Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaidika Senjaliya

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidika Senjaliya[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not finding sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR or WP:NBIO, included sources are noted as no consensus - questionable on WP:RSP ASUKITE 17:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, India, and Gujarat. ASUKITE 17:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Times of India is a flagship news source for India, so its use confers notability, if not reliability. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:443C:9603:3623:E956 (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:GNG: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That said, I'm not saying Times of India isn't reliable, but that we as a community have been unable to agree on whether it is. If we have other sources meeting these guidelines, the article could be kept. ASUKITE 19:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Times of India is not "a flagship news source for India". If anything, it is known for paid news, paid reviews and such. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete The subject doesnt have significant coverage, thus failing general notability criteria. Subject also fails notability criteria for actors. General comment: there have been many debates over TOI's reliability. Personally, I have come to conclusion that TOI cant/shouldnt be used to establish notability. It may be used to verify certian facts, not all though. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator.Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per these sources [1] and [2] Perhaps there are other sources in other languages in India. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist, to evaluate sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As of this datestamp, not a single source applied or linked in this discussion meets the standard of directly detailing significant coverage in independent reliable sources. FTR, WP:RSNP lists TOI as "between no consensus and generally unreliable." What coverage has been presented is routine entertainment news (mostly quotes from the subject) and not direct detailing. A reasonable BEFORE finds social media and more subject-provided enagement. BusterD (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per usernamekiran and BusterD Andre🚐 05:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.