Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owais Husain

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 keep based on research provided by debaters. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 09:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Owais Husain

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

Nothing actually convincing such as having permanent collections, the listed soruce....is his own website; my own searches are barely finding anything and what there actually is, is unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit. The subject meets WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST. See source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ran a Proquest news search on his name, news and feature articles about his careeer, art that more than suffice to keep. Page needs improvement - what else is new?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage identified easily established notability. --Michig (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The commenters must not be noticing these are essentially actually simply interviews where the subject himself is talking, it's not substantial coverage by the sources themselves because of this. The News 18 is clearly simply a local piece talking about a local subject of interest. This honestly would need to relisted as the comments are thinly simply saying "Hey, it looks like he's notable but not actually commenting in-depth about how and why the sources are actually notable. The DNAINdia itself is labeled as an interview from the get-go, thus it's not independent, none of these sources are. Some of these are then only a few sentences and paragraphs, take the Daily Star for example. Simply having "articles" about his career is nothing substantial unless they are of actual convincing coverage. Has anyone also cared to actually see this is still only sourced by his own website, apart from the interviewing links above? Even after the links above, the two other comments are not substantiating their votes by listing the links they actually believe including what their own searches allegedly found. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 29 August 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.