Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junaid Shah

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junaid Shah[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No indication of WP:GNG. While there are media reports of his death, they all seem to stem from the same source and read like press release. Had a brief news exposure a few years ago when an actor he looked like tweeted a picture of him. At best WP:1E. All but one of the references are about his death and lots of them refer to being sourced from one of the other refs. One ref includes him in a list of several look-a-likes. Claims of his being an actor not referenced - aspiring actor is mentioned in some of the obits but no detail to back that up. noq (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article passes WP: THREE and include a much needed information which an article required which shows its notability as per WP:GNG. Also its views (search rank) is also good.

Comment WP:THREE is an editors essay, not a policy. WHat is the "much needed information"? noq (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Noq: I means to say that the information which is required in an article.— The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)}

trivial celebrity material about someone who is only a celebrity because he resembles an actual notable person. The multiple references read as if they had been copied from the same press release. I do not consider them multiple independent sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is not only single event coverage. Every reference have additional information. Like Mid Day have two different articles from 2015 and 2017, which tells about this model. Also same press coverage claim is somehow true but all the reference added additional information.— The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 19:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete the nomination, and DGG explain the reasoning in a policy based manner. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:12, 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.