Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sham Idrees (2nd nomination)

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. Favonian (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sham Idrees (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)

This is a biography of a youtuber sourced only to the individual's youtube videos. A Google search turns up nothing of significance. Was previously deleted at AFD. Peacock (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. YouTubers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their own videos metaverify their own existence — as with all of our notability standards for people in all fields of human endeavour, the notability test does not hinge on his own self-published web presence, but on the reception of reliable source coverage about him in real media (i.e. newspapers, magazines, books). If real media haven't devoted their editorial resources to paying his accomplishments any independent attention, then he doesn't pass our notability test no matter what he claims in his own self-created content about himself. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable person, and no reliable secondary sources are presented in the article to suggest otherwise. Article reads like the "trivia" section of a promotional flyer. Bricology (talk) 06:14, 13 April 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.