Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Haider Zhobal

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Haider Zhobal

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:NACADEMIC nor WP:NWRITER. – Ploni (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, History, and Afghanistan. Ploni (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found one source about his writing and added it in. It doesn't establish notability, just a brief mention. But I don't think there is a high chance of finding stuff about a Afghan writer who wrote in the 1950s in English sources, so I hope someone with relevant language skills can take a look. CT55555 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a few sources that help prove notability. As CT55555 mentioned it is difficult to find sources because of when the subject published plus his works not being published in English.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards keep (but I do not know) -- The fact that some one has written an article referring to his contribution suggests to me that he is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Löschen~~ Keep (see reply comment): if anyone is inclined to do more digging, here are the LOC BIBFRAME entries for his two books: [1], [2]. I do not believe that the sources presently in the article establish notability. I have updated the titles to give the transliterated titles and the LOC's translation, and removed the other two entries, since I am not sure they actually exist; one duplicated a title of an earlier book, and the other the publication year, which makes me suspicious. (Additionally, it is extremely suspicious for someone to publish in the 1950s and 60s, and then... 2004.) I would normally assume that any historian with two or more books is notable and, like previous commenters, urge caution against quick delete !votes because of language barrier issues. But in this case I am much more concerned that the language barrier may well have led to an article simply being factually untrue for a decade. For example: can anyone find any information that this BLP is, in fact, a BLP? The most recent evidence we have of his life is the publication of that second book, which may have been as early as 1960. The DNB gives his biographical data as 1925/26-1959/60. (I wouldn't lean too heavily on that data, but it does not inspire confidence.) -- asilvering (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. The AFD version of your computer working as soon as you call someone over to look at it: a full, English-language source. And yes, he's quite dead. Source: [3]. -- asilvering (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I previously commented, but did not !vote until now). Keep due to being notable, as per the new sources found by Asilvering CT55555 (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2022 (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.