Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aamir Zaki


 * 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The result was   Nomination Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. D ARTH P ANDA duel 20:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Aamir Zaki

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article lacking sources or any indication that the person is notable except for peacock language. Google News returns no hits. GDallimore (Talk) 14:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no independent reliable sources to establish notability. And if the guy only has one album from 13 years ago and briefly played with some band in 1994, he can't be considered prolific by any standard.--Boffob (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Article doesn't demonstrate notability. Author needs to read Wikipedia tutorials. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the original author hasn't edited an article since May 2006... GDallimore (Talk) 11:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - demonstrating notability is easier than pissing in the shower and not half as fun. Although Pakistan Dawn covers his the most, added with Christian Science Monitor and USA Today the usual inclusion threshold is easily surpassed. Wily D 12:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have wiped the slate clean and started again with the article. I have included the sources you provide except the usatoday one which is a copy of the CS Monitor article. Any further comments or desire to improve the article before I withdraw the nomination.
 * Keep. As Wily so eloquently said there is no problem finding sources that show notability. A Google News Archive search (remembering to select "all dates") is all that was needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * WITHDRAW NOM. Been away for a few days, sorry. I've amended the article, and while it's now a stub in really bad shape, it's not a deletion candidate filled with unsourced claims apparently serving no purpose except promotion... GDallimore (Talk) 14:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.