Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laith Hakeem

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 12:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laith Hakeem[edit]

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

Was dePRODed due to having a raft of references, but a closer examination reveals that none of them are RS, especially if the social media sites and concert sites are been removed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be helpful if social media links that are against policy are removed from the article to help people assess it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nudging Kudpung --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The referencing here is far too strongly tied to primary sources and blogs, with no evidence of reliable source coverage in media shown at all. Neither WP:NMUSIC (for his work as a musician) nor WP:CREATIVE (for his work in radio) hands a person an automatic notability freebie just because he exists — he needs to actually achieve something that constitutes a claim of notability, and even more importantly that has to be supported by reliable sources and not just by his own PR materials. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it, but literally nothing here is enough to get him a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:34, 17 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.