Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pranav Pradeep

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 delete. Consensus is that the content doesn't belong and a redirect may be ok. If anyone wants to redirect to the film, that's fine. —SpacemanSpiff 04:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pranav Pradeep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The URL's used within the article are fully bare URL's. No significance found for this article. The user is creating lot of pages like this and confusing the Wikipedia patrolling team by using a lot of bare URL's. Josu4u (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Palakkattu Madhavan - I'm not entirely familiar with those dance shows (or their significance) but my searches found nothing good and this may be one of his best known things (especially acting wise). SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We do not delete aticles because of improperly formatting references. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None of the claims in the article rise to the level of establishing notability as we generally consider it, and I'm not entirely certain that the references provide significant coverage in reliable sources even for those claims. Also, this article's creator is associated with some problematic contributions; although this one does appear to use references that actually mention the subject, I'll note that the image is up for speedy deletion at Commons as a mis-attributed copyright violation. All told, I don't think this meets WP:N, and I do think we're better off without it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:28, 3 September 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.