Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aqib Khan

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The result was Speedy keep Nomination withdrawn based on improvement, no outstanding delete !votes. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aqib Khan

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

A relatively unnoteable actor with no references to pages other than IMDB, an offical website and a Twitter feed. Also there appears to be edit warring, persistent vandalism, page ownership, and a conflict of interest (see edit summary [1]). Cocoaguy ここがいい 05:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 30. Snotbot t • c » 14:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Zero sources, no indication of wp:notability. Most variants of the article have looked like self-blogging. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the now expanded and sourced article. I share the nominator's concerns about IPs and SPAs mis-handling the article, but such is best handled with semi-protection and a careful watch over future edits. We have a very new actor whose two significant roles in notable productions just tick at WP:ENT, and whose coverage surpasses requirements of WP:GNG. What the nominator understandably first nominated was in pretty poor shape,[2] but just a few hours of work we have something that now properly serves the project and which no longer contains inappropriate sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep per Schmidt-- Cocoaguy ここがいい 05:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed from delete) Much improved, including sources establishing wp:notability. To those who did it: nice work! North8000 (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2012 (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.