Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keeya Khanna
- 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Keeya Khanna[edit]
- Keeya Khanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actress who falls under too soon. She has just a few roles so far-but someday she might deserve a page-just not yet. (maybe in a couple years she will get one) Wgolf (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - sadly can't find any evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - The article does not meets the general notability guidelines and WP:NACTOR. — CutestPenguinHangout 19:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete toosoon. Can't see significant coverage in third party sources. Fails WP:NACTOR. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Sources include in-depth treatment here paragraph here, inaugurating a store here, major mentions here, coverage here, major mentions in film review here, mention here, major coverage here, suggesting in total she meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Tomwsulcer: Notability is not the concern, the question is why too soon? — CutestPenguinHangout 13:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Cutest Penguin:, not sure about the rationale about WP:TOOSOON; my sense is the WP:GNG is the dominant test here. And I don't think it's "too soon" when this actress is getting major attention in the Bollywood world. If you feel she's notable, then I don't understand how a 'too soon' argument would undermine this notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Tomwsulcer: In countries like India actors and politicians have significant coverage in the reliable sources, but I don't think that this actress have. If notability makes a sense then what's the use of toosoon, is it waste of time? You have mentioned few links in order to meet the notability (GNG) which contain a single domain reference from tribuneindia.com (one source) and other from itimes which again lacks significant coverage and other from glamsham.com which I don't think is the reliable source. Well, these are my views you may agree or disagree and must say I have no WP:COI. Thank you!— CutestPenguinHangout 17:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Cutest Penguin:, not sure about the rationale about WP:TOOSOON; my sense is the WP:GNG is the dominant test here. And I don't think it's "too soon" when this actress is getting major attention in the Bollywood world. If you feel she's notable, then I don't understand how a 'too soon' argument would undermine this notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Tomwsulcer: Notability is not the concern, the question is why too soon? — CutestPenguinHangout 13:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment- This actress may meet the general notable guidelines as @Tomwsulcer: suggested above but it is very clear that this article/actress failing NACTOR which says Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions but I cannot see any such roles in any notable films. — CutestPenguinHangout 14:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes I know there is a debate in Wikipedia about whether subject-specific guidelines such as WP:NACTOR should trump guidelines like the WP:GNG. Some people favor the subject-specific; my understanding of the current consensus is that if a subject passes either the GNG or the NACTOR guideline, then they're notable, and I am basing that understanding on the following: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject from WP:BASIC, with the next paragraph down under "Additional criteria" saying that 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. That is, a person could fail to meet the WP:ENT guideline which says Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions but still be notable by the GNG. But as always I am willing to go along with whatever the community decides.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Tomwsulcer: Thank you for highlighting the concepts and wiki guidelines. — CutestPenguinHangout 14:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes I know there is a debate in Wikipedia about whether subject-specific guidelines such as WP:NACTOR should trump guidelines like the WP:GNG. Some people favor the subject-specific; my understanding of the current consensus is that if a subject passes either the GNG or the NACTOR guideline, then they're notable, and I am basing that understanding on the following: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject from WP:BASIC, with the next paragraph down under "Additional criteria" saying that 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. That is, a person could fail to meet the WP:ENT guideline which says Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions but still be notable by the GNG. But as always I am willing to go along with whatever the community decides.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:TOOSOON. The coverage of her so far has been mostly routine or insignificant. Ribbon-cuttings and interviews about shopping don't count toward WP:GNG. If she comes to pass WP:NACTOR then we should have an article. Lagrange613 20:19, 20 September 2014 (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.