Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian wikis

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. Currently none of the content in the article is salvageable. No prejudice against recreation with sourced content, as this is a potentially notable topic. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian wikis

[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)

Non-notable list. These wikis are not notable, and they don't meet WP:SOURCELIST. Some barely even have any edits. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#When_to_not_use_deletion_process?, WP:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:Contents/Lists, WP:SAL, WP:AOAL. My suggestion is to, instead, move it to WP:STUB and WP:CLEANUP. I also invite comments of @Pokai who created this page. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've just spammed a bunch of random links, and I don't think you've read any of them. The deletion process is absolutely used for notability issues. LISTPURP is a MOS guideline and not relevant to this, Wikipedia:Contents/Lists is not even close to being relevant, same for the last link, and I don't think you've read SAL. The comment below is from the creator and doesn't even try to address policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article must be keep. I can say it with full confidence, yeah it can be move to another section. Pok aiᗙ Happy New Year! 13:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why must it be kept? Spiderone 14:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 14:17, 30 June 2020 (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.