Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Karnataka

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Karnataka. 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|Karnataka|~~~~}} 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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Karnataka. 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 India.

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Karnataka/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Articles for deletion

Rohith Nagesh

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

Fails WP:NARTIST WP:SIGCOV. I could not find additional in-depth sources. The article has draftify history and AFC declined twice. Then the creator moved the draft to main space. I believe the claim as producer is not reliable as the film producer is similar in name but different person see this.

The image is an own work, by a commons user, uploaded on 12th FEB, and used in the article on 14 Feb by the author.

Might be a case of WP:COI AlphaCore talk 22:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Karnataka. AlphaCore talk 22:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - two possibly unreliable citations are not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you find and add three better sources. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Karnataka. AlphaCore talk 21:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagged India project
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AlphaCore talk 21:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AlphaCore, why did you relisted your own AfD? It should be do this by non involved editor or sysop. And besides, it should relisting after 7 days if the consensus still not found. ROY is WAR Talk! 22:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaginele Kanaka Guru Peetha

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

Unsourced since creation 2005. Fails WP:ORG/WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom - article has unsourced promotional content and not able to find sources to add content. Asteramellus (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole article is literally unsourced and it is badly written. There is no question this should be deleted. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Vinodh

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

Fails WP:ARTIST, Had worked with 1 film. The article is promotional in tone and a WP:COI suspected. AlphaCore talk 13:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Karnataka. AlphaCore talk 13:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Kerala. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clear fail WP:ARTIST --SaTnamZIN (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no longer a newbie after 7 years, the creator keeps creating spam about "creatives" long after he's been told to stop and we can't assume good faith anymore. We are not primarily a social media platform. We can't afford this right now. Bearian (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no longer a newbie after 7 years — in a way, still a newbie with only 27 edits in total. But, yeah, if their contributions are problematic, then it's an issue that needs to be addressed even if they are new. Nakonana (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ARTIST. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 18:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Better India

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources verify its existence but nothing I find meets WP:CORPDEPTH that doesn't fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the nomination misses the mark regarding WP:CORPDEPTH. If you do a quick search, you’ll find plenty of coverage that goes way deeper than just standard press releases or passing mentions. Take the 2018 Nieman Lab feature, for example—it gives a thorough breakdown of their journalism style and business model, which is usually the gold standard for notability. On top of that, you have the BBC controversy and their apology, which was picked up by independent outlets like Newslaundry and Swarajya. The material is definitely out there; the article just needs the legwork to incorporate it. Jībanmṛta^message 18:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being part of an exhaustive list in a BBC report is not it. It was included in a list one time in the report as an organization with a Twitter handle that is known to publish fake news. Nothing in-depth in that report about the subject. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --SaTnamZIN (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage of it in a book by Oxford University Press that has a chapter titled The Better India: Solution-Based Impact Entrepreneurship. It was also covered by Nieman Lab at Harvard University. The incident with the BBC was covered by Newslaundry (reliable per this RfC), which published an article titled Why the BBC owes a real apology to The Better India. It was also covered by The Deccan Herald. There was no centralized discussion of the reliability of the latter, but various editors commented, the Deccan Herald and by other RS internationally[1] and This article in the Deccan Herald, a reliable Indian newspaper.[2] Kelob2678 (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't need to be centralized discussion of reliability. Just because a publication is reliable doesn't mean that an individual article within isn't reliable. That is the purpose of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Strange how an incident with the BBC that is the claim of notability here isn't covered by more mainstream media. The other sources were already covered above if you want to read the reply to the other Keep vote. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources were properly addressed above. If a media outlet is reliable, it means that articles published in it are presumed reliable. Newslaundry is an RS, it is irrelevant whether it is considered "mainstream" or not. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis. You are right, it was not properly addressed. Here it is:--CNMall41 (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
(1) https://www.bloomberg.com/resear...	~	WP:CORPTRV	✘ No
(2) http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/03...		The only soruce that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion.	✔ Yes
(3) https://www.deccanherald.com/con...	Reliable source, but majority of content is provided by the publication	Again, information provided by founder and all quotes. Fails CORPDEPTH.	✘ No
(4) https://www.livemint.com/Compani...	Churnalized announcement from the company.	Routine coverage of founding. Searching the headline in Google finds a dozen or so more of this chrunalised press from the company.	✘ No
(5) https://zeenews.india.com/busine...		Same as above. Coincidentally, the headline is in the URL but leads to a different article about Lindsy Lohan. Regardless, it is all part of the churnalised routine funding announcemnt.	✘ No
(6) https://www.financialexpress.com...		SAA	✘ No
(7) https://tech.economictimes.india...		SAA	✘ No
(8) https://ipsmf.org/		Homepage link of an organization. Doesn't even mention The Better India.	✘ No
(9) https://www.thebetterindia.com/s...		Company website. Not reliable for showing notability.	✘ No
(10) https://economictimes.indiatimes...		More churnalized funding announcment.	✘ No
(11) https://www.huffingtonpost.in/au...	Author profile of The Better India (which is now removed). So, anythign written would not be indpendent.		✘ No
(12) https://www.newslaundry.com/2018...		Again, this talks about how there needs to be a retraction by the BBC but this does not satisfy CORPDEPTH. It is not in-depth about the publication (it only addresses an article where The Better India was mentioned one time). Again, nothign in-depth about the company which is required by CORPDEPTH.	✘ No
(13) https://twitter.com/thebetterind...		Twitter is never reliable for purposes of establishing notability.	✘ No
(14) https://www.newslaundry.com/shor...		One paragraph which again is addressing a report in the BBC, nothign in-depth about the company.	✘ No
(15) https://www.freepressjournal.in/...		Mention. Routine coverage of an award. Not in-depth.	✘ No
(16) https://www.maricoinnovationfoun...		Dead link but I am goign to assume it is the same as above as it is an award of some kind.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

If an organization is involved in a controversy and it is being covered by reliable sources, this counts towards establishing notability. This is the case with the BBC and The Better India here. While The Deccan Herald is indeed heavily reliant on quotes and serves as a relatively weak source, I still believe the non-quoted sections contribute to notability.

Extended content

TheBetterIndia.com (TBI) is a news portal that reports only positive news from across the country, 365 days a year. The venture was launched seven years ago by this husband-and-wife duo and since then TBI has been sharing the inspiring stories of unsung heroes, change-makers, innovations, health, sanitation and other ... TBI had featured many inspiring stories ranging from report about a group of visually impaired people running a photography club, jobs for the specially abled, conservation efforts in a hill station and more, that won it many awards like the Manthan Award for Best Alternative News Site across South Asia in 2009, The Social Media for Empowerment Award, 2014 and the Grand Prize winner at the Sankalp Forum, 2015. Recently, TBI also got an investment of Rs one crore from former Infosys CFO and chairman of Manipal Global Education, Mohandas Pai.

You also ignored the source from the OUP, but included 13 sources that no one advocated using to establish notability. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"If an organization is involved in a controversy and it is being covered by reliable sources." Of course, if the controversy is about the company and covers it in-depth. This is the website complaining it was mentioned (one time by the way) in a lengthy article.

"included 13 sources that no one advocated using to establish notability." Wrong. The OP advocated for them..by using them...on the article they created.. The assessment shown is what they included on the page and I have seen nothing else presented that shows this meeting NCORP. We will need to agree to disagree at this point about how WP:ORGCRIT applies, but I have not seen a major change to it in the last decade so not sure how it would be different for this AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maiyas Beverages and Foods

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Routine Announcement (WP:ROUTINE) Filmyy (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, India, and Karnataka. Filmyy (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The reliable sources on the article are enough for establishing notability. I dont think the nom has checked them properly. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georgethedragonslayer Can you provide those reliable sources? Filmyy (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is short but there is enough coverage for notability and there are R/S in the citations. Dualpendel (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dualpendel Can you provide those R/S in citations? Filmyy (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are citations from the following Reliable Sources WP:THEHINDU WP:TIMESOFINDIA, plus coverage from other sources which means that the subject meets WP:GNG Dualpendel (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; per Georgethedragonslayer, Dualpendel
--~2025-40707-38 (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some input from established editors would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 are about its bankruptcy and subsequent acquisition. References 1 and 4 are about its founder, and we have WP:NOTINHERITED. Reference 5 has no sigcov. Reference 6 is about capital raising and heavily quote-reliant. Reference 10 looks promotional WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ID Fresh Food

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Filmyy (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, India, and Karnataka. Filmyy (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep- this one from Business Today seems to be a bit more SIGCOV, the Times of India seems deeper than passing mentions but unsure of its reliability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources belong to WP:RSNOI.Filmyy (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Business Today piece is a regular editorial article, not WP:RSNOI. It's independently written and under editorial control, and it isn't a press release or routine announcement. Please double-check the source assessment before labelling it otherwise. EmilyR34 (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — i would push back on that. Apart from possibly references 1 and 2 (and I'm doubtful about reference 1), the rest are proper editorial work, independently authored, and outside the scope of WP:RSNOI. EmilyR34 (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It fails WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnan Vasant

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

A draft of this article was declined and just two days later this is created directly in the main space. A conflict of interest is declared on the draft but that has nothing to do with this nomination. The subject fails WP:NBIO per WP:BEFORE. Ednabrenze (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, Entertainment, and India. Ednabrenze (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ednabrenze please check again this is not a film. He is my mentor, Krishnan Vasant is a filmmaker with 15 films Prasadpaturi (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Im on the fence here, the author has disclosed his COI with the subject however the subject might just satisfy WP:BIO as per the source here also there is more coverage by the same newspaper on the subject. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 13:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not see WP:SIGCOV other than the ref1. The nominator mentioned WP:FILM, however, I think this topic fails WP:CREATIVE AlphaCore talk 14:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ednabrenze Please review your nomination comment, the article is a WP:BIO. AlphaCore talk 14:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir he has done 15 films. you can check all of his films once on wikipedia and then decide.

He played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work please check his films once sir Prasadpaturi (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CREATIVE. OP was told this twice at Draft:Krishnan Vasant prior to creating it live in the mainspace. Would suggest draftifying as an WP:ATD if OP agrees not to move it to mainspace on their own. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sir i ask AlphaCore but they never replied. If 15 films are not collective body of work then i dont know what is. Please tell me what i did wrong Prasadpaturi (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Krishnan Vasant is not notable enough for websites like 'Cinetown' to have listed his date of birth. [It is left empty.]

Shouldn't it be deleted?—I am a new editor, so I just came here to see/understand the deletion process. Z-Astro3 (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there are 0 (reliable) sources staring his date of birth. The only website is Filmy Focus – There is no information backing the statement on the website. Z-Astro3 (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir what is cinetown? Why do you need his date of birth? Prasadpaturi (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Ref 1 helps, but on its own it's not enough. The other refs basically just bring him up while discussing the films. We'd need more independent SIGCOV for WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. EmilyR34 (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since when did we start deleting articles that clearly pass WP:CREATIVE? They have 12 wikilinked feature film credits that don’t seem to be shared with another cinematographer. Usually I never vouch for interview based sources, but this one is around 1000 words long for a not so mainstream cinematographer and there’s enough independent content to write about. WP:BEFORE has no new sources that aren’t already in the article, so don’t bother searching for more. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sir he has done 15 films please check once Prasadpaturi (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per the comprehensive article from the Hindu, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only 1 by Hindu source in whole page that has some coverage but this is not independent of the subject. Remaining sources on the page have absolutely no significant coverage on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]