Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adil Omar


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Adil Omar

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject non-notable and article is poorly sourced, most sources point back to self-website, facebook, or myspace. --


 * Nomination made at 02:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC).


 * Keep Besides the facebook and other dubious sources, there are plenty of reliable sources such as the Guardian, Tribune, MTVDESI, and MSNBC.--v/r - TP 02:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. As noted by TParis, there are multiple secondary sources, including some major TV networks and newspapers. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. As noted by Honeymarmite, there are plenty of reliable sources and his notability as a public figure has been proven with the amount of album, television, film and radio appearances he has done. 12:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honeymarmite (talk • contribs) 07:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. The AFD tag was improperly removed from the article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While I don't believe in procedure for procedure's sake, I do note that the AfD tag was removed on 30 May, and there were no comments after that date—so it might have skewed the results. I agree with a week's relisting. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When I noticed that did look to see when it was removed. If it were just done yesterday I would have punched it "keep" and told Honeymarmite not do do it again. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - the less reliable sourcing can be fixed through the normal editing process. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep because I believe the article has potential to make itself better. It already has good strong sources such as The Guardian and The Express Tribune. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2011 (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.