Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neeraj Mehta

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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Mehta

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

Promo-piece. References themselves are promotional pieces that don't support claims on notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree this appears to be a promotional piece by an SPA. However, there appears to be enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG, albeit barely. I don't feel strongly about this article, so I reserve the right to change my mind (and vote) based on any arguments presented. Papaursa (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication as this was a poorly accepted AfC draft and tge creator should get a chance to improve. I don't care if it goes back to Draft: or to User: - I think given more time it can be salvaged. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or send back to draftspace. Shouldn't have been accepted. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 16:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Improve the subject is notable according to WP:GNG, the article should be improved rather than simply deleting it. --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 11:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Times of India and Hindustan Times are reliable sources. I agree the article needs improving, but AFD is not clean-up.Mdtemp (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Improve Chunlinc (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, some of the sources are interviews, but they're in major publications. That shows me that he's achieved the level of notability, through coverage in reliable sources, that WP:GNG calls for. Does the article need cleanup? Probably. Should the article be kept and improved? Yes. —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't like this article. It's very promotional, not very balanced, and its references are in terrible shape. I'm not even sure if there's really enough for a standalone article, but that being said those are not necessarily valid deletion rationales and all seemingly surmountable problems. This article may not expand beyond a start or stub but it meets what I would describe as the absolute bare minimum requirements for inclusion. Mkdw ^talk 18:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could be improved, but the subject is notable. Mehta is widely quoted by the press as an expert on nutrition/fitness [1] and the existing sourcing is also sufficient to prove notability under the GNG. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:28, 25 April 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.