Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeel Suhrwardy

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. Sandstein 09:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adeel Suhrwardy[edit]

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

Not much to his credit. Fails WP:NACTOR. Greenbörg (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep not enough sources and not enough work to his credit but pass basic WP:GNG. Have IMDb profile and some coverage in few RS. --Saqib (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still not enough notable to be on Wikipedia. Hadn't done any significant roles in multiple films. No unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. No large fan base or a significant "cult" following. My review says it still fails WP:NACTOR. Greenbörg (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For sure it fails WP:NACTOR, but meet basic GNG. --Saqib (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, IMDb is not WP:RS. Greenbörg (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Second option is that we redirect it to Mangoes (TV series). Greenbörg (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. --Saqib (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the specific criteria for actors and filmmakers. These are meant to weed out people who get low level coverage that is not actually substantial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not convinced that he is notable enough from the sources. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:29, 29 October 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.