Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamta Kaash

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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mamta Kaash[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPERSON as non-notable. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 02:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as hugely improved since nomination, Notability has indeed been established. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actress who has appeared on multiple television shows in the UK in the 1980s and 1990s -- seems like enough to me. Famous? Perhaps not. More of a bit player. But notable, given that she's been a bit player for 20 years on major UK programs? Yeah, that's enough to me. Also appears in at least one source with some detail about her work: [1] TheOther Bob 04:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should respond to the arguments put forward below. First, WP:NACTOR says that a person is notable if they have appeared in significant roles in multiple notable television series. This actor has appeared on 28 episodes of Casualty_(TV_series) and 33 episodes of Angels_(TV_series) -- both significant roles, and both notable television shows. That's sufficient to meet that criteria. As to WP:TOOSOON, we're talking about someone who was active in British television from 1982 to 2005. This isn't someone's buddy who's trying to break into the industry and might be famous someday... Moreover, my view is that this sort of deletion ultimately damages the project by injecting biases towards topics that Wikipedians like -- and deleting topics that Wikipedians don't find as interesting. Sure, British medical dramas aren't a hot topic on Wikipedia, and they aren't something we know well -- but if someone has an interest in British medical dramas, this actress is a significant part of that history. Why we would delete that type of information -- particularly under the apparently-mistaken belief that 1982-2005 is "too soon" -- is baffling to me. TheOther Bob 01:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, WP:NACTOR and WP:TOOSOON. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best it's WP:TOOSOON, at worst fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. In either case, delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 01:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable actor at the time she was most active – this at a time when (I'm ashamed to say) there were not too many Asian actors in good roles on British TV – and she was a serious player on Casualty (BBC 1 Saturday night prime time hospital drama) [2]. Gets a mention in the Encyclopaedia of TV [3], has a listing at the British Film Institute [4], a review in The Independent (national paper) for a play at The Royal Court theatre [5], and on the British Council website [6]. Her Cannes award – albeit ancient history – made New York magazine [7]. This certainly isn't WP:TOOSOON – more like an insufficiency of internet sources due to the era in which she was most active. I'm going to take a look at newspaper archives the old fashioned way as I'm sure there are more resources on her. She's notable enough for a stub at very least. Libby norman (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a few more references and details to the article. Libby norman (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Relisting per new sources presented in the discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appeared in a major, regular role in two very significant primetime British TV shows (including the world's longest-running emergency medical drama series, which is also still one of the most watched programmes on British TV). Looks notable enough to me. No justification at all for WP:TOOSOON, given she's fifty and those two major roles were in the past. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established, based especially on Libby norman's fine sourcing work. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I have update the article with infobox. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After doing deep online search I discovered that the person is notable and have won various notable awards which makes her ultimately notable. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:20, 14 October 2014 (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.