Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osama Qashoo


 * 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. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Osama Qashoo

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

 Activism  1234  16:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Numerous WP:PEACOCK terms.
 * Violates WP:NPOV
 * There are hardly any references, and the references (4 of them, and they are not included in the actual article either) that are there are primarily either an op-ed by Qashoo, a blog, a YouTube video, has no relevance to the article, or a combination.

Delete as proposer. -- Activism  1234  16:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - violates the NPOV policy and has WP:PEACOCK terms. Also, there are no reliable sources to back it up, and the four sources mentioned above have no relevance. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete for same reasons as above.PantsB (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. A GNews search produces modest but varied coverage by reliable sources of his activities over the past ten years, a couple of which are cited in an earlier version of this article. But absolutely no objection on my part to reverting to that version, if necessary with revision deletion of the subsequent edits of a one-occasion editor whose "delete all and replace" tactics produced the current version of the article. PWilkinson (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)




 * Strong Keep because this person passes WP:BASIC. Did any of the delete !voters above bother to search for sources? Here's some I found rather easily:
 * Also importantly, per WP:NRVE, Topic notability is based upon the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. Lastly, the article has been edited to remove peacock/weasel words and promotional tone. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also importantly, per WP:NRVE, Topic notability is based upon the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. Lastly, the article has been edited to remove peacock/weasel words and promotional tone. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also importantly, per WP:NRVE, Topic notability is based upon the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. Lastly, the article has been edited to remove peacock/weasel words and promotional tone. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also importantly, per WP:NRVE, Topic notability is based upon the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. Lastly, the article has been edited to remove peacock/weasel words and promotional tone. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also importantly, per WP:NRVE, Topic notability is based upon the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. Lastly, the article has been edited to remove peacock/weasel words and promotional tone. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also importantly, per WP:NRVE, Topic notability is based upon the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. Lastly, the article has been edited to remove peacock/weasel words and promotional tone. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Northamerica1000's sources are convincing evidence to pass the GNG.   Ravenswing   07:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Definite Keep as meeting WP:NF and WP:GNG. While the nominator and others are certainly free to point out some article issues, the easily found sources found and offered through the diligence of other's WP:BEFORE shows the issues that worried them to have been addressable and simply put, addressable issues are rarely valid rationale for deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:49, 15 August 2012 (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.