-back-shri-krishna/

15517: 15486: 15080: 15072: 15054: 14806: 14460: 14136: 13812: 13488: 13167: 13053:(or any other) case. At the time of this nomination, an agency had 12060: 10778:

as your own work. What's your connection with Mr. Sonawane please?

10325: 9283: 9189: 8211: 8091: 7707: 7064:. The only channel in this group that is possibly notable would be 6942: 6934: 5754: 3683: 1651: 630: 18572:

simply mentions a journalist that works for National Dastak while

18510: 11320:

Articles for deletion/Hindu University of America (2nd nomination)

10410:

Fundamentally nothing has changed since the first two AFDs, still

6128: 4195:: No coverage in climbing media so her climbs are not notable per 1861: 1527: 12492: 12484: 8869:

Articles for deletion/List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle

4259: 19625:

Source 8 is link to YouTube video of a song. No coverage at all.

18560:- The issue is that the additional sources provided do not meet 16427:

article here? The major part is attributed to the journalist. -

4420:, The Times of India is not a reliable source. It fails to meet 1973:

for lack of SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources.

260:

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at

17620:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2682:

of the subject, only mentions or coverage of related subjects.

2058:

article covers this ground without retailing legends as facts.

1909:

has a single paragraph describing the Jhalas as a "minor clan."

16027:

These are some sources that I found. I think they're reliable

11996:. Poor to unreliable sources. Clearly promotional page. Fails 10727:

target some Pages is tantamount to disrupting the Knowledge."

1822:

on the Jhala family created by a now-blocked sockmaster. (See

19568: