Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adnan Al Rajeev

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. A clear consensus following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Al Rajeev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing suggests a better applicably notable article and my searches only found a few links at News, browsers and Highbeam but nothing suggesting outstandingly better notability and improvements. I would've considered PROD but not if it's simply going to be removed. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Does not pass WP:BIO. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject lacks notability. I found only four reliable sources that mention him in passing. Meatsgains (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Al Rajeev fails GNG. GAB^Hello! 20:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article cites a single reliable source - a primary source interview, Rajeev talking about Rajeev without any journalistic analysis. Searches of the usual types and of Bangladeshi news sites, including by Bengali script name, found a few more examples of the same kind, asking hard-hitting questions like "What's on your i-pod?"[1][2][3] and a handful of mentions in credit listings. Has not received the significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject, as called for by WP:BASIC. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, as the subject lacks requisite non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.