Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saif ad-Din Abu-Bakr

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. Punkmorten (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saif ad-Din Abu-Bakr[edit]

Can't find much information beyond the fact that this person filled a gap of time between two other rulers. Per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The unelected ruler of a country or province is automatically notable, in the same way that elected politicians at that level are. This is true whether he inherited his position or became ruller by overthrowing someone else. --Eastmain (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all sultans, bishops, etc. There seem to be a lot of odd nominations today. Pburka (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I add here what I already wrote on the discussian page of the article. If you can not find enough info about the Mamluk sultans then it is not their mistakes . I have a lot of info about all of them. Thank you. Why should it be deleted ? We aiming to make articles for all Mamluk Sultans. Please we need some opinions because I do not understand. Thank you. yes as usual I start an article by making the heading and name then I add the information later. This is only the start. See all my articles please .. all start this way to fix the name of the sultan and link it eveywhere then the rest follows.Samsam22 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC), If you look here You will see some names are in red . We are aiming to turn these names to blue. Once we did that we will have history of Mamluks clear and complete on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia wish not to have history of Mamluks on their site then please let me know so I spare my effort. Thanks Samsam22 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Eastmain. Edward321 (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, any person in such a position is notable. If you haven't found the information, you haven't looked hard enough, because I am certain that historians have written about him. Everyking (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - filling a gap between two rulers would mean that he was a ruler. Which would make him notable. matt91486 (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, like the other articles pertaining to Mamluk sultans, this one also deserves a separate mention. --Chapultepec (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2008 (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.