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. Randykitty ( talk) 12:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Mawra Hocane (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR. The subject may worth an article in the future, but now, it doesn't pass our notability threshold and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No in-depth coverage, just passing mentions. Jim Carter 17:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Ibid. (Or in plain English as above). Not notable now. References provided are just advitorials.-- Aspro ( talk) 17:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Would you please explain how she fails WP:NACTOR, have you searched and read that she is featured multiple times in the mainstream newspapers and electronic media. What does mean significant coverage if that is not Justice007 ( talk) 19:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • There is no evidence that she place notable roles in notable programs. Playing lots of bit roles in programs that no one cares about is not meeting WP:NACTOR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, I do not draw the personal description of the rules. As you describe the rules in your comments if you do not mind that does not meet the concept of that rules. You do not find evidence; it is your view, not the rules. I see clear notability here 1, 2, 3, Mawra Hocane Exclusive Interview (TV) as the rule that is referred to delete the article. Justice007 ( talk) 22:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  • what those links dont do is show that she satisfies N:ACTOR - they might establish that she has been the center of several different social media froo fa las. Are there criteria for WP:NSOCIALMEDIA? at what point does "trending in twitter" reach notability? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I do not think you are in the right direction of the rules; you are drawing the description that doest not exist.

"People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Editors may find these criteria helpful when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations (using {{ BLP sources}} for example), or to instead initiate a deletion discussion."

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

I hope this helps. Justice007 ( talk) 08:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• • • Justice007 Please read the relevant policy once again. The subject fails #1 and #3 of N:ACTOR. Neither the subject has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Nor has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Furthermore, the coverage you are pointing is just a case of WP:MILLS. Jim Carter 05:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I am not here to display my ego and nor I am imposing my supremacy. "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable". You refer WP:MILLS, what for? but I do not see your name in its member list.?! Justice007 ( talk) 08:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

This shortcuts and Wikipedia jargon are quite confusing, I was referring to WP:MILL. My argument still stands, it fails the subject-specific criteria mentioned at WP:NACTOR and our general notability threshold. I still couldn't see indepth coverage. The coverage are too trivial and WP:CRYSTALBALL to establish notability. Jim Carter 11:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

It is not the surprise that you still couldn't see in-depth coverage. In this regard, I refer this rule that may help you to draw the meaning of the term significant or in-depth. This easay states: "Another problem is that, because of the unclear drafting of Wikipedia's Notability policies (WP:N), some participants at AfD will argue that no matter how much coverage there is, it is not significant."In short, regarding "notability", a topic may be presumed notable (i.e. capable of being noted or worthy of notice) if it is noticed in one or more independent, reliable, and verifiable sources."

I hope this helps. Justice007 ( talk) 12:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Hey, it's absolutely not a "rule". It's an essay, created by a user and it doesn't represent community's opinion. It's absolutely not a policy. For established guideline see WP:SIGCOV where it is clearly noted that significant coverage is "more than 'trivial' mention". Here most of the sources provides nothing more than 'trivial mention' of the subject. And debuting into Bollywood is a clear WP:CRYSTALBALL thingy. Furthermore, you appears to be ignoring the fact that it still fails the subject-specific criteria of notability. Anyhow, I will not repeat myself. My dear Justice007, please do read this essay and though unrelated but a quick look here would be helpful. Cheers, Jim Carter 12:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

What you are referring rules that do not apply here. I quoted the passage as that as was (bold). Let's wait the consensus whatever it is. Justice007 ( talk) 13:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't want to get into the details of whether the wiki page is warranted or not. I can say that Mawra Hocane has been the leading lady in many television productions in Pakistan. She has prominent roles in

• Main Bushra https://www.facebook.com/MainBushraOfficial (Verified Facebook page)
• Ladki Hona Gunah Nahin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoH6Wj9NVXA also https://www.facebook.com/ZeeZindagiTV/photos/a.228970673964964.1073741828.225241597671205/332898770238820/
• Aahista Aahista: http://blogs.humnetwork.com/category/hum-tv/aahista-aahista/
• Nikhar gaye gulaab saare: https://www.facebook.com/nikhargayegulabsare via a verified Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/humtvpakistan/posts/195760137213287
• Maryam: http://www.hipinpakistan.com/news/1146973 here it is clearly stated that Mawra is the female protagonist
• Ek Tamanna Lahasil Si: http://www.hum.tv/videos-dm.php?page_id=35

I have listed the above links to simply contest TRPOD's assertion that she has done two bit roles. In all the examples I have cited, Mawra is clearly a lead or the second lead in a drama. None of these roles are two bit roles. I should also point out that Mawra is only 23 years old, and she has not had the years under her belt to have lots of work. Many actors at her age have done less work than she has. Pakistani entertainment industry is not as big as the Indian entertainment industry, and maybe not covered as much. So many actors/actresses fly under the radar as compared to Indian actors and actresses. That may be the reason why TRPOD thinks that Mawra is a two bit actor. Manoflogan ( talk) 08:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

It was not my assertion that "she has not had prominent roles in prominent production", it was my assertion that "it has not been established that she has had prominent roles in prominent productions." When I made the statement there was nothing in this discussion, nothing in her Wikipedia article and nothing in the show's Wikipedia articles establish it. [Some of] Your newly added links may provide establishment that she has a "prominent role" - but it is still not established that those roles are in "prominent productions" . You can have the starring role in a one-man show, but if no one cares about the show, it is still a fail of WP:NACTOR -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Think this comes down to perception of notability. There are some six billion humans on this planet and quite a few of them are called to be interviewed on radio, television and to have their views published in news papers for there professional insights, gained over years of studying the subject. Few however, have Wikipedia articles because that they are not notable. Some here, are suggesting that actors and actresses are an exception to notability standards on this encyclopedia, simply because they are actors, actresses and models. And since their fame and fortune depends on wide spread exposure, then WP should not object - even if they are not encyclopedic-ally notable. This really is the crux of the matter. It is not one's occupation or work record nor publicity hype that is notable but that je ne sais quoi achievements that stands the person out from the rest of the six billion. We have wasted enough time on this circular reasoning. Just delete this bio until such time concrete notability arises.-- Aspro ( talk) 12:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Some of her work has been broadcast on Hum_TV and ARY_Digital. It is one of the most popular channels in Pakistan, equivalent to American_Broadcasting_Company, NBC or CBS in United States. The network is not only popular in Pakistan, but in UK as well. Two of the most recent posts corroborate the point. http://www.media247.co.uk/bizasia/overnights-hum-tv-zooms-ahead-on-saturday-2015 and http://www.media247.co.uk/bizasia/overnights-star-plus-hum-tv-lead-thursday. If an actor were to get a lead or a second lead role in any show broadcast on either NBC or CBS or American_Broadcasting_Company, we could say with great deal of confidence that the actor would have had a wiki page. Again, I am not saying that the page should exist, I am simply stating with references that Mawra has been cast in roles that is either a lead or a second lead on prominent shows broadcast on a network popular not only in Pakistan, but also in UK. That addresses the question of whether Mawra is working in a prominent production.

I believe that the wiki page needs more details, if the decision to not delete the page is taken. Manoflogan ( talk) 08:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 21:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:ENT, and WP:GNG - not having a wikipedia page does not mean that someone is not a good actor, it means that they have not yet achieved encyclopedic notability. It may happen, but hasn't happened YET. Scr★pIron ^IV 21:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep:The subject is significantly covered by mainstream print and electronic media with editorial integrity in English and Urdu. The subject also performed in multiple famous dramas. It clearly passes WP:NACTOR, WP:ENT, and WP:GNG. I see here is being practised as this essay states: "some participants at AfD will argue that no matter how much coverage there is, it is not significant." Justice007 ( talk) 23:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep the actress is notable as covered by reliable news media. Umais Bin Sajjad ( talk) 10:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep This article is about a the actress who is notable as covered by reliable news media. WikiBulova ( talk) 19:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete, I had originally thought that she would meet the WP:GNG, but this was the only reliably published English language source that I could find that is substantially about her. With that in mind, I can't read Urdu so this might be substantial and reliable; I just don't know. If it is, that'd be the two reliable sources needed to push her past the GNG, and WP:NACTOR would become irrelevant at that point. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 03:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC). reply

• Delete If she gets more notable roles and more coverage in the future to help her more clearly meet the guidelines this can be revisited, until then, this seem seems like the best option. Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 21:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete Her first film is not yet completed. The Avengers ( talk) 07:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep I think that that the number of dramas that this subject has starred in, in addition to her being a Bollywood actress is sufficient to establish notability, although the article as it stands now has plenty of room for improvement. Doing a simple Google search for "Mawra Hocane" shows a number of additional sources that could be added to the article. Cheers, Anupam ^Talk 01:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Mawra has three Bollywood projects in hand and is also appreciated by Ranbir Kapoor which is going to make her much much popular and well known than she is now. Maybe she would not be that popular in India but she would be one of the most searched Pakistani celebrity and a heartthrob in Pakistan and this is not going to take 5-10 years but it is going to happen soon and then again someone have to make a Wikipedia page on her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.199.177 ( talk) 10:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR, and misses on WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep, whilst it is WP:TOOSOON as a film actress for her, she for sure has credits for several TV serials. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:17, 30 October 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.