Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mir Chakar

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mir Chakar

The article is about a non-notable (less than 10000 google hits) king containing unsourced information. James086 05:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep only if sourced otherwise delete per nom. Arbusto 05:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Kings are inherently notable, and the Google hits indicate that this person really was a king. Sources should be added, though. --Metropolitan90 06:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if sourced. Kings are notable. Resolute 06:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Metropolitan90. I only get 125 unique Google hits ([1]), but for someone from the 15th century, that's actually quite a lot. The article does need sources. --Hyperbole 06:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as googlecounting is a terrible way to measure notability of a 15th century king. ColourBurst 07:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is a questionable rationale for current topics, but saying a 15th-century king doesn't have enough fansites is ludicrous. -- Chris chat edits essays 11:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Metropolitan90. It does need sources, though. --Storkk 13:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Added {{verify}}. Delist, nothing better could be made at the moment. Pavel Vozenilek 13:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Google hit counting is a terrible way of establishing notability for someone who lived 500 years before Google existed. I added an additional source culled from a Google search, which should clear up the sourcing issues significantly. Zetawoof^(ζ) 18:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Looking through the first page on a google search shows notability. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 20:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Rulers of countries are notable, regardless of whether or not people discuss them on the Internet a lot. -Amarkov ^babble 23:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep I am not convinced that rulers of countries are inherently notable. Indeed, sufficiently small micro-countries are not even notable themselves (one was recently deleted and the deletion sustained in DRV). Furthermore, the country that he was part of lasted by its own description only a short time period. I think a merge might actually make more sense to some appropriate article if we had one, but since there isn't any obvious merge candidate keeping for now makes sense. JoshuaZ 23:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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.