Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awais Khan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Nominator has withdrawn after article development only (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awais Khan (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)
  • Delete This individual does not meet the necessary criteria for notoriety due to lacking the reliable sources. As such he should be removed unless this page can produce additional relevant reliable sourcing Bgrus22 (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Comment I have just changed my vote after seeing the new sourcing and reviewing some more wiki-guidelines. Thanks everyone for developing this page! I will be closing the deletion tab on the article, feel free to blank this or archive it as needed. Bgrus22 (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Per WP:SUSTAINED. AND ON AND ON AND ON (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep per WP:NCYC. AND ON AND ON AND ON (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Competed in the UCI World Championships, therefore clearly passes WP:NCYC. Actually read the criteria please. You don't even acknowledge that he fails any guidelines, just ramble vaguely about sources, which is not a viable reason to nominate this for AfD. --Seacactus 13 (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2020 (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.