Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neel Madhav


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn per improvement by. (non-admin closure) -- Dane 2007  talk 03:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Neel Madhav

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been deleted and recreated several times always with the same issues. Moving to AfD per 's advice after the last deletion. Notability is not established and the article is unsourced (as it remained for several weeks after the last creation). Suggesting deletion and salting. -- Dane 2007  talk 02:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 03:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 03:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 03:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 03:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Meets WP:GNG. Sources: The Hindu, Indian Express, Deccan Herald, Menxp, Mid-day, Verve. There should be more than what I found on a cursory web search and listed here. One needs to work on the article though to make it comply wp:v & wp:npov. Anup   [Talk]  06:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to pass WP:N per User:Anupmehra's sources.  Nonetheless the article has issues with promotion and sockpuppetry (see Sockpuppet investigations/Medianetwork4) and so will need to be revised and monitored. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: per previous comment. The article has been improved. I would ask nominator to take a look at the improved version and withdraw the nomination since their concern over notability and sourcing has been addressed.  Anup   [Talk]  03:16, 10 September 2016 (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.