Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major Dr. Shah Nawaz Khan


 * 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  07:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Major Dr. Shah Nawaz Khan

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Non-notable biography lacking in reliable sources per WP:MILMOS/N and WP:RS. Anotherclown (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Anotherclown (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - was contested prod. Anotherclown (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nominator, I don't believe this meets the requirements for significant coverage in reliable sources. If kept, though, the article needs quite a bit of work to bring it into line with WP:MOS and WP:NPOV. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I note that some editors above have said that the subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Could they please say what they found lacking when they checked the five sources listed in the "references" section of the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly. The bulk of the references appear to be passing mentions in newspapers during the period of his life. The requirement is for 'significant independent coverage' which would suggest to me that there needs to be coverage in serious secondary or even tertiary sources (i.e. books). Also many of the 'sources' and external links which have been added are also just passing mentions (see the google book entries for instance) or links to articles the subject wrote. IMO none of these indicate notability per our standards. Equally the majority of the text is completely uncited and reads like it was written by a member of his family, and as such most of it isn't verifiable either. Anotherclown (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For clarity could you please say whether you base the statement that "the bulk of the references appear to be passing mentions" on reading the sources or on guesswork? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made my case, now you make yours. Anotherclown (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is going to be tricky to source. Shah Nawaz Khan isn't an uncommon name. We have articles for four individuals with such a name. Unless a definitive source about this man in particular can be found, I don't think this can be kept. The article itself is a mess, far out of line with WP:NPOV: illustrious son... a famous companion of the promised messiah... married to a very noble soul. To me this reads like a memorial, and likely needs to scrapped completely since much of the article reads like a family history. AniMate  12:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy otherwise Delete As per comments above, in its present state the article requires significant editing to reach WP:NPOV and verify WP:N; further it will probably be tricky to find WP:RS (in part due to the commonness of the name), although given time, if the subject is notable, it may be possible. So while I don't think the article qualifies for WP:INCUBATOR, I think it may be ok in Userspace to give the creator time to get used to Wikipedia and improve the article. Also it seems like the editor, Drfarid69, has put a reasonable amount of time trying to create the article and I feel confident that there is a chance this article could develop further with the right sources and I don't want to WP:BITE. -- Aeonx (talk) 09:42, 28 November 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.