Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoaib Rahman

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 speedy delete. CSD G5, created by sockpuppet of Mostly shoaib (likely the article subject) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shoaib Rahman[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

57 references, and yet it looks as if he isn't actually notable. No GNews hits about him (just posts by him)[1], and some 58 regular GHits[2] are both very low for a current English-language writer, filmmaker and entrepreneur. The sources in the article are in many cases self published, or generic databases, or of dubious independence. Something like this doesn't seem to mention Rahman, or Fadew. Something like this is a worthless source. this is self published by Rahman. This is of very dubious reliability and independence. This is self written. In general, I have trouble here finding the few actual reliable, independent, indepth sources we require to accept biographies. Fram (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Journalism, Literature, Atheism, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete salt and nuke from orbit. Non notable vanity spam. Absolutely filled to the brim with garbage sourcing. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's blatantly obvious this is vanity spam. Most every single source is simply a product listing or something the subject has created himself. I would be surprised if non-COI editors found this article notable and meeting GNG. If anyone is confused, however, I'm more than happy to assess sourcing one-by-one. --Kbabej (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2022 (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.