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. Sandstein 11:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Safwan Ahmedmia[edit]

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

Just having a lot of webviews does not mean one meets the WP:GNG. Sources on page seem to only mention him incidentally or just duplicate his content. Not significant coverage at all. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Draft of this was declined multiple times for the same reason and then just copy pasted over.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per Patar knight and Peter Rehse. Quis separabit? 14:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly non-notable, no proper sources or attempts to explain how the subject is notable. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 10:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as still nothing solidly convincing for a solidly notable article for now, aside from the expected media. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 3 June 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.