Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqas Ali Qadri

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 redirect to Outlandish. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waqas Ali Qadri

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

While this singer exists, I can't find sufficient substantial rs coverage of him to meet our notability requirements. Epeefleche (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - 24 Google News hits. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are such gnews hits; what we need is substantial, non-passing, non-trivial, independent RS coverage of the singer (qua singer; not just "x is a singer in band x"). A band may be notable, without its members being individually notable. Zero gbooks hits. Zero gscholar hits.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both the singer and the band Outlandish are major in Denmark. The search Waqas Ali Qadri site:dr.dk on Google will give you 20 hits, just on the National Danish Television website. --VicVal (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it just be redirected to Outlandish tho? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody contributes any more material, it might just as well. Didn't wanted to comment on the article itself, merely on the notion on notability. --VicVal (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As to the notability here, I was simply using the term in regard to whether it warranted a stand-alone article. If the consensus is to redirect to the band, I have no objection to that.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outlandish. Most or all of the subject's notability is dependent on the group. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be reasonable, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Outlandish - even though Outlandish is a band and not an organization, I still believe that the principle of no inherited notability applies. --Heb (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2012 (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.