Danial Afzal Khan : No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc.  Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one Inherently notable.  A quick Google search doesn't yield anything either which can meet WP:GNG either.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Although it easily passes notability criteria, but i am not bother whether if its delete or keep.  The nominator is harassing me by nominating articles created by me.  Libraa2019 ( talk ) 16:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How many articles that you created have they nominated for deletion?  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Spiderone , They nominated Abdullah Seja , added notability tag to Qudsia Ali , Agha Mustafa Hassan & Abu Aleeha [99] , the tag was removed by another senior editor [100] but again it was added by nominator without giving any reason [101] .  These articles are easily meeting wikipidea criteria but i will not remove these tags as i respect senior editors perspective.  Libraa2019 ( talk ) 05:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Libraa2019 , And I've just nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qudsia Ali and I've provided my reasoning there.  Regarding why I tagged Abu Aleeha , see Talk:Abu Aleeha .  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 10:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are unable to understand any rationale and clearly not ready to listen others despite of them proving their points.  Any ways, i dont have much time to spend as i am engaged in personal life.  Good luck with your mission.  Libraa2019 ( talk ) 11:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep - appears to be WP:NACTOR with [102] and [103] .  Having worked in films and critically acclaimed series as well.  Google search also yields potential material to improve his article with.  Should be tagged for "Additional Citations".  Sameeerrr ( talk ) 15:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet ) [ reply ] Please don't use interview-based coverage to establish GNG.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Have added few, merely not based on interviews.  There are more sources available, I'd suggest you to research about a subject prior to initiating an WP:AfD on.  I've noticed your certain WP:AfD should have been tagged for improvement as there's much enough coverage available to establish WP:GNG about them.  For instance, my take on WP:AfD of Tumhare Husn Ke Naam , Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri (TV series) etc.  Sameeerrr ( talk ) 15:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think CNMall41 ( talk · contribs ) mentioned elsewhere that simply adding references to the article won't help.  You need to provide THREE of the best sources here that aren't ROTM coverage or interview-based to help establish GNG.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't understand your approach of providing "THREE" best references.  If we were supposed to provide the only three best references, then I wonder Wikipedia would have limited it WP:References section "To add Three Best sources" only.  Sameeerrr ( talk ) 15:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  06:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep multiple notable roles through which passes WP:NACTOR and significant coverage as one can confirm at [104] therefore passes WP:GNG.  Libraa2019 ( talk ) 10:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please provide evidence indicating major roles.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 10:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Already provided.  You are not ready to check any.  Libraa2019 ( talk ) 10:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Providing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as an evidences.  Daily Times [105] The News International [106] The Nation [107] DAWN [108] The Express Tribune [109] Daily Times [110] The News International [111] Daily Jang [112] Eastern Eye [113] Daily Pakistan [114] Daily Jang [115] Daily Times [116] The Friday Times [117] Daily Times [118] Daily Times [119] Libraa2019 ( talk ) 11:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please show proof that the subject had major roles.  None of the sources you've provided confirm this.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 11:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You have visited all these sources in 3 minutes??  As you replied in less than 5 minutes, it clearly says you are not ready to check any source.  If i would present some wiki articles where he played notable roles then you will take them to AFD and game the system , the same you did with Abdullah Seja .  Libraa2019 ( talk ) 11:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For other editors and record, All the attached sources are claiming he has played significant roles in multiple television serials and he also played a lead role in feature film Aksbandh , [120] Libraa2019 ( talk ) 12:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Libraa2019 , No.  I haven't been able to verify your claims that the subject had major roles in TV dramas, except for a 90-minute short film Aksbandh , which is not sufficient to meet WP:NACTOR.  Fyi, simply doing some supporting roles in TV dramas isn't enough to qualify under NACTOR.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:BASIC , if an actor has sufficient coverage in reliable sources then he/she is notable.  He played major role in Kab Mere Kehlaoge , Mohlat etc.  And btw that comment was for other editors not you.  Sources like The Express Tribune , DAWN, The News International did'nt satisfy you because article is my creation.  Libraa2019 ( talk ) 16:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please clarify whether you want to assess WP:N based on NACTOR or GNG.  If GNG, please provide THREE best sources.  And thanks for informing me about Kab Mere Kehlaoge ; it doesn't appear to be a notable drama.  I've AfD'd it.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are not an admin to whom i will respond and satisfy every time.  Many editors have told you that i am presenting authentic sources but you denied [121] [122] I have provided more than 10 reliable sources for others and if any senior editor will demand, i will provide them.  Libraa2019 ( talk ) 16:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Libraa2019 , You're WP:CHERRYPICKING a few comments.  I'll take it as you not having THREE strong coverage to meet GNG.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is it also WP:CHERRYPICKING [123] [124] ?  Libraa2019 ( talk ) 16:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in notable productions....  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 15:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Looking through the first few sources presented, The Nation is a Q&A interview so primary, The Express Tribune is casting announcement with a mention and Dawn is mention.  This Daily Times is a casting announcement for Mohabbat Dagh ki Soorat which is not listed in the filmography and states it is an "appearance" so not a significant role and does not appear to be notable show (no article).   The two The News International articles are interviews but they at least have some background information.   While some roles they mention are not significant/noble, they both mention his performance as Nomi in Raaz-e-Ulfat so I think that role meets the significant/notable bar but multiple are required to meet WP:NACTOR .  As I go through the other shows listed in the filmography I am finding most do not meet GNG, at least based on the sources currently provided so while some of the roles might be significant I cannot make the stretch they are notable productions.   Draftifying might be an option until the notability of the other shows can be determined.  S0091 ( talk ) 16:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You endorse most of the AFD's initiated by Saqib (at which i am no one to object) but here you ignored WP:BASIC , plenty of excellent sources covering him.  I have presented more than enough sources.  Subject has started career around 8 years ago and i dont think so he deserves draftification right now as major publications like The Express Tribune , Daily Times , The News International are covering him.  And secondly he has a lead role in feature film Aksbandh [125] .  And one more thing i want you to notice, Saqib mentioned at Imaan Mazari 's AFD that Coverage doesn't always have to be in-depth [126] (that article was his creation) but contineously asking me to provide in-depth coverage.  Still i presented multiple reliable sources with in-depth coverage.  Libraa2019 ( talk ) 02:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Libraa2019 I am doing my own independent analysis so focusing on Saqib is not helpful.   I addressed several sources directly and explained why they are not useful for notability.  The two The News International sources were the best of the few I looked at.  Both are interviews so are still weak sources with one them being an interview about his fitness routine and the other about his likes and dislikes, not about his career, though as I stated they do provided some background.  One was published in 2020 and one in 2021 well after Aksbandh.  Only one makes mention of film but all it says is that it did not do well at the box office.  The one published is 2021 describes him as a "promising young actor", meaning he was still early in his career a couple years ago and eight years is not that long, especially in the entertainment industry.  There is reason editors ask for WP:THREE ; it's not just Saqib as you seem to think.  While it is an essay it is one often cited in AfDs and by reviewers trying to assess drafts and new articles.  Lots of sources does not mean a topic meets the notability criteria, including BASIC.  If your claim is Khan meets BASIC then you need to present the specific sources that demonstrate he meets the criteria.   I think it is unreasonable to expect editors to go through a list of fifteen sources, especially with no guidance on how any of them meet GNG or BASIC.   Per WP:THREE I'm not willing to slog through dozens of sources to evaluate them.   I am, however, willing to look at a few sources in detail if somebody else (i.e. you) does the footwork to figure out which ones are the best.  I have already looked a seven or so sources but I am willing to look at a three more you believe are the best ones.  S0091 ( talk ) 15:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sir, as far as WP:THREE, please check history of Saqib, he firstly nominated all of the articles created by me in personal disagreements or what i am unable to understand, and he has never satisfied with any provided source and called every reliable source as unreliable and every notable show/project/role as non notable [127] .  Do you think he will be satisfied if i have provided three solid sources.  He is contineously opposing me but has a different criteria for that particular AFD [128] .  Libraa2019 ( talk ) 16:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, you are still choosing to focus on Saqib so let me state it more directly.   Forget about Saqib.   Saqib can nominate all the articles he wants but it is the community together that will determine WP:consensus so you need to convince all the others, which includes me.  The best way to do that is to make a convincing argument with three to six good sources.  Three is usually sufficient if they meet GNG even if one leans a little weak (sometimes two really strong sources are enough); five or six is usually enough for BASIC (could be less depending) but they need to have non-trivial coverage, along with being reliable, independent and secondary.  S0091 ( talk ) 17:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I presented independent and secondary sources, none of them were primary and unable to understand why is requirements of wikipidea are too much tough when it comes to me but totally opposite when experienced editors like Saqib create page of a random person who has coverage only for being arrested.  You can check the sources mentioned below which are covering him.  And he himself admitted that he was nominating articles without proper knowledge [129] .  Daily Times [130] The News International [131] The Nation [132] DAWN [133] The Express Tribune [134] Daily Times [135] Libraa2019 ( talk ) 18:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Libraa2019 I have already looked at all of those thus my statement I am willing to look at a three more .   Please refer my comments in my delete ! vote for my assessment.   If those are the best ones, then they do not meet GNG nor BASIC.   The two The News Internationals (though you only list one) I can see counting toward BASIC but they are not enough.   And yet again you are focusing on Saqib by bringing up some other AfD which has absolutely no bearing on this one.   I tried to help you focus on what matters but it's falling on deaf ears so I am done.  Too much of my time wasted.  S0091 ( talk ) 18:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please check these sources, are they able to meet GNG?  The News International [136] Daily Jang [137] Eastern Eye [138] Daily Pakistan [139] Daily Jang [140] Daily Times [141] The Friday Times [142] Libraa2019 ( talk ) 19:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As per nom.  Fails WP:GNG Wikibear47 ( talk ) 18:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikibear47 WP:ATA , also please specify how he fails GNG, multiple reliable sources are provided for evaluation.  Libraa2019 ( talk ) 20:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination and S0091, the sources presented by the individual editor refuting deletion do not qualify for the GNG threshold.  I also find the bludgeoning in this AfD to be rather disruptive.  Daniel ( talk ) 00:14, 27 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete