Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pawan Tiwari

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pawan Tiwari[edit]

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

Potentially non-notable film personality. Discuss. Nairspecht (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a borderline pass of WP:NACTOR as he has had prominent roles in television soap operas as well as a feature film, also the article has reference to reliable source Times of India . Atlantic306 (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- nothing stands out about the subject; strictly a vanity page at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This individual does not have notability worthy of inclusion. -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep the article on this Indian actor/film producer per meetig WP:BIO for WP:GNG is indeed met, deny it or not. Due diligence using WP:INDAFD gives us "Pawan Tiwari" "Pawan Tiwari" producer Pawan Tiwari... missed by some, it's definitely enough to show notability to India is met, even if not to the UnitedStates.. and that's just fine. WHofailed to find Times of India (1), Times of India (2), Free Press Journal, Mid-Day, Times of India (3), Telly Chakkar, Mumbai Mirror, Times of India (4), and others. Sheesh. If this were a US actor/producer there would be no question. To K.e.coffman, Sportsfan 1234, and Dane2007... may I ask what your own WP:BEFORE found, or did you judge by appearances???Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And a note: the nominator has been indef-blocked for sock-puppetry, so this being brought here is itself suspect in the first place. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

~~Comment -- the article is still very unconvincing, and I still advocate deletion.~~ K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rsp Fine to feel so, but when presented with sources to meet WP:GNG, it is usually found by a closer that needing work is not a valid deletion rationale for a shown-as-improvable topic... specially when the topic is brought to AFD by then-blocked puppeteer whose entire edit history needs evaluation. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the number of reliable sources outlined above mean WP:GNG is passed, the article can be improved rather than deleted Atlantic306 (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- based on available reviews, but I hope someone fixes up the WP:UGLY article :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 22:20, 5 November 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.