Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DhoomBros (2nd nomination)


 * 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. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

DhoomBros
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As per previous deletion of this article, no significant coverage of group in reliable sources. Bakilas (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  12:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  12:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep There are three reliable sources in the article that cover the subject in detail: JAMO Magazine, BBC Asia, and Punjab2000. Notable. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 15:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree that the links given establish notability. Ross-c (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete actually as my searches found nothing better and the current sourcing is actually not as convincing as it could be. SwisterTwister   talk  04:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  17:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - interviews, being primary sources, cannot be used to show notability. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent, secondary sources to show they pass WP:GNG. The promotional aspect of the article also makes this an easy decision to delete.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This rationale makes no sense. A Primary source is something the subject would publish himself. These are published by the media and all three sources are reliable. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep --  sami  talk 04:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as it has been covered in the media, and reliable sources are available. For example:  Bradv  18:50, 11 April 2016
 * Keep as google gives over 300,000 hits for it, seems to be popular. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:GNG. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2016 (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.