Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raj Aryan


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Raj Aryan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. In the references given, one is broken and the other makes no mention of the subject. The remaining one has only a passing mention. Article creator appears to be the subject as well - WP:AUTOBIO. Drm310 (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  21:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  21:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; can probably be speedied under G5. Blackguard  02:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete -Created by a SPA, article fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  09:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Aka:
 * Tamil:
 * WP:INDAFD: Raj Aryan Raj Kumar

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep, the above comments aside, through my own WP:BEFORE it seems this person may meet WP:GNG.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as created by an SPA simply to promote himself, Had this been a newbie I would've happily let it slide but it's obvious this bloke's here for one reason and It's not to improve the 'pedia unfortunately, – Davey 2010 Talk 04:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't understand. If MichaelQ found good sources, why didn't they go into the article, and why would he say that the subject "may" meet the GNG?  Look, either the sources are proven to be there, and the subject meets the GNG, or they're not, and he doesn't.  I'm not finding any.  Someone comes up with some and puts them in the article, I'll change my vote.  Nha Trang  Allons! 14:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , courtesy ping czar ⨹   22:21, 17 January 2015 (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.