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) J947^{(c) (m)} 04:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Hi. The subject is not notable. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: She certainly passes the GNG; the cites to Emirates 24/7 and The Times of India are solid enough and to reliable sources. There's certainly extraneous junk in there (I just cleared out the external links, for instance), but that's a content issue, not a notability one. Ravenswing 07:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - It cites 16 sources, it's more than notable enough. Jdcomix (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a few minor film roles does not make someone notable. Number of sources is not in any way a grounds for speedy keeping an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep judging from Google news, easily passing the WP:GNG gidonb (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily passes WP:GNG per above sources. Smartyllama (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2017 (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.