Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghazi Saiyyad Salar Masud


 * 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. Tone 21:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ghazi Saiyyad Salar Masud

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Sandeep 10:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepsp4u (talk • contribs) 2010/06/22 10:51:21
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Despite the poorly written style and lack of citations, this person seems to have valid claims to significance being related to Mahmud of Ghazni, and as a legendary general. If you search Gbooks with "Ghazi Miyan," you will get over 1000 results, some of which seem to be more than trivial mentions. As there is no reason for deletion provided by the nominator, and the nom has bombarded this page with tags and tried to speedy delete it, I think that this nomination may not be in good faith. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to say speedy keep for the obvious reason that no explanation has been provided of why this should be deleted, but for some inexplicable reason that is not one of the criteria at WP:speedy keep, so just a plain old keep for the same reason. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep No reason given why this article should be deleted. Phil, I believe this line is sufficient to justify a speedy here:There are zero remaining arguments for deletion. In this case there are zero reasons to start with!--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT--Sodabottle (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Fiftytwo thirty. Edward321 (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.