Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anup Soni

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) Cenarium (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anup Soni[edit]

I rejected the A7 CSD on this actor bio. Procedural nom, not checked for sources yet, so I'm neutral on the issue for now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish editors could be given a bit more time to develop articles before their newly minted stubs get tagged for CSDs and AFDs. Anyway, this Indian actor has appeared in 13 films according to IMDB [1], and his performances, often in leading roles, noted in 112 newspaper articles on googlenews [2] He seems to easily meet WP:ENTERTAINER Keep--Slp1 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Satisfies WP:NOTABLE guideline for an entertainer. Nk.sheridan Talk 23:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is demonstrated by sources. I'm not sure what is meant here by a "procedural nom". What procedure mandates that declined speedy deletions have to go to AfD? And that this should be done within 5 minutes of article creation and without the usual pre-nomination checks? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't have to nom it by any procedures, and agree my wording was ill chosen. Still, in this case, I thought it was better to gain a wider discussion/consensus on inclusion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references now in article. 50 lashes with a wet noodle to original speedier for requesting speedy within minutes of creation without checking for sources.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the IMDB link was there right from the start, so an initial check for sources has always been pretty darn easy! [3]--Slp1 (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2008 (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.