Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Uttar Pradesh

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Uttar Pradesh. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Uttar Pradesh|~~~~}} 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.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Uttar Pradesh.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Uttar Pradesh/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Articles for deletion[edit]

Syed Zafrul Hasan Rizvi[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. SL93 (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from a cursory Google search, it seems like this is someone who might be (barely) notable if you're an islamic scholar who knows where to find the right sources to back everything up. While I know WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, this article is in such a dire state of unsourced, highly original disrepair (and has been for over a decade) that if I ripped out everything that isn't verifiable we're gonna be down to a single sentence with no indication of notability. Regretfully, I propose WP:TNT. BrigadierG (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not any reliable sources on the page with significant coverage on the subject. This is another one of those WP:SYNTH pages where an editor uses his own analysis or synthesis of materials that implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my check, I found not a single reliable source with in-depth coverage that can establish notability for the subject. The subject fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 11:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed WP:GNG, nothing found about this person. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Shein Kunwar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was nominated for AfD before, closed as soft delete, and then restored. Clearly does not meet notability guidelines; the only source is a dead link. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability for authors; the one source used in the article isn't helpful. I can't find any sort of discussion in a RS. This was deleted on the 8th of May. I'd likely SALT as well. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If I had to remove all the unsourced content on the page, only the title would be left on the page. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rohilkhand[edit]

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

The article fails WP:N and WP: SIGCOV, no mention of "Battle of Rohilkhand" in the sources which are cited poorly through keyword searching and contains original research. I have checked the sources and nowhere I found a thing related to this event, clearly a WP:HOAX article. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 11:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax or at best nonsensical SYNTH. the creator has produced a run of dodgy Indian military history articles. Mccapra (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katokhar, Ambedkar Nagar[edit]

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

Found nothing per WP:GEOLAND as no census data and history found. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election[edit]

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

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.

I've found some sources for this election, but they're mostly in passing, so I don't think an article right now is appropriate - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Soni (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. (Especially considering the sourcing.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There will be a number of duplicate comments on this given how 5 different AFDs were based on the same prior consensus (they didn't fall under WP:MULTIAFD by my read). So I'm going to make all general comments about evaluation of NCRYSTAL and similar on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Assam Legislative Assembly election instead of replying the same things 5x. I'll keep finding sources or replying about sources in each specific AFD. Soni (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer The problem is that the sourcing is completely in passing or just vaguely alludes to things.

1 literally mentions the assembly elections once (in title) saying "The upcoming Lok Sabha elections will be a test for the 2027 assembly elections (this article)."

2 is the same, it's a listicle style video news, asking "Why is Akhilesh Yadav not fighting in Lok Sabha elections" and answering with 5-6 reasons, only one of which is "Because he has an eye out on 2027".

3 is similar. The only mention of this article is in one throwaway line saying "They're ready to make OBC govt in 2027"

4's only mention is "Congress may extend their Lok Sabha election alliance to 2027"

5 is again only saying "The Lok Sabha elections may tell us how the 2027 elections will turn"

Each of those sources have exactly 1 sentence that talks about the article (the next UP LA election) and it's always in context of the Lok Sabha. It's consistently throwaway and never actually covering the topic in any way. There is no electoral plans or promises or schedules or anything, it's pretty much just "What we do in this election may also affect the future". That's not coverage Soni (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The event is a notable one and almost certain to take place, which is your only deletion rationale - there's no rule that we have to have specific election dates in order to include an article on an upcoming election, and there are sources which do clearly allude that it will be taking place. SportingFlyer T·C 18:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm just rebutting your "Especially given the sourcing" because I have gone through the sources and noted that none of them actually discuss this election other than to say "Something in this other election may also affect the next UP LA elections". And that's as good as passing. Compare this to the next Tamil Nadu elections, where there's multiple sources about parties directly discussing the specific next election ("PMK aims to form TN government in 2026: Anbumani", for example).

There's a more general discussion to be had on "Should we have an article even if no sources discuss the next election". I don't plan on repeating my arguments for it in all 5 related (but not the same) XFDs, so mentioning in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Assam Legislative Assembly election. I believe there should only be an article if we also have some sources about the election, and local consensus at other AFDs agrees. Soni (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yet another WP:TOOSOON article. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 07:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same here. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha invasion of Awadh[edit]

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

Full of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR mess, fails notability as we don't find "Maratha invasion of Awadh" in the sources (clearly made up by the starter of article), instead there are several other events like "Invasion of Bhadawar", "raid on Delhi" and "Battle of Jalesar". Clearly the author has mixed up several battles and conflicts to get this resulted article. Based Kashmiri (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, As per above comment Rawn3012 (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you are selecting articles for deletion for no reason in actual, you may don't like these article just say it. Combination of those articles has been disscussed long ago and admins gave the permission to Merge it DeepstoneV (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just avoid your first three lines because I want productive discussion, only suggest you to go through WP:AADP. For the rest, I guess you're referring to this discussion but no one is there proposed for merging it in a new article named "Maratha invasion of Awadh" It's just the opinion of ImperialAficionado. The result of the discussion was delete not merge. Admins didn't give permission to merge it. And stop removing the AFD template. Based Kashmiri (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article "Maratha invasion of Awadh" is not supported by any reliable sources rather the user who created the page just pushed his POV by adding different battles together in a single article. Moreover The New Cambridge History of India Vol 2 Part 4 pg 125 clearly states that Bajirao 1737 expedition (including Delhi) was indecisive not a Mughal victory, also this is a reliable source. Here is the exact quotation from the book; The campaign of 1737 was indecisive, though Bajirao attacked Delhi, even briefly holding the Emperor to ransom. So even results are not appropriate in the different individual battles which are mixed up and displayed here. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk)

Delete or Merge This was a prelude of Bhopal campaign better known as Battle of Bhopal.

I better say that delete this as this totally consisted on WP:SYNTH or merge this in Battle of Bhopal as this was the prelude of the campaign. The whole of Bajirao campaign in Delhi was resulted in Bhopal and annexation of Malwa according to Jaswant Lal Mehta and other WP:RS. पापा जी (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parvinder Singh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:NCRIC. He has played in domestic-level cricket.. but does not appear to meet the notability requirement maintained by the cricket wikiproject. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Cricket. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A substantial domestic career, with 8 centuries and a high score of 203 not out; sources in Indian print media are bound to exist, his career isn't one which will go without coverage. AA (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage here. GoldRomean (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - beside his Cricinfo profile which gives a career overview, there looks to be a fair bit of coverage regarding individual innings. Hindustan Times 26 November 2009, Telegraph India 2 November 2013, The Statesman 7 January 2009, Indian Express 20 November 2012. He has played at the highest level of domestic cricket and this seems sufficient coverage to justify an article. --JP (Talk) 08:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Primary match reports are routine news and per NSPORT and NOTNEWS do not count towards notability, and that is all I'm finding for the subject (including among the links above). Sportspeople are required to have IRS SIGCOV cited in their article, regardless of their achievements and regardless of where or when they played. JoelleJay (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV not regarding individual matches also exists if you look hard enough. --JP (Talk) 07:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That does go somewhat beyond a routine transactional report, so I'll reconsider my !vote. I'm not overly familiar with what's routine in cricket outside of match reports, though, so I'm going to ping @Wjemather for his input. JoelleJay (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Think there's enough here in what JP has found for a keep. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]