Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prashantt Guptha

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 Delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prashantt Guptha

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

~~Non notable actor. The article created by a sockpuppet of the subject of the article (WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY). Already speedied three times [1]. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)~~ I withdraw my nomination. The article should be speedy deleted as WP:g5. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Hello Vanjagenije, why it wasn't WP:G5ed? If we are going to ignore creation by a blocked user and discuss eligibility of subject against Wikipedia standards, then they meet Wikipedia's General notability guideline and WP:NACTOR #1 and you should really think about withdrawing your nomination. Here are the sources, -[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. -few have significant coverage, -few have short mentions but prove substantial role in notable film(s) per nactor #1. See also, list of sources in the article, -they are offline but available as clippings on subject's official website, as such this one, [12], [13], [14]. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra: I nominated the page for deletion before the author was revealed to be a sock of blocked user, so G5 did not apply at that moment. Anyway, it does apply now, so the article should be speedy deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O! I see now. I was confused reading the nomination rationale, that it was created by a sock. I've tagged it for speedy per G5. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:47, 22 January 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.