Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puven Pather

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puven Pather[edit]

Appears not to pass WP:ENTERTAINER, all TV/film roles are as extras or very minor parts and practically all sources on the web appear to be sourced from IMDB, AMG or the like - doesn't appear to be anything actually about him. The only thing that makes me suspect any notability at all is that the entry appears to be copied from another language wiki (Spanish?) which makes me think that there might be non-English sources out there. Black Kite 15:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per nominator. One user created this article and it contains this sentence: "With Puven's varied skillset he is a great asset to any production." If there is any question as to why this article exists that should answer it. Drawn Some (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbole is easy to remove per WP:CLEANUP, so I will do so now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after having visited the article, removed hyperbole, cleaned up the format some, and sourced his being an award winning director. I am not at all impressed with his long career as a stuntman, but he's making waves as a filmmaker. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep per awards for The Shot, the 20 year stunt career is impressive if not notable. pohick (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references do not establish notability. They are mostly not WP:RS, and/or not significant coverage, and/or not actually about Puven Pather. Dlabtot (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Few web-based references, but notable (just) per pohick. Mark Hurd (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2009 (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.