Gateway to Southeast Asia : Apart from the four places named at the current page, the term is used for or by Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Myanmar, Labuan, Yunnan, Laos, Bangkok, Vietnam, Assam, Taiwan, The Philippines, Guwahati, Hong Kong, Tripura, Mizoram, Binh Duong Province, Indonesia...  Fram ( talk ) 09:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , Asia , Malaysia , Singapore , Thailand ,  and India .  Fram ( talk ) 09:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:SYNTH .  Geschichte ( talk ) 09:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's no longer a disambiguation.  It's turned into an article, having numerous independent citations from diverse sources.  -- Haoreima ( talk ) 11:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:SYNTH is no longer applicable to the article because just after the deletion nomination, massive development has been taken place in the article, with the addition of different independent citations and sources.  Thanks!  :-) -- Haoreima ( talk ) 11:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] At the very least, rename to India's gateway to Southeast Asia , as the current title fails the recognizability and precision WP:CRITERIA . No one looking at the current title will know that it's about the Indian context of the term. I can also see a case for merging to Look East policy (India) , as all the discussion about is within the context of said policy. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 11:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I could not find anything related to the topic, apart from the citations which are who-said-what news articles.  The two journal articles India's Northeast: 'Gateway' to Southeast Asia?  and Is Northeast India Prepared to be the Gateway to Southeast Asia and Pacific Countries?  are asking the question but not declaring that it's the gateway.  This is WP:SYNTH — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 19:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's why the article's topic is already clarified as a sobriquet .  I think independent citations already disprove the claim of WP:SYNTH .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haoreima ( talk • contribs ) 22:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The "independent" citations that you're talking about, I believe, are news reports of who-said-what.  They're news reports, not articles discussing the topic, sobriquet or not.  To be qualified as a sobriquet article, there needs to WP:GNG coverage that discuss exactly that.  And I find none.  — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 11:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I see that you restored the "notable remarks" content that I removed and added further content based on who-said-what articles in a Wiki-voice.  If you don't see how that's a WP:SYNTH , I'm afraid to say I see a lack of understanding of the policy.  — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 11:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] DaxServer If that page is redirected to a certain relevant page, will it be a solution instead of permanent deletion of the page?  -- Haoreima ( talk ) 15:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The redirect is still a WP:SYNTH — DaxServer ( t · m · e · c ) 15:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The current page structure is not what I'd expect about a sobriquet.  It's possible that relevant information may be better placed at Look East policy (India) .  CMD ( talk ) 03:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Dax and nom.  TrangaBellam ( talk ) 01:29, 23 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete