Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anisa Butt

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 keep - I disagree with the sources however I'm essentially arguing with the consensus so am withdrawing, On a technicality she does pass NACTOR thus making the delete !vote moot but anyway closing as Speedy Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anisa Butt[edit]

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

I planned to source the article however Google doesn't bring much up and what it does bring up is mostly gossip/tabloid sources, IMHO fails TOOSOON, NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 21:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:ACTOR & definitely too soon for an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 02:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NACTOR through avaiable wide coverage. Article needs work, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Most if not all of those sources are just trivial mentions and crap that doesn't remotely belong in this article, Bringing up a page that lists sources means nothing - We need individual links and ones that are reliable sources, Being in a couple of films isn't a pass to an article - Akk articles need to meet GNG or at the very least NBASIC. –Davey2010^Talk 13:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most? ? Really? How many do we need to meet WP:BIO? 2? 3? 4? No offense, but poor google-foo does not mean we give up, specially for a non-western topic. We do we have WP:SIGCOV in non-blog non-tabloid Times of India, The Hans India, Asian Age, International Business Times, Dispatch & Courier, Bollywood Life... and more... at least enough to at a minimum suggest that a temporary redirect under WP:ATD to Baat Bann Gayi is far better than a flat-out deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was gonna do a fly-by to say "I hear she's big in Italy." but decided that discretion was the better part of valor in that regard and was gonna it a miss... On a whim, I clicked the search link provided by MQSchmidt above. I encourage that everyone do that, it becomes quite obvious that this subject is a GNG pass owing to multiple substantial pieces of independent published coverage in sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2017 (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.