Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdu Kiar (2nd nomination)

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Second nomination following a first discussion that was closed no consensus due to a complete failure of anybody to participate in the discussion at all. This is still a WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim I can discern here is that he exists, and said existence is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as his self-published social networking profiles and streaming platforms and online music stores -- and the only source that's actually independent or reliable just soundbites a brief quote from him in an article whose core subject is something else, which is not enough in either substance or volume to get him over WP:GNG all by itself if all of the sourcing around it is garbage. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No indication the subject meets WP:SINGER. Despite searching for references in the native language with the help of Google Translate, I didn't really come across any website that could plausibly be considered significant coverage. The references in the article certainly don't establish notability. plicit 07:05, 26 November 2021 (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.