Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gowhar Naz

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. Jenks24 (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gowhar Naz (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)

Article about a writer for a website; no reliable source referencing within or to be found. Also article started by the subject and edited by someone else with close connection to the subject. Was PRODded earlier. —SpacemanSpiff 10:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 10:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 10:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Poor state of article. Lacks references to meet notability.Pixarh (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Article is about a famous writer ; with reliable source references found. notable Must Keep; Deleting it is unfair & against Wikipedia policiesGowherNaz 10:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Article about a famous newspaper writer ; many reliable source referencing found. Editing editors have no close connection to the subject. To keep it is my point; Improvements can be doneGowher]]Naz 1:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gowher Naz (talk • contribs)
  • Shouldn't be deleted. I suggest keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gowher Naz (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am of the opinion keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gowher Naz (talk • contribs) 11:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Telling us four times that you want the article you created kept does not make your opinion carry any more weight than telling us once would have done. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable with enough references meeting itnotability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.225.184.183 (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 223.225.184.183 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete. No in-depth coverage in reliable sources that I could find. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as does not meet WP:GNG. The references are not useable for notability being pieces written by Naz and I have been unable to find anything else. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:32, 24 October 2015 (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.