Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usman Awan

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. Kurykh (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Awan

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

No significant coverage in secondary sources. Subject seems to fail GNG -- Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTABLE and WP: GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by عثمان خلیل (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note the off site WP:CANVASSING going on here [1]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTABLE. I've clicked on all the links for the references. The first one was blocked by my firewall software, the others all seem to be unreliable tertiary sources. I learned about this on Quora where the subject is canvasing for support (see above). Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nom.Fails WP: GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think this page fails WP: GNG. I've clicked on all the links for the references. All are working and giving relevant and notable information. I also searched on google with "usman awan activist" keyword and related information is available on internet. Sidramanzoor (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC) — Sidramanzoor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you please share these WP:RS sources? Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, the two references from ProPakistani and TheNewsTribe both are most authentic and these are top rated news sites in Pakistan. Some guys saying that resources are not relevant, then what we can do is to edit this article according to the content of the reference articles. When I am supporting to keep this article is that the information is not fake, it's authentic and real. If problem is that wiki article is not relevant to the reference articles, then let's edit it. Isn't it?Sidramanzoor (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone said it was 'fake' or a hoax. It is a question of notability. If you think those refs pass WP:RS then take that up at WP:RSN, I'd be willing to bet a great deal of something that they don't. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, This man is from Pakistan and his article is published on the most reliable Pakistani sites. I have checked 3 of the sites which are mention in references, all based on reliable sources. Just visit those sites and see the content. I think these references are enough for a local activist. For me this article pass the WP: GNG and WP: NOTABLE. That's why I am taking much interest.Sidramanzoor (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - I think the article satisfy the WP: GNG and WP: NOTABLE and I checked all the reference links. All of them are relevant and authentic. AlissaKStahl (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)— AlissaKStahl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.