Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kishor Satya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) Kraxler (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kishor Satya[edit]

Kishor Satya (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)

Delete. Fails WP:ENT. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: fails notability, GNG. Quis separabit? 22:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep demonstrably meets both WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER, specifically point one of the latter, which says: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." According to this source, which he is the subject of, he has played the lead in four tv serials. He gets a feature piece here in The Hindu, which covers WP:GNG. This source mentions him getting best actor at the Asianet awards. This source mentions him as one of the co-stars in another serial. Other mentions in passing like this suggest someone who's notable and I strongly suspect that there would be more in foreign language sources. Valenciano (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·C) 03:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·C) 03:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems to be locally quite prominent, and the facts of the article are at least verifiable. --Slashme (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 18:01, 8 September 2015 (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.