Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikander Ghuman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sikander Ghuman[edit]

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

Sikander Ghuman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable singer/actor; draftification is impossible due to a previous attempt of this nature being draftified under the same name. Google search only pulls up the same ToI tabloidy junk under a role byline as is already in the article and no actual significant coverage (string: "sikander ghuman"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Cut and paste copy of Draft:Sikander Ghuman. Should be deleted and the draft page go through the AfC process. Gusfriend (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I encountered this article a bit ago at the new pages feed and agree. The picture in the article is apparently "original work" of the person who created the article, so it's probably paid and/or conflict of interest. The multiple issues tag has been changing around for a bit, but the fact that it's there is a problem when the article is so new. Asparagusus (interaction) 04:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly an attempted promotion for a musician who is just getting started, and reprints of his publicity announcements at unreliable gossip sites do not constitute the evidence that is necessary here. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victory (punjabi song). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and per other users suggesting this is being used for promotion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – can't find any independent sourcing taking about him. --bonadea contributions talk 11:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block the creator as a SOA. This is nothing more than exaggerated vanity spam sourced to the usual suspects engaging in paid pr without identifying it (aka blackhat SEO) PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many Wikipedians (including me) find and artist Sikander Ghuman as a reliable source while creating Indian-related articles. Deleting a artist page will close the door to other content as well and this will definitely hurt the expansion of Wikipedia. There must be a tool to find out how often Sikander Ghuman has been cited on Wikipedia and this should be seen as a consensus of the community over a news source. Yes, I know, but it give you little idea of its popularity. Its notability is not completely based on social media. Sikander Ghuman is among top actor in Indian film industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alibaba00450 (talk • contribs) 17:21 September 3, 2022 (UTC) — Alibaba00450 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    This argument is laughable at best and outright bullshit at worst. The times where we would consider a singer a reliable source are infinitesimally small, and if Ghuman is indeed being cited as extensively as you claim, then those cites need to be straight-up removed. On that note, what is your connexion to IamNasirZaman (talk · contribs)? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep We have already discussed and other things like Sikander Ghuman was among less than one dozen sites that are freely available in India on internet.org, in the previous nomination. This is just not spammy. It's a short bio which is encylopedic, and then a short career history. He may well not be notable, but there's credible indication as artist. This is a very famous and popular artist of Punjabi language. And this actor is very much liked all over the world Millions of people have searched this Artist on google That's why it was very important to make Wikipedia of this actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alibaba00450 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC) [reply]
    This argument is, once again, laughable at best and outright bullshit at worst. I suspect you're copy-pasting arguments from other AfDs and just slapping in "this guy is famous"; that isn't going to work since those arguments are highly unlikely to apply to the circumstances here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:47, 3 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sikander_Ghuman&oldid=1108358605"