Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namik Paul

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. Nakon 02:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Namik Paul[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Also, the article's sole reference is a routine blurb that doesn't come close to meeting the 'significant coverage contemplated by WP:GNG. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has the lead role in a prime time tv series that has already passed 50 episodes, passes WP:NACTOR. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the needed solid independent notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please rewrite that comment in comprehensible English? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please refrain from making WP:UNCIVIL comments. reddogsix (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there's nothing uncivil about asking for clarification of comments that I can't understand. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, per the copious independent reliable sources that can be found simply by clicking the word "news" in the search links spoon-fed to us above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC) — 86.17.222.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Did you even look at my contributions before accusing me of being a single-purpose account? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing much for reliable sources that indicate notabiltiy. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON and the actor becomes more popular but right now it's not enough. - Pmedema (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:32, 16 May 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.