This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to India. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. 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:deletion sorting|India|sig=~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to India. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
I propose deletion as this doctor does not meet the notability requirements. A Google Search for "Dr. Vidyadhara Srinivasa" returns no reliable secondary sources, a Google Books search only returns an offhand mention in a textbook, and Google News returns nothing. African Mud Turtle (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Fertiliser Corporation of India: I tagged this for notability in 2011 and added its sole citation 11 years later but that really falls under WP:CORPTRIV. I am not seeing anything of specific note, and the Fertiliser Corporation of India article is far better in explaining the financial context in which FAGMIL was created, so a redirect seems a reasonable option. AllyD (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
The subject does not meet WP:GNG. It might have more coverage in the local press, but in its present state, I think deletion should be considered; both cited sources are unreliable Ar1201u1 (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
The subject does not meet WP:GNG; there is a mention in one reliable source, and the rest of the sources refer to the case itself and not to an independent, reliable secondary source. I am sure it is mentioned in several law books, but I don't think that will meet the bar for inclusion Ar1201u1 (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and India. WCQuidditch☎✎ 01:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Only 1 review present, could not find any others in a BEFORE. Needs at least 2 reviews to pass notability requirements. DonaldD23talk to me 23:49, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
All references to the survey link to old news reports only, a significant part of the article is WP:OR, I doubt if it meets WP:GNG, not an official statistics Ar1201u1 (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
no significant independent coverage to meet WP:BIO in over 20 years! IndrasBet (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: I can only find community wikis for the religious group, or primary sources. The DVD used as sourcing in the article isn't enough... We don't have sigcov, non-notable person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete I can't find any significant, independent coverage of him. There are some passing mentions in GBooks but they don't give any information. 17:59, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. The only sources are the organisation's own DVDs and community material. Searches find no independent biographical coverage, so WP:GNG is not met and the succession claims cannot sustain an article. Onatic (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: this did survive the first nomination from 2021. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch☎✎ 01:47, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: While the case of puffery seems to be present, it can be corrected by any editor, the article however seems to pass WP:GNG and therefore does not warrant a deletion. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Since the last AfD we no longer grant inherent notability to schools. Fails NSCHOOL. Only 2 google news hits. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. IndrasBet (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. A directory entry is the only cited source, and additional searches yield no significant independent reporting. This fails WP:NSCHOOL; the older keep predates the current standards for organisations. Onatic (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails NSCHOOL. Mainly primary sources provided. Only 2 google news hits. Declined prod for possibly notable due to boat strategy. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep as there is reliable sources coverage of a boat tragedy linked to this school as per here and hereAtlantic306 (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs because there is no reason to have a separate article on the chairperson of the body, the info on this page should go there Ar1201u1 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I recommend keeping and improving the article. The Chairperson heads the Indirect Taxation, is the most senior functionary guarding Indian economic frontiers and supervises several other Law Enforcement bodies (Central Bureau of Narcotics, India [Not NCB], DRI and DGGI) in most populous country and 5th largest economy.
Notability: Covered Above.
The Chairpersonship has a distinct encyclopaedic scope: the office’s status, appointment process, tenure and historical succession. The CBIC article addresses the organisation’s structure, jurisdiction and functions. Independent reporting on selection rules and tenure provides material for substantive coverage of the office itself, while the documented succession since 1964 supplies historical depth. A brief leadership overview in the CBIC article, linked to fuller treatment here, would give both articles a clear purpose and serve readers seeking different levels of detail.
Further a separate article provides depth to a reader looking for evolution and persona of the holders of this critical office.
The office has received independent coverage beyond routine appointment announcements. Business Standard’s report, “FM for implementing Mankad panel report in selecting revenue board heads” (10 November 2010), discusses changes to eligibility for the chairmanship and proposals for a minimum tenure. The Times of India’s “Troubleshooter FM can’t fix DoPT hurdle” (11 March 2011) examines the disagreement over implementing those tenure arrangements. These sources discuss the office itself and provide evidence relevant to the general notability guideline.
Official sources provide further material for developing the article. The Department of Revenue identifies the chairperson as ex officio Special Secretary to the Government of India, at Secretary level. CBIC also maintains a historical succession list extending back to 1964. These sources establish the institutional facts and chronology, while the independent reporting provides the notability evidence.
The two articles can therefore serve distinguishable purposes: the CBIC article covers the organisation, its structure and functions; this article can cover the chairpersonship, the evolution of its appointment and tenure arrangements, and its successive holders. A brief leadership summary in the parent article can link to that fuller treatment. SandeepBharat (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Easy keep. Many far less notable politicians and public officials have articles than the person in charge of customs and tariffs in the world's sixth-largest economy. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 02:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose deleting this article because it is not needed: there is an article that covers the topic (Indian caste). Rwood128 (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete or merge per nom. IndrasBet (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete not a valid index because there are not presently any notable people with this name. Not a valid stub about the name itself because there are no sources. ~2026-51624-17 (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: this survived the first nomination in 2011 when our inclusion standards were far looser in this topic area, and in its current form has been tagged as a potential GNG failure since 2025. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch☎✎ 00:04, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to Central Board of Direct Taxes because there is no reason to have a separate article on the chairperson of the body. All the information on this page should be included in the CBDT page. The chairperson is not separately notable Ar1201u1 (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Promotional article about a non notable actress with Reference bombing. Mostly known for a single movie A Pregnant Widow and the most of the references are about the movie and not the subject. Fails NACTRESS because of lack of notable roles in multiple movies. Fails GNG also. Thilsebatti (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete — the awards table is the only notability claim. The Kerala Film Critics Association's Special Jury Award is genuine but shared among five recipients and reported only as a name in roundups. The Amodini, Vindhya, Buddha and Punjab festival wins have no independent coverage, only her own social media, and each festival hands out dozens of "Best Actress" categories a year. Poovachal Khader and the Kottaka Award are real, ongoing bodies, but i found no independent source naming her as a winner, only Facebook and Instagram. Independent sourcing for either could revive the WP:ANYBIO question, but on what's verifiable now neither reaches it, and WP:GNG isn't met either. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG, website. There is one paper discussing its content with some analysis; other than that, I could find only one piece of coverage in Le MondeAr1201u1 (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: this subject first came to AfD right after the article was created in May 2005 (when the process was still VfD) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www.chowk.com, and survived that; it also survived the nominal first nomination under the current title in 2009, and the most recent nomination–the "third"–from 2019 ended with "no consensus". (In between, there was a "second" nomination in 2017 that ended in withdrawal, and wound up itself deleted via G7 in 2019; that's why it is missing from the "AfDs for this article" box and why a non-box link to it in the third nomination is red.) Obviously our standards have tightened over the years–the last nomination had the observation that notability is not temporary, but that this still doesn't necessarily mean our interpretation of notability and inclusion standards are still being met. For what it's worth, this has been tagged as a potential NWEB failure since 2025, well after all prior AfD discussions. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch☎✎ 20:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete and salt. The same reasoning used in both previous AfDs (there is neither an assertion of notability nor any source that could provide the in-depth independent coverage needed for WP:GNG) still applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging into Indian Revenue Service because this seems to be a subcategory of the IRS. Anyhow, we shouldn't be having articles for each class of civil servants in India Ar1201u1 (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG, the page title is a sufficient description of all the information here Ar1201u1 (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and India.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:51, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails in GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. My BEFORE yielded some ROUTINE reportage, some false positives and some directories....but nothing with SIGCOV to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 05:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails in GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. My BEFORE didn't yield anything useful to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 05:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Not a notable subject and does not belong here. Also, most of the article's content is outdated, as India has had a new tax law in force since April 2026, Income-tax Act, 2025. The subject is too technical to assess the accuracy of the information Ar1201u1 (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Income tax return (India) as a plausible redirect, though I'm neutral on the target and whether that also needs further updates itself. Nathannah • 📮 23:35, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
MERGE & ReDirect to Income tax return (India), as the article came about as a consensus merge of the forms in the distant past. GenQuest"scribble" 19:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect per above reasoning, fails WP:GNG. AadamentAardvark (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging the page into Social security in India because that article deals with the same subject and has more detailed information. I don't see any need for this to be a separate standalone article Ar1201u1 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to Corruption in India. This is a well-known statement and meets notability requirements. However, the line has no meaning if it is not linked to corruption in India. For those unfamiliar, 1 paisa is 1/100 of an Indian rupee. Rajiv Gandhi, a former prime minister, stated it to imply that 85% of welfare spending done by the government is lost due to corruption Ar1201u1 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This article is devoid of utility. This website does not have a habit of keeping articles in which the subject is a small segment of a statement made by a prominent government official. Aneirinn (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree. However, as this is an important admission by a sitting prime minister, it could have a small mention in the Corruption in India article Ar1201u1 (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Bihar. WCQuidditch☎✎ 23:03, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Leaning keep. I'm relying on machine translation to assess the sources, but it looks like the tale of Minakshi is real and notable. The sources discuss a play (or two plays?) and a novel, both based on the story. Applying WP:NBIO to a fable is obviously a mistake. I'm interested to hear from some Bengali speakers who can better assess the sources. pburka (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, India, and Women. Aneirinn (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak Delete - there is one good source, The Hindu, but more are needed. Burden of proof for a BLP is on the creator. Ping me if you add more, as I am willing to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to Mahdi (disambiguation) because this is just a different transliteration. If the disambiguation page were to be expanded with information about the name, then this would just be WP:DUP.
We commonly have multiple transliterations of foreign names at the same target. For example, Hussain, Hossein, Huseyn all go to the same page.
Whether or not the disambiguation page itself should be split into multiple pages is a different discussion. So that should not affect your vote on this matter JaneFootball (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I am against merging Mehdi into Mahdi as the resulting article would be far too big. I am fine with merging different transliterations if the resulting article isn't too large, but in this case I think we should keep it separate. Different transliterations are usually made into separate pages if the articles get too big. Saluzzo53 (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
We can just break the names off. Like for example, look at the Haider page. It is a disambiguation, where it lists the given name and surname also. But if you look at the surname and given name pages, it lists multiple transliterations under the same title. I think we could do the same. Also, there is nothing stopping the page from getting however large because, if we arrange it in alphabetical order, the reader can still easily find materials. @Saluzzo53:JaneFootball (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, that is what is commonly done but again, the pages get too long. I know the reader can easily find someone if it's alphabetically, but it is generally bad practice to make disambiguation articles too long. Saluzzo53 (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Do these long lists actually overlap right now, do we have the statistics?
I also don't see the point of creating a longer list if there's a reasonable chance some readers will distinguish these, while others will be able to just click through to the other list if they don't find what they were looking for. --Joy (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This individual is not notable enough to pass any of our guidelines for notability to have an article on this website. Aneirinn (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2018, does not pass WP:NSONG. The creator (currently blocked) also made no attempts to first expand the main article's section before creating a separate article for this single. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Google search did not yield any results to warrant notability. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect** to Kati Patang as ATD. The film does have coverage in GBooks in English. SenshiSun (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep or redirect to Kati Patang#Music. India has about a sixth of the world's population, and I'm uncomfortable assuming lack of notability on potentially ethnocentric grounds. R. D. Burman himself is almost obscenely notable. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 02:19, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Related to Moelis & Company's India brand. 3 sources have been cited, 1 is YouTube, another is an archived link to Reuters which discusses a number of individuals and last one is a primary sources. The subject does not pass WP:GNG.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep :The article meets notability via significant independent coverage, and I will be adding some more reliable sources.
The subject has received multiple independent, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that go beyond routine announcements or promotional material. I am adding some more sources that establish notability under WP:GNG and the relevant film/notability guidelines.These include reviews, interviews, industry coverage, and in-depth reporting that treat Diamond Made Man as a notable work rather than just listing release details.
Please allow time for the sources to be added and evaluated before closing. The article can be improved further, but the core notability is already demonstrated.
Comment: in the event this is kept (no formal opinion on that, but it seems unlikely at best), this would not be the correct title, owing to the undercapitalization and an unnecessary disambiguator–there does not seem to be anything (not even any past iterations) that would prevent this from being titled simply Diamond Made Man (but again, that should only be fixed if this is kept; moving articles at AfD is highly frowned upon). WCQuidditch☎✎ 14:50, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Also see the creator's edit filter log; they constantly trigger edit filters associated with AI usage: link. This isn't the first time they have done this either. Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 16:39, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep
This article or information is written entirely based on my own experience, research, and genuine production details. No artificial intelligence (AI) misuse was involved in this. Since all official links,related to the film have been clearly provided, I request that this page be kept.This movie details published in various movie websites in english and other languages, this movie got top popularity ranking and Most anticipated movie rankings.
(Oxfordyni (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2026 (UTC))
Noting that Oxfordyni is the article's creator for the record. Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 17:45, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep Explanation:
Thank you for reviewing the article. Regarding the comment about AI usage and GPTZero scoring:
Automated AI detectors like GPTZero are probabilistic tools known to produce false positives—particularly on structured prose, lists of reliable sources, encyclopedia-style formatting, and factual summaries written or compiled by non-native English speakers or professional creators.
The core content and references provided here represent verifiable, independent, and reliable secondary coverage spanning multiple major international film databases, media outlets, and reviews (such as Times of India, IMDb, and industry indexes). The article's inclusion is justified by significant independent coverage establishing its notability under WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. I am continuing to expand and refine the citations to fully meet Wikipedia standards.
No one in the known universe uses probabilistic in any everyday conversation. You are strongly advised to use your own words from here on out, because this discussion depends on you doing so or being removed for refusing to stop using an LLM. Nathannah • 📮 17:53, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: WP:REFBOMBed to hell and back with listings that merely show that the film exists. I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to show that it meets WP:NFILM. Ansgar Slopsbane (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete because this article fails to establish notability. This film isn't even listed in the Internet Movie Database as far as I can tell; being listed in IMDb doesn't prove notability under WP:NFILM, but not being listed is not a good sign as to notability. As Ansgar mentions, the article has a serious problem with reference bombing; one sentence is followed by 29 footnotes, while another is followed by 17 footnotes. Most of the citations appear to refer to database-type sites rather than significant coverage of the film which would support WP:GNG. Also, sources which are purely about the sequel Diamond Made Man 2 have been mixed together with sources about the first film Diamond Made Man. If User:Oxfordyni wants to work on this article some more, it should be userfied and only brought back to the mainspace after the film can be clearly established as notable, for example, if it can be shown that the film "is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews in two or more GNG-worthy publications." At this point, it's not even clear how this film was distributed (for example, on a streaming service, and if so which one). --Metropolitan90(talk) 21:59, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Metropolitan90,Thank you for your feedback. I would like to respectfully clarify that "Diamond Made Man" is fully listed and indexed on IMDb. Furthermore, the film achieved significant traction on IMDb, reaching the #10 rank in the Most Anticipated New Indian Movies list:https://web.archive.org/web/202602211/https://www.imdb.com/india/trending/.
I’m happy that you mentioned Diamond Made Man Part 2. Since Diamond Made Man became a hit and gained popularity, Diamond Made Man Part 2 and Diamond Made Man Part 3 are going to be released soon.
Draftify or delete per WP:TNT. Setting aside whether this may be notable, the style of this is atrocious. Given what I see here, I expect this was written by a poorly promoted AI; in either case, this needs to be rewritten. Looking at this badly formatted mess is painful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: *Its a popular movie, no doubt in that, the "Diamond made man part 3" Budget $430 million
The producer applied for "Guinness world records", highest budget movie in Movie world, my words sourced from Moviefone :
Comment. No, Diamond Made Man is not fully listed and indexed in IMDb. If you search for that title, you will get the search result at https://www.imdb.com/find/?q=diamond%20made%20man which finds a 1937 film The Man Who Made Diamonds and four podcast episodes. If this film were listed in IMDb, Oxfordyni probably would have provided an active link instead of an archived link. The archived link he provided to the IMDb Most Anticipated New Indian Movies list does not even show the title Diamond Made Man. --Metropolitan90(talk) 14:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: User:Oxfordyni, editors get to post "Keep" just once. Editors may comment as often as they wish. Thanks, Ansgar Slopsbane (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: User:Metropolitan90, with out main IMDb link how can achieve the link? Please open following link, This movie was most anticipated indian movie 10 th rank in IMDb,That said its popular movie.Please open link and turn Images left side, last image "Diamond Made man",in 10 th position.Top right image.
Toxic First place,Kerala Story 2 second place, Indian Blockbuster movie "Dhurandhar" third place. "Diamond Made Man" 10th place.
Its not easy to get 10th place in IMDb ranking, as most anticipated movie,its says its popularity of Movie.
Please see WP:IMDB. It's considered an unreliable source for Wikipedia articles. Ansgar Slopsbane (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: User:Ansgar Slopsbane, we have to consider, this movie got 10th Rank of Most anticipated movies of IMDb listed movies, Popularity Ascending 2nd rank of all china movies,Popularity Ascending 2nd rank of all hindi movie.Allready i provided the source.
Once again, last warning. Use your own words. And actually read what Ansgar said, we don't use IMDB as a reliable source. We cannot use a user generated statement from there or Letterboxd, so unless you have truly reliable sources to bring to the table, the IMDB discussion must be tabled. Nothing more can be considered from that site for the purposes of this discussion. Nathannah • 📮 15:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
User:Nathannah, Please see WP:IMDB-EL,As an external link: check Generally yes, if the subject of the entire page is exactly the same as the subject of the IMDb page that you're linking.
Delete. I have to majorly question the claims at this AfD and in the article. The film is supposedly wildly popular and the third film has a record breaking budget, yet there's effectively zero coverage of the films in any of the major Indian news outlets. There's also zero WP:CHURNALISM, which is considered to be an industry standard in any country, but particularly so in India. If you're releasing a film, you're expected to put out press releases and news articles if anyone in the film so much as sneezes, as the goal is to keep the film in the public eye. The sourcing in the article is almost entirely routine database listings. These cannot establish notability because they're considered to be routine and in some cases are incredibly easy to obtain, as the databases just require someone to send them the details. If I hadn't found a clip on YouTube, I'd actually question if this film existed at all. Now, I think the film does exist in some form or fashion, it's just not the huge, popular blockbuster that the article claims. If the third film actually had a budget in the hundreds of millions, there would be some coverage and there's absolutely nothing. I looked into the Moviefone source for this. I didn't click the link, but I did go to Moviefone itself. There's no coverage of any of the films, let alone any information about the budget. For comparison's sake, the upcoming two Ramayana films shared a budget of $500 million and outlets fell all over themselves to cover this in the news. Aside from that, I must also note that per this article, the highest budgeted film was Jurassic World Dominion at an estimated $549 million budget. I'm not exactly questioning that the film (or at least the first one) exists, but I do think that the claims of it being wildly popular and the third film's budget are a hoax. Even if all of the coverage was in another language, you'd still have some form of coverage in English that would point towards said coverage existing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:06, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete As the article creator is actively refusing to listen to reason/suggestion and continues to push through with LLM discussion and the 'sources' in the article are WP:ITEXISTS database entries spammed with other languages, this article is unlikely to be saved. Nathannah • 📮 19:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
User:ReaderofthePack,for your major question i try to answer as per my knowledge. This movie producer not concentrate on Publicity press meets. Actually this movie not released in India. This movie Released in
Some contries and in multiple languages.'Diamond made man part -3' movie just completed as per some sources,today zero publicity for this part - 3.As per a source this part -3 will release in 2027 world wide in multiple countries.Thanq you for your response for this movie.Actually i watched this movie in Singapore in Tamil version.
Delete. A non-notable film that fails WP:NFILM critria. Sources provided by Keep voters above are blog-kind of websites. None of the above sourcces are reliable or independent. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 04:08, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I have a genuine question. According to the link below, 'Letterboxd' is ranked No. 1 among movie websites world wide, with 87.66 million views. Why was such a website not taken into consideration?
'Diamond Made Man' is listed on Letterboxd, and the movie is also listed on some of these top 10 websites.
However, the article should be deleted because there is no news coverage of this movie in the news websites recognized by Wikipedia,WP:IMDB
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request close discussion: Diamond Made man Movie
Thank you to all the editors who have taken the time to participate in this Articles for Deletion discussion. I genuinely appreciate the feedback, the points raised, and the effort put in by everyone involved.
I would like to take this opportunity to summarise the situation clearly and place certain points on record regarding Diamond Made Man Movie.
First, regarding the film’s visibility and presence, the following six positive findings can be noted:
1. The film has been published and listed across a large number of movie websites and databases worldwide.
2. It is listed on Letterboxd, one of the leading movie platforms globally, which receives a very high volume of traffic reported at around 87 million+ monthly views.
3. The film achieved a Top 10 position in IMDb’s Most Anticipated New Indian Movies list.
4. It reached high popularity rankings, including Rank 2 in the Sci-Fi / China movies category and Rank 2 in the Hindi movies category on film platforms.
5. The third film in the series has been associated with a reported budget of approximately $430 million, along with claims of an application for a Guinness World Record related to high budget.
6. The film has shown visibility across multiple languages and regions, with sequels (Part 2 and Part 3) also announced and discussed online.
These points indicate that Diamond Made Man has generated interest and presence in the online film community.
I fully respect Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Once sufficient reliable secondary sources become available , I will recreate the article in accordance with Wikipedia standards.
Request to close this discussion.
Thank you.
Since the article creator has requested to close this discussion and allow deletion, I request that another admin do so. --Metropolitan90(talk) 15:53, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
User:Metropolitan90,Actually my openion to close discussion.Now i deep search internet. I found new Web sources, these links reach WP:GNG, at this time can i post this new web links here? (Oxfordyni (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2026 (UTC))
Page created as she is associated with New Enterprise Associates yet their CEO has no article here. Sources cite interviews or passing mentions. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. NavjotSR (talk) 08:32, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Coverage is more about Apollo Hospitals than the subject. Other sources provide coverage for being a daughter of Prathap C. Reddy. There is a Bloomberg link which is just a profile link. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERIT. NavjotSR (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep There's plenty there to find and I've added some info and a few more sources to the page. What did you find when working on WP:Before? H0n0r (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Routine of the subject's statement and a listing in Fortune Magazine' India chapter does not make the person notable. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
@Accesscrawl likely not, and I didn't assert that it did, but that doesn't answer my question. What did the nominator find while doing WP:DILIGENCE? H0n0r (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Not convinced that the subject meets WP:GNG. Not to mention the issues with promotional WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete First ref block is routine annoucement of appointments and profiles related to her being appointed. There is no WP:SECONDARY coverage at all. Seems to be a women doing here job. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 10:57, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Coverage is all routine. 🄻os🄰 18:02, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Notability is not guaranteed by association. Fails GNG. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This article about an individual does not meet any of our guidelines for notability to have an article on this website. Aneirinn (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Could not find any reliable, significant coverage. Fails WP:Notability (people). Doesn't help that his name basically means newspaper in Telugu . DareshMohan (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. DareshMohan (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Does not satisfy the notability guidelines and no independent sources cited. 456legendtalk 07:24, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: IMDB isn't a positive source but even that only lists his contributions to movies as being a script coordinator. Moritoriko (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
'''Keep''' - Would the Navbharat Times and Indian Express articles cited in the references not already help the article meet GNG? After a quick search there seems to be other sources that could be used beyond these as well. B.P. Koirala (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Bhiwandi-Nizampur Municipal Corporation. B.P. Koirala, the Navbharat Times and ABP Majha pieces are real bylined profiles, so the depth is there. But both ran on 20 February, the afternoon of the result, and the rest sits in the same few days, which is one news cycle rather than the sustained coverage WP:GNG wants. Mayor of a municipal corporation isn't a WP:NPOL pass on its own, and i found nothing from outside that window, so redirect for now and split back out if later coverage builds a fuller biography. EmilyR34 (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Can you mention those sources here? Wisher08 (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Alright, that's fair, thanks for the explanation. This is the first AfD I've commented on, so I'm still getting a grasp on all the notability requirements tbh. I struggled to find coverage outside of February as well, all I found was this one article from The Free Press Journal that was written in September [1]. B.P. Koirala (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 19:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, there are many sources with significant coverage about the institution: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Other than The Telegraph, there are also , , and . Babin Mew (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep — A large chunk of the above linked sources don't appear to be independent. But from what's available overall, it seems to be a borderline pass. BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 03:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To assess source independence. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 15:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 02:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, too local, Wikipedia is not a database of each and every election. Geschichte (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Nom is a sock, but we have an extant delete !vote so this cannot be procedurally closed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 01:33, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose restoring the redirect to Vengayam or Makkal TV because all sources are passing mentions and are related to a fraud case of his company, which may not be notable per WP:BLPCRIME. A WP:BEFORE shows that his dad, Soundarrajan is the head of the company, he may be 2nd in line . Source 6 is a self published source. DareshMohan (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: of all the AfD nominations for this subject, this may actually only be the second legitimate one. The nominal second and third nominations from earlier this year were both by socks (and the third was also a revenge nomination), so even though it has been less than six months they should simply be disregarded entirely and have no further bearing on this discussion (even if I get the impression TAs are using those AfDs, and a strict interpretation of 6MONTHS, as the basis to contest recent bold BLARs). (The first nomination from 2020 ended in soft deletion, but that has long since been contested.). No opinion on any of this. WCQuidditch☎✎ 03:06, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Only 1 notable role, which is not enough to meet WP:NACTOR. The last AfD was unfortunately closed as keep. Chronos.Zx (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment After considering the last three nominations which are performed by socks and their sole intention under WP:DLC was not a good faith. If we really follow Wikipedia's policies strictly, this article should not be redirected/deleted for now per WP:6MONTHS, and the nominator can reattempt after one month. ~2026-56743-69 (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 11:56, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG The coverages are mostly routine including interviews, press releases, sponsored contents. There is no significant in-depth coverage required meeting notability standards. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - The subject is a well-known Indian entrepreneur and creative director who fully meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) through extensive, independent, and in-depth coverage in major national and international press outlets over more than a decade.
Business Standard: Multiple independent reports covering TVC campaigns and industry moves.
Film production work with Warner Bros. Pictures (e.g., The Commandant's Shadow) and major media acquisitions (e.g., controlling stake in MW.Com India / Rolling Stone India).
The current citations provide substantial non-trivial coverage from independent, reliable sources. The page should be retained and further improved rather than deleted. Vpheera (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment The above 'keep' !vote, and the user's further comments below, appear to be LLM-generated. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
The subject being a well-known Indian entrepreneur is not a reason to meet GNG. Notability is not inherited in Wikipedia. Being the creator of this article, can you provide us the link of these reliable independent sources which you think are enough to meet GNG? You just simply stated these are reliable sources. The sources being reliable or not is only a secondary concern here. My concern is that they are covering mostly about something else rather than the subject himself. Thilsebatti (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
The references provided are not merely routine coverage or passive mentions; they directly analyze the subject’s individual contributions, creative leadership, and industry impact over a sustained period. For instance:
Coverage regarding his departure/entry as an industry jury member and creative director explicitly highlights his personal credentials and notability independently of the agency.
The feature reports in The Economic Times and The Hindu Business Line focus specifically on his career milestones, creative decisions, and entrepreneurial trajectory.
Under WP:GNG, in-depth coverage across multiple independent national publications establishing a sustained personal profile is sufficient. Keep. Vpheera (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
The article has been further improved with verifiable coverage on awards and production achievements, fully backed by reliable independent secondary sources. This resolves all WP:GNG concerns. Vpheera (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep – The subject clearly satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NPERS. He is an Executive Producer for The Commandant's Shadow (distributed by Warner Bros. / HBO, International Emmy nominated), which has been widely covered in global independent media like Variety, The Guardian, and The New Yorker. Along with independent coverage in major national dailies (The Economic Times, Business Standard), there is more than enough coverage to establish independent notability beyond routine press releases. The page should be kept and improved, not deleted.Vpheera (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
@Vpheera: you have already !voted. You are only allowed one !vote in any given AfD discussion. I have therefore struck your latest !vote. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Looking at the sources in the article, the creator above probably refers to these four sources. The first three do not provide sigcov of him. The last is paywalled, but in any case, one source is not enough. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 12:53, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to gently note that the article has been updated with several new, independent, and reliable media references (such as Adgully, afaqs!, Cinebuster, and PeepingMoon). These sources provide verifiable coverage of his prominent professional career and major media projects, including his role as an executive producer for the Warner Bros. documentary and upcoming global feature films. Please take a look at the updated references on the main page. Thank you. Vpheera (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: lacks any significant coverage. 🄻os🄰 18:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
These may provide additional context on his career and work in the advertising industry. I leave it to other editors to assess whether the sources offer sufficient independent, in-depth coverage for WP:GNG and whether they materially affect the discussion.
I have a paid professional connection with work on this article and disclose that conflict of interest. I am offering these sources for review, not advocating a predetermined outcome. Vpheera (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at: