Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadeem Sarwar (Noha Khwan)


 * 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. NorthAmerica1000 05:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Nadeem Sarwar (Noha Khwan)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I came across this via a few different outlets, one of which was a request for the original format of the article to be restored at Nadeem Sarwar, which had been speedied so often that it was salted. I did try to find sources, but I just can't find anything out there to show that this guy passes notability guidelines as a whole. Since there is somewhat of an assertion of notability here, I'd prefer for this to run through AfD as opposed to another speedy just in case foreign language sources exist that could show notability. If this is ultimately deleted then this will need to be salted as well in order to prevent re-creation at this name. If notability is proven, then I'd recommend unsalting the old name and moving it there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

He us we'll known all over the world so deletion of this page should be stopped. I've added some references from strong sources you can check it. You can search about this man yourself and if you want more changes I'm ready to edit it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.126.107.178 (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This man is a famous Noha reciter from Pakistan.
 * Unfortunately none of the newly added links really give notability and being known doesn't always equate to being notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Here's a rundown of the sources as a whole:


 * 1) This is his official facebook page. At best this is a WP:PRIMARY source that can back up some small trivial data, but it cannot give notability.
 * 2) This is essentially a search engine where you typed in "biography of nadeem sarwar". Just typing  in a search field and posting it to an article doesn't give notability and it's not even really usable as a reliable source because of how easily search engine hits can change over time. Plus it doesn't help that it comes up with a mirror of the Wikipedia article.
 * 3) This is a routine blog entry for a non-notable blog. Blogs are almost never usable as a reliable source because the majority of them are self-published sources that undergo little to no editorial oversight that Wikipedia can verify.
 * 4) This looks to be a routine database listing on In.com. Given that this shares the same text as the blog source above, it's extremely likely that this was written by the subject himself or was posted on the site by whomever wrote the blog post. Either way, it's considered to be at best a primary source and cannot give notability.
 * 5) Another unusable blog source.
 * 6) This looks to be his official site, which would also be considered a primary source.
 * 7) This just links to a download site where you can play his music. This can't show notability and to be honest, the legality of this site is sort of in question since Wikipedia has no way of knowing if he uploaded the music, if he OK'd the uploads, or if it's one of many illegal listening/download sites out on the web. Either way, it's still unusable to show notability and shouldn't be posted on an article in general.
 * 8) This is the iTunes page for the artist. This shows that he did release music (ie, showing that he exists as a performer - WP:ITEXISTS) but existing as a performer does not automatically give notability. It's expected that a performer of any type would release his or her art in some form or fashion, be it for free or for pay. Plus since this is technically a merchant source, it also shouldn't be on Wikipedia since the primary function of iTunes is to sell you something.
 * 9) Another download/listen site that suffers from the same issues as the one above. Cannot show notability.
 * 10) This links to various videos that the artist uploaded to YouTube and doesn't really go into any detail about him. Even if it did, this doesn't seem like it'd pass muster at WP:RS/N since it's essentially a site where anyone can ask for stuff to be added and just reposts various videos, so it wouldn't count towards notability.
 * 11) THis is another Facebook post. It cannot show notability, but this is sort of why I brought this to AfD rather than just tag it as a speedy deletion. If he was in the news and was the focus of a news spot then the news spot could show notability if you provide the channel, segment, and so on. However if he was just someone invited to the show to give an opinion about something or if he was only briefly mentioned in relation to something else, then that wouldn't really be considered a notability giving source and would at best be considered a WP:TRIVIAL source.
 * 12) Seems to be a non-usable blog or SPS that cannot show notability.
 * 13) A non-usable source, this is essentially a download site of dubious legality.
 * 14) This isn't an article at all, just a list of various works people have created.
 * 15) Another Facebook account that cannot give notability.
 * 16) Same here.
 * 17) This is another search result, which cannot give notability.


 * Now I will say that if there is coverage in another language that would pass the reliable sources guidelines then those can be used to show notability. Sources do not have to be in English, but they do have to be in reliable sources and be verifiable. The thing is that at best the above sources show that Sarwar exists as a performer and he has put out work, but his existence is not in doubt here- what I'm concerned about is whether or not he passes Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines, which I will openly admit are very, very strict. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   13:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * These two sources are excellent and do help show notability, although the first one is sort of in passing. The second one goes into more detail and I'd say that this can count towards notability. If you can find more sources like that second one then that'll help show notability immensely. Remember, sources do not have to be in English! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   19:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt again. Tokyogirl89's analysis of the sources above make it clear that the subject does not meet any notability criteria for inclusion here. The article's numerous sources seem to be an attempt to give the appearance of notability, but we need real, independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. Facebook pages, blogs, directory listings, search results, etc. don't count. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the references has been added from thenews.com and tribune.com.pk which are the popular newspapers of Pakistan. So Please remove this page from deletion I request you to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.116.68 (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We'd still need some more sourcing- if you can add more along those lines then that'd help show notability immensely, but the two usable sources (the two Tribune sources) are not enough in and of themselves to show notability per Wikipedia guidelines. We cannot end this AfD before more reliable sources are provided. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete for now. Popular, albeit not notable (yet) in Pakistan. There might be some Urdu coverage but I don't think it will be indepth to cover WP:GNG. -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete- Fails WP:GNG. Fai  zan  14:52, 28 December 2014 (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.