Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khan Roshan 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 Userfied. MBisanz ^talk 17:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Roshan khan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. No reliable source found covering the subject significantly or asserting notability. Some self published sources in the article give a passing mention of the subject. SMS ^Talk 16:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've put the article back where it should be following an attempt by the author to seek help. I think he might need clear explanation of what the problem is, and I've attempted to explain about his references. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a poorly presented article, probably by some one for whom English is not a first language. I have slightly improved the punctuation: the lack of a space after a punctation mark made it difficult to read. I have also removed a few persnal comments of the authro that do not belon in an encyclopaedia, but I am prepared to keep it in the hope that some one who knows the subject better than improve it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or Userify to enable the author to bring the article up to an acceptable level in his sandbox, with a view to uploading it later. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely unreferenced. Seems notable, but currently not verified. I'd happily opt for keep with one or two reliable references. For now, I'm inclined to delete. --Dweller (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Message from the author: "Ok,ok you are right but tell me what prove do you need about this person?i am ready and i will give you every proof about this everything which i hve typed, because these all things are with me and you can ask the Pushto Academy about him and his research.i have the books.please if you or your relative visit Pakistan,must come to me i will show you and tell about his masterpiece work which haven't done before this by any one on pushtoon Research and just tell me you reject the references of blogs and wikis so of what things shall i give the references???? " Copied from my talk page. I think he's referring to the subject's books (which may or may not be notable), but I'm not sure. If we could find a Pushto speaking editor to communicate with him, it might help. Any offers? Peridon (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand Pushto to some extent, left a message at the user's talk. --SMS ^Talk 18:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a Pushtu WP? If so, can the author complete the article (with references) in Pushtu and then translate it? Perhaps the answer is Userify - as I have said above? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes here it is. Actually I really doubt this person's notability but if there is a way this article can be improved, I support it. --SMS ^Talk 12:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Wiki article sounds impressive. I searched deeply commercial databases and can't find mention of his books. His name is so common I can't untangle it from the thousands of hits. There are a few blog-like posts in the article that mention his name in passing, so we know he exists, but there is nothing to show notability. Just need some verifiable evidence. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to allow the article to be brought closer to standard Wikipedia writing and citation style. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2012 (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.