Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meghan Jadhav (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. There is no real consensus at this time. As Robert particularly objected to the referencing which has been improved (albeit scarcely), and there has been no real discussion of the subject's actual notability, it is difficult to action a delete. The lack of participation may be down to a lack of real case being made for Meghan not meeting the notability criteria, and hopefully any relisting can explain the grounds for this side of the nomination more thoroughly. KaisaL (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Jadhav[edit]

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

The references do not appear to be independent and reliable, and this article appears to have too much focus on family rather than career. If additional references about his career can be found in seven days, Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Career related links are added now. Iamnewtowiki (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep issues related for deletion of the article has been solved. Pls inform for any issue left. Do not delete. Iamnewtowiki (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and the closer should seriously examine these Keep votes as they have simply tossed a few links at the article but not actually fully clarified how and why the article is independently notable. I myself have found nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 1 July 2016 (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.