Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Zahur Ahmad

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 09:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Zahur Ahmad[edit]

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

No indication of notability, as only one source is provided and WP:BASIC requires multiple such sources. Also, only a few hundred Google results.[1] Jinkinson talk to me 23:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a somewhat poor nomination, admittedly of a poorly-written article. An argument from WP:GHITS is almost never valid unless it is about the quality rather than the number of results; and the article contains (and contained when nominated), in the statement that he was joint Secretary of the All India Muslim League from 1919 to 1926, a plausible - if rather less than definitive - indication of notability which is supported by this reliable source (but scroll down towards the end of the page), which was already given in the article when nominated. The nominator also seems to have been unaware that "Syed" is an honorific rather than a proper name and that transcriptions of Urdu/Hindi names into English can vary, so some results may only be found by using Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL instead - though unfortunately (as the source already cited shows) with the rider that another person with almost exactly the same name (but generally referred to as "Shaikh" rather than "Syed") was prominent at the same time as, and in similar circles to, the subject of this article. I also note that the creator of the article has added further references in the last few days - unfortunately, I have not managed to identify them firmly enough to assess their reliability. But for this difficulty and the one of sorting out whether any particular reference is referring to the subject or his namesake, I would probably have voted Keep. PWilkinson (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's a no namer, page is depending upon one single source as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lots of mere mentions, but, no major coverage. Fails our general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2013 (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.