Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darya Khan Rind

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darya Khan Rind[edit]

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

Promotional stuff. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG. — TheMagnificentist 08:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some arguments about why GNG fails would be welcome. Has anybody looked for sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 16:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky. This is another example of someone who may be notable, but not enough information about him is present in easily searchable English language resources to prove that. I don't think this is too promotional, and wonder if the author of the page has used present tense when they should have used past tense. I think it would take someone with access to significant published material on Pakistani poets to truly check notability, and to just delete because we don't have access to the right material is lazy. Ross-c (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:10, 22 August 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.