Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gadgil formula


 * 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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Gadgil formula

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article's content is a simple cut & paste job of its references

abhishek singh (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * sofixit, or if you're lazy, stub. This kind of thing should not be taken to Afd. walk victor falktalk 16:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;topic is notable. If there is a copyright issue, that can be addressed separately.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It is an important topic and there are plenty of references available. Shyamsunder (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep notable topic, enough coverage in reliable sources.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not the best one when looking at lenght or so, but notable enough to be kept. There is coverage in some soucres, which I find reliable enough. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.