Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palakkattu Madhavan


 * 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The result was speedy keep, nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Palakkattu Madhavan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. This article cites no independent reliable source, and given that it was created the editors involved, I don't believe any such source exists. Article therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Abecedare (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe, instead of assuming a source doesn't exist because of a users supposed COI, you could have a look for the source yourself and remove all doubt. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Alts:
 * director:
 * producer:
 * lead:
 * lead:
 * WP:INDAFD: "Palakkattu Madhavan" "M Chandramohan" "Kuruvanna Basheer" Vivekh "Sonia Agarwal"


 * STRONG Keep per meeting WP:GNG and thus WP:NF. Sorry ... but my own due diligence shows the topic has lots of coverage in reliable sources. I quickly found Sify, Times of India, International Business Times (1), Bangalore Mirror, Deccan Chronicle, International Business Times (2), and many others. Sheesh... please look first, dude. The article currently lacking decent sourcing through a possible or intentional ineptitude of its author(s) is correctable.  We might punish the socks, but we do not punish our readers when dealing with misguided contributors.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 11:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdraw Thanks for finding the sources User:MichaelQSchmidt. The film indeed seems notable enough. Would you mind adding the sources you found to the article? A side note: this is not a simple case of misguided or socking editors; but of undisclosed paid advocacy. Abecedare (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just got home, but will be happy to do so.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:06, 7 September 2015 (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.