Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanullah Nezami (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 12:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amanullah Nezami[edit]

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

Second nomination. From the moment it was closed as no consensus, the article is not improved with no evidence of notability added. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I don't see any reason why should this article be deleted, there are lot's of sources proving his existence. Audi1merc2 (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not notability. I expect to see review of his collection, impact on culture, exhibitions or/and participation in movie festivals? Not every collector is entitled to an article Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of that is at all actually convincing for his own notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep now, as I've reconsidered since the last AFD. That this person has coverage for being a collector, fine... as WP:BASIC tells us notability is through coverage. And it really does not matter that it has not received a lot of attention since the last AFD. WP:WIP, WP:PRESERVE is the impetus and the nom's sense of WP:IMPATIENT is not a deletion policy. Succinctly, it is a suitable well-sourced stub article and there is no policy or guideline mandate that it cannot simply remain one. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 8 August 2016 (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.