The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite obviously failing BLPPROD because the sources are not WP:RS this article has been reviewed and the BLPPROD removed, hence I am flagging it here as a disputed PROD. It has just sufficient notability asserted to avoid speedy deletion, but the featured person is not notable. When they are they may have an article here. Fiddle Faddle 22:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Fiddle Faddle 22:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The PROD was put in place just over 10 minutes after the article was created. Creator had improved references prior to my viewing and after reviewing I encouraged the creator to add more information and references, which is still being done gradually. This article needs working on not deleting. Research of the actress will show that she is certainly notable in line with the many other actors/actresses under the India WikiProject. Coverage has big effect on the availability of sources of article's like these so we must give them a chance rather than submitting a PROD while the creator is still making additions. Research on the subject certainly asserts notability and by not taking the standard of global sources in this category into consideration, we are not being supportive of smaller scopes which often create these debates. --- Xenomm (Leave a message!) 01:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To add: I wasn't aware of WP:INDAFD prior to this, however it holds strong merit on cases such as these. The reason I became involved with such articles is mostly because I hold no bias on the subject and I see that such articles are approached by some with negative preconceptions. When I researched this actress in particular I found a facebook fan page with 5000+ followers, and a long list of individuals asserting how they see the actress as notable, which although may not satisfy Wikipedia policies, it certainly assures me of notability. I tagged the article for addition of better sources and also advised the article creator that this should be addressed. I've acted as a reviewer of numerous similar pages, some which I've had speedily deleted and some which I felt simply needed more time to improve. This article in particular was proposed for deletion very soon after it had actually been created, which in my view isn't helpful to Wikipedia as a project and why guidelines promote reviewing from the end of the queue rather than the newest pages. In addition the creator is still working with us to improve the article and has taken all advice into consideration. Common sense dictates to me that articles like this need researching further before submission of a PROD. Contrary to the view of the AfD submitter, the subject is definitely notable, we just need to allow time for it to be further sourced, so that we're not treating India WikiProject articles unfairly. --- Xenomm (Leave a message!) 16:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]