Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naim Daniel

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 soft delete. Deleted as BLPPROD, given the complete absence of sources. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naim Daniel

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unsourced BLP poorly translated from the Malaysian Wikipedia. Although there are references on the Malaysian Wikipedia, I believe it should be deleted before being started again with a good translation. Willbb234 (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Poorly translated or written is not the reason for AfD. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a BLPPROD, after seven days if no sources are added (I've been unable to add the BLPPROD tag). That's a provisional view. The subject clearly passes the general notability guideline, so a sourced article can be kept. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2019 (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.