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. Daniel (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

WP:BLP of a writer and university instructor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC. As always, neither writers nor academics are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's technically verifiable that they and their work exist -- the inclusion test requires certain specific markers of significance (e.g. notable literary awards), and it requires real third-party coverage about him in reliable sources. But of the eleven footnotes here, five are Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person (and four of those, furthermore, are from podcasts), two are corporate blogs, two are glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in coverage about something other than himself, and one is his staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer -- the closest thing to a good source is a university student newspaper covering him in the context of winning an internal staff award from his own employer, which would be fine if the other sources around it were better but is not "inherently" notable enough to get him over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the strongest source in play. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more and better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing in the article suggests the subject is notable. Delete per the well reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 2 March 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.