Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maanvi Gagroo


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Maanvi Gagroo

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This subject fails WP:GNG for lack of multiple reliable sources giving significant coverage, namely on which to base encyclopedic biographical content. She also fails WP:ANYBIO (received a well-known and significant award or honor or made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record) and WP:NACTOR (significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions). Right now, it seems WP:TOOSOON to clearly establish notability. JFHJr (㊟) 07:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: The subject has been mentioned in critical reviews (1) and acted in a film that was widely recognized. WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO are merely additional criteria and not a sole indicator of notability as quoted: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included." Google News search indicate a few hits which do provide encyclopedic information that would be sufficient enough for a stub article. Secret of success (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment — You've misrepresented the standard: WP:GNG is the floor, the basic standard, and it is not met. Let's see a full quote from WP:NACTOR: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Care to re-factor, without presenting only one half of an alternative criterion? JFHJr (㊟) 18:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that you are opposing my comment purely on the thought that the subject is not satisfying WP:GNG. That is not right. When he/she has received critical acclaim and acted in a notable film, what more do you need for satisfying the standard? Secret of success (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per meeting WP:ACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. While the GNG is easiest tool for determing notability, that guideline is not the only tool. It serves the project for this stub to remain and grow and improve over time and through regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:27, 17 July 2012 (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.