Deletion of Ali Ansari (actor)

Comment: The notability test for an actor is not passed just because roles are ''listed'' — it's passed by the depth of |reliable source coverage he did or didn't receive ''for'' having roles. But that's not what the sources here are doing: #4 and #5 are |primary sources that do not assist notability, #3 tangentially verifies the existence of a show while completely failing to even ''mention'' his name ''at all'' in conjunction with it, and #1 is a Q&A interview with his ''sister'' in which he gets a glancing namecheck, not coverage ''about him''. The only source here which is about him is #2, but that's not enough sourcing to clinch a GNG pass all by itself if the rest of the sources around it are all worthless — and even it isn't covering him in the context of his acting, but just in the context of being sexy to look at. Which he sure is, but that's not an article-clinching notability claim for an actor in and of itself (hotties can still fail NACTOR and ugly people can still pass it.) So no, none of this is good enough sourcing to get him over a notability criterion that requires good sourcing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES)

Comment: easily passes  with many prominent roles in nationally broadcast television series such as Andaaz-e-Sitam and Iss Khamoshi Ka Matlab; also has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Express Tribune. Also this nomination is in breach of  as a quick google search is insufficient
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACTOR||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: This actor does not establish notability, not even per  some are describing. Iss Khamoshi Ka Matlab does not seem like a notable show due to lack of coverage from reliable sources, so that role is out. The Andaaz-e-Sitam role was not significant as well, so that leaves him with no notable roles hence failing . Being a ''Hottie of Week'' does not establish notability, and certainly is not a reliable secondary source. The others sources are barely covering the subject or are wrongly referring to it, as
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACTOR||WP:NACTOR)

Comment: Per Bearcat's excellent reasoning. We need substantive coverage to establish they meet  and/or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACTOR||WP:GNG)

Comment: as article passes  and has reliable sources. Meet with wikipedia guidelines 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACTOR||WP:PERSON)