Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ali Raza Usama

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ali Raza Usama[edit]

Syed Ali Raza Usama (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)

Many things written about him in article fails WP:V. Making a search produces no notability (i.e. no notable source). Fails WP:GNG. Might also fails Subject specific guidlines too as he directed only one film for which he got only a nomination but never won. Greenbörg (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  08:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  08:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  08:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete self-promotion. fails to meet WP:GNG. cited sources are not RS. --Saqib (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (TCGE) 00:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches turned up nothing to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 20:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources cited are a wiki page, a BBS, a blog, and two production pages that aren't actually about the article subject. No indication of independent, WP:RS coverage. Eggishorn (talk)(contrib) 23:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Keep Enough coverage has now been found to qualify under WP:GNG Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An editor requested I reopen and relist this discussion because they wanted to comment but couldn't because of an edit-conflict
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 19:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. This can be kept now. I just don't believe I missed to find the press coverage the subject has received. Thank you @Insertcleverphrasehere and Mar4d: for your efforts to rescue this bio. --Saqib (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in concurrence with Insertcleverphrasehere's views, and the sources that were later explored on the subject. Mar4d (talk) 18:07, 27 July 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.