Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hassan Reehaan


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hassan Reehaan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. WP:BLP of a musician and dancer, poorly sourced and leaning heavily on advertorial rather than encyclopedic tone. The only sources here are a YouTube video (not a reliable source) and a single article in a music magazine which describes itself on its own website as a promotional platform for member musicians -- which makes it a primary source that also cannot assist notability. As always, a person is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because his existence can be verified on social media -- it takes reliable source coverage in media, verifying passage of a specific notability criterion, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Could not find secondary reliable sources to verify the notability of the subject. I could only find Facebook Twitter Youtube, Google+ and a few music websites like Soundcloud. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 06:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable dancer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Clearly autobiographical promotional article with no good sourcing. Richard3120 (talk) 17:50, 22 September 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.