Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahil Adeem


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Sahil Adeem

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable. Gossip rags and primary catalogues, or content farms, are the only sources. Fermiboson (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. Fermiboson (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  05:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: This but it's a spam site -www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi4-6GY_uCCAxW-lIkEHb1TCPoQxfQBKAB6BAgLEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Freviewit.pk%2Fsahil-adeem-controversial-discussion-on-dajjal-yajuj-majuj%2F&usg=AOvVaw29g4rM3fg4j9NjI7IE_w4z&opi=89978449] I don't think we're at notability, could even be a hoax. A whole five hits in Gnews... Oaktree b (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Site is blacklisted, so I can't even link to it. That's proof of non-notability. Oaktree b (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete! Clearly not notable Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: per forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article has been significantly improved and now includes multiple reliable sources. Ainty Painty (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete while the article has indeed been rewritten, none of the sources in the rewrite meet GNG or RS at all. Daniel (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2023 (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.