Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faim Khan

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faim Khan[edit]

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

Exceedingly minor musical artist, from article only created 2 hours or so. Both references, Google News, Books and Facebook search show insufficient notability to satisfy WP:BIO, WP:BAND nor WP:MUSBIO. Seems to have only started a few weeks ago. scope_creep 22:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on this article. I need time to complete my article. So. Please undo your deletion request. kartiktiwary3 (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2015 (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/2015 October 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Article was moved immediately after being nominated for deletion, and the AFD link was not corrected. I have now corrected that link and am relisting the debate to give a full 7 days for review. On the merits, no comment - Except one note for Kartiktiwary. I strongly suggest that you show reliable sources independent of the subject to show why the article should be kept. The references in the article, as of this moment, are all links to the subject's social media presence - good as far as it goes, but not sufficient according to our policies. If you like, we can Userfy the article into your userspace to give you more time to complete your work. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - insufficient evidence of notability. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 17:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 01:45, 25 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.