Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaudhry Aurangzeb 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 keep. Seems like the article was improved during the course of the AFD and now there are good keep arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhry Aurangzeb Khan[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unsourced biography for over 10 years. No content other than titles he was supposedly given. Google Book Search finds one result (The Punjab Under Imperialism, 1885-1947) that has a trivial mention of him, and doesn't verify any of the article content. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title sounds significant enough that a well-sourced article about him would probably be keepable — but it's not so "inherently" notable that he would be exempted from having to have any referencing at all to verify the article's content with. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added the reference referred to by OP and a couple others, in particular establishing that he was awarded the title, though the reference has 1894 rather than 1892. It is a significant title. It was not unusual for European reports at the time to refer to such administrators as Munshi (secretaries and translators employed by Europeans) rather than by the honorific Chaudry. Relatedly, if kept it should probably be moved to Aurangzeb Khan (administrator), or some such, without the honorific. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Khan Bahadur probably qualifies under WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't withdraw this, but I'm fine with a keep+rename after the additional sourcing+info found by the 24. IP. power~enwiki (π, ν) 13:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it now has enough citations. No objection to suggested move. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all references seem to work and the article seems to have historical value also. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2019 (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.