Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishna Kaul (actor)

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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Kaul (actor)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Only one significant role and a few other roles but they aren't essentially lead. There are some reliable sources cited but are typical churnalism content or interviews. Hence the subject isn't meeting either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG independently. ManaliJain (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of playing multiple significant roles to meet NACTOR. Having linked articles is not enough, reliable and independent sources need to be there. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Ab207 (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP enough resources in citation for newcomer Actor. --Nang Nandini (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, no just "enough resources." -- Ab207 (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2022 (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.