Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mir Bahadir Khan Ozgen


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Mir Bahadir Khan Ozgen

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

At first this looked like a hoax. However, searching without "Ozgen" reveals 1 result at Google Books, which the article is slightly lifted from, so this is probably true (Khan's father's name appears to turn up some results, as well). Regardless, this individual seems to be gravely non-notable besides coverage in one book. Jamie  S93  21:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep comes from an era of "No Internet" and I drove through the street named after him. Seems notable to me. --  MARWAT   05:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Majority of the things, especially notable peoples have come from Non-Internet era but they still have too much about them. Where is that road, in which city and which country? There is a road in Islamabad named before my maternal uncle, but he isn't a notable person, so should I create an Article for him? No. The above request for keep has no logic. I would requet for deletion, as per nomination. --LineofWisdom (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - Marginal case: appears at first glance to fit the criterion of being covered "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" per that google books result, but on closer inspection it seems that the coverage is not specifically about the subject itself, but just uses the subject as an example. So, on the grounds of coverage not being substantial, I would suggest deletion, though not with any conviction.  Cerebellum (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, barely even mentioned in the one source used for the article. Wikipedia should not have an inherent bias towards the Internet age, but if the article is to remain, more source material would have to be found.  If it was offline, so be it, but I'm not willing to keep the article on the basis that there might be some.  Mango juice talk 15:52, 31 August 2009 (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.