Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nasir Khanjan (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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir Khanjan[edit]

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

Person mentioned in the article is not notable at all. Some youtube videos and trivial mention in local media. Fails GNG. Last AFD discussion was closed as no consensus even though there was no opposing votes. Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Fails WP:NOTABLE. Furthermore, person isn't a celebrity, just a social media user.Usman Khalil_Talk 09:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm surprising myself on this one, because I generally don't see much significance in social-media "stars". But the instant subject has received substantial coverage from multiple reliable sources. And the Express Tribune and the Daily Times (Pakistan) are not "local" sources. Furthermore, unlike many articles on non-notable people, the sources appearing here are not passing mentions, they're not press releases and they're not interviews. Pakistani journalists are actually writing about the guy. The strongest argument for deletion that I can see is that this press coverage might not be persistent and that nothing more will ever be written about him. But for that argument to be valid, we'll have to wait at least a year. In the meantime, we do have three substantial sources appearing in the article, and that's enough to pass the general notability guidelines. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Fails WP:NOTABLE. I originally CSD tagged this, and since then there has been no additional media coverage indicating notability. David.moreno72 01:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTABLE. I added CSD A7 tag just now. I also fixed AfD template to point to the correct page. Feel free to remove my CSD if you feel it's inappropriate given it has an open AfD. Justin15w (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually see a CSD was declined about a month ago. I'll remove the CSD. Justin15w (talk) 18:27, 25 January 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.