Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Khan Madhosh

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 no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Khan Madhosh

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

The article lacks notability and the article was published on 7 January 2015, since then there were no references or improvements made to this orphan article. You may decide whether this article should be kept or deleted. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 07:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject not notable. samtar ^(msg) 09:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the fact that the subject's obit was published by national newspapers is convincing evidence of notability. Even though he is neither a Korean boy band member nor a footballer, whatever that is.TheLongTone (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- I'm completely mixed BTW because these Middle Eastern subjects aren't always easy to view and evaluate but the newspapers sources including some more I found here may be able to compensate for the fact I found no better links....and also hope for someone with better access to any sources adds them and improves this. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2015 (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.