Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahsan Rahim


 * 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. Few participants, but it's worthwhile noting that the nay-sayers have arguments on their side; the lone yes vote offers only that "references can be improved", without actually doing so. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ahsan Rahim

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Fails WP:BIO. red dog six (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is good in length, referenced. Pointless nomination. Passes WP:GNG. Fai  zan  07:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 20:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This doesn't pass WP:GNG at all; look at the sources. The first is a webcast interview, not a viable source for establishing notability. The second is one single mention in an article on a film. Ok. The third is a discussion forum. Um, no. The fourth is ZoomInfo, big no. The fifth is vimeo...seriously, what the? The sixth citation is WIKIPEDIA itself. The seventh establishes that he won a single award one time; not enough to establish notability for a person. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, references can be improved, but a notable article should be deleted because it had not been improved. Fai  zan  07:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I know references can be improved for an article in theory. In this case, I don't think they can; I haven't been able to find any significant coverage, and that's why I think the subject fails the general notability guideline. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  00:07, 1 June 2013 (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.