Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farhad Shahnawaz

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) Natg 19 (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Shahnawaz

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

Actor best known for a relatively minor role. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. This gentleman is featured in The Hindu and The Times of India, both eminently WP:Reliable sources. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GeorgeLouis. Sufficient coverage by reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Note this is for his modeling work. DGG is correct insofar that he is non-notable as an actor. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject has received high quality RS coverage for his modeling work. For example, The Hindu and other sources already in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk)
Keep -Subject appears to be meeting WP:BIO and WP:GNG standard, for their "significant" coverage in multiple independent reliable source, such as, -[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided in the article show that the subject has received significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. Seems like WP:BEFORE wasn't followed here.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 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.