Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Khan (Pakistan Army officer)

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. Sandstein 21:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Khan (Pakistan Army officer)

Muhammad Khan (Pakistan Army officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not of general rank. No coverage. Fails WP:NSOLDIER. Störm (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems to claim notability as author of one book. No references are given to support notability for the book or author or even to prove the subject wrote the book.--Rpclod (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly notable per WP:AUTHOR(1) (as well as being close to a SOLDIER pass), and just plain GNG. Sources to establish notability of the book are not hard to find - e.g. LITERARY NOTES: The 100 best Urdu books or Bored engineer came up with a best-seller (describing how a different author - Abdullah Hussain "He adopted a co-worker's name, Abdullah Hussain, to avoid confusion with his namesake, the noted humour writer Colonel Muhammad Khan.").Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Icewhiz. Definitely passes AUTHOR and GNG. There are certainly issues with NOR and NPOV given the state of the citations in the article, but I don't see a convincing case that this is grounds for deletion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Thanks to the sources provided by Icewhiz, the subject passes WP:AUTHOR. Pratyush (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2018 (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.