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 no consensus. ( non-admin closure) JAaron95 ( Talk) 14:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

What Kind of Man Are You?

What Kind of Man Are You? (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Article doesn't establish it's notability, and reads like an ad. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 05:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment Pinging editors listed at WP:INDAFD to help establish possible notability: @ Dharmadhyaksha, Titodutta, Dwaipayanc, TheOriginalSoni, and Jayantanth:@ Soham, Jim Cartar, Cutest Penguin, and Rsrikanth05:. Also, I found some links, while they may not be WP:RS or significant coverage, they may help to establish verifiability and notability: A B C D E - War wizard90 ( talk) 06:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. - War wizard90 ( talk) 06:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - War wizard90 ( talk) 06:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - War wizard90 ( talk) 06:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment The first two links are very reliable. I'll look out for more. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 06:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment - here's a good one: NBC News article —Мандичка ^YO 😜 11:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I can't say, either way. I actually remember passing coverage of the media campaign in English language media (or notice of it) in global segments. I don't doubt that it existed, nor that it was remarked upon and praised. Since it was a public service campaign, it definitely got seen and heard by a large audience (more than many actresses in a single role). Whether a single season media educational initiative generates enough long term reference to need contextualizing (rather than a discussion in another article -- one on public awareness campaigns), I can't decide. If so, then keep. If not, then neutral. Hithladaeus ( talk) 19:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Reads like an ad campaign for an NGO, which doesn't necessarily make it notable. Can't seem to find much info on the awards it has won, either. I think it should be purged. Solntsa90 ( talk) 00:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Passes WP:GNG having received ongoing significant coverage in reliable sources. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Source examples include:

• Reproductive Health Matters. May 1, 2007. (subscription required)
• Planet India. p. 248.
• NBC News. February 28, 2006.
• The Times of India. August 3, 2005.
• The Hindu. June 4, 2005.
• Sify. June 3, 2005
• Gulf News. May 18, 2005.

– North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - This article meets the general notability guidelines and have significance coverage in reliable sources. @ War wizard90 and TrueCRaysball: as @ Northamerica1000: suggested that the tone of the article should be improved as per Wikipedia standards instead of ditching it.— CutestPenguin ^Hangout 05:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Cutest Penguin: I never suggested that we ditch it, I merely added a neutral comment. However, given the sources provided by Northamerica1000 I have no issues with keeping this article. - War wizard90 ( talk) 05:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

War wizard90 ( talk · contribs) I didn't actually meant that you or anyone else suggesting to ditch the article out of Wikipedia . — CutestPenguin ^Hangout 05:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG. -- 92slim ( talk) 18:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ 92slim:Care to tells us how it fails to meet GNG? Or is a keep argument of - "meets WP:GNG" a sufficient enough rebuttal to your argument? - War wizard90 ( talk) 22:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note that on Wikipedia, the absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable. Topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. However, sources were added to the article after it was nominated. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• Merge and Redirect to HIV/AIDS in India - There are sufficient sources to cover it on Wikipedia in some fashion -- I just don't think there's enough for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Sufficient sources in article now (June 21) to indicate notability of the subject.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:38, 21 June 2015 (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.