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. Hut 8.5 22:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shameel J

[edit]

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

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

Non-notable musician, no sources and no evidence that his "award" is significant or credible. Add to that it's been deleted in the past under other names and the creator has never been able to provide a single source which would support it's inclusion or credibility. If anyone would like to comment or explain what here negates an A7, I'll gladly also rescind my AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per my decline of your A7 tag, WP:A7 doesn't mean "unsourced"; per the WP:PROD I added when I declined the speedy, Speedy deletion declined, proposed for deletion instead which will give the creator a week to find some reliable sources, otherwise it will be deleted, but since you've for some reason removed the ((prod)) template, wasting everyone's time here at AfD for a week will have the same effect. Tag-bombing a new editor's first article with an A7 template within an hour of its creation is atrocious behaviour. ‑ Iridescent 17:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does require significance and credibility. And they've created it before and couldn't source it, now is no different. There's nothing atrocious about tagging a7 an hour later and there's nothing that prohibits it. Why not move it to draft if you wanted to give them time and you thought it had a chance of passing the low bar of A7 or AFD? Praxidicae (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree, it's a massive waste of time to spend at AFD on this but I actually AFD'd it before you prodded it and restored my AFD which you removed as PROD is a waste of time since it almost certainly would have been removed for some absurd reason and then we'd have to go another 7 days with unsourced/poorly sourced non-notable BLPs sitting in main space. There was no tag bombing, my single edit was to A7 it, rightfully. And this is far from their first article with 37 out of 46 of their cotnributions deleted. Praxidicae (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced BLP - no evidence that the subject complies with WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Google search only returns hits on social media websites and IMDb - none of which are acceptable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to show notability, and searches don't show anything better. JC7V-talk 20:32, 27 October 2018 (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.