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 keep. King of ♥ 01:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non notable singer. Earlier AfD resulted in Keep but with no reliable sources added to the article since then. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otr500 I agree with you, however this article is not eligible for PROD as it has previously been nominated for AFD. I have also had a number of PRODs declined in recent weeks for what I feel are bureaucratic technicalities, and I’m not prepared to go down that path with every article I try to cleanup or delete. Whether the PROD process is fit for purpose is a discussion for another time and place. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I got you, and the reason I stated "could have been BLP-prodded". A BLP-prod is somewhat different concerning articles with "zero" (in any form) sourcing. The process is not so easy as just removing a prod with no reasoning. If such an article does not have at least one source provided it can be deleted in 7 days. At a minimum it is a help with articles that exist in disregard of policies and guidelines--- AND -- other editors may not be aware of this. Have a nice day, -- Otr500 (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment about “bureaucratic technicalities” is more to do with the PROD process than this article. It was not aimed at you. However, I did complete WP:BEFORE, as with every AFD nomination of mine, and did not find sufficient sourcing. If you disagree, it is your responsibility to bring sources to this page so that other editors can assess their suitability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are others but I'm not familiar with the publications so haven't included them. They look more gossipy and less reliable than these. Mccapra (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:00, 21 July 2020 (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.