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.
Does not meet the WP:BIO requirements. Ozgod 05:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proof he even existed let alone accomplishments to pass WP:BIO. Retired in 1357??--Dacium 07:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stub. Admirals are generally notable. Note the retirement took place around the year A.D. 1979 (sometimes written 1979 C.E.). 1357 would be the corresponding A.H. date (after hejira). --Eastmain 13:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some time back I tried to establish a criterion that all soldiers with ranks of general or admiral (and equivalents) would be automatically notable, but there was a strong argument that without an independent verifiable source no article could be written. What evidence do we have other than assume good faith, that this officer ever existed and attained the rank of admiral? At this point I am unconvinced either way. --Kevin Murray 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its probably because people don't realise how many generals there are. Like each division actually has a generalty and there are thousands of divisions in the world.--Dacium 01:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that would be a poor precedent. Most peacetime flag officers in any military would not be notable.--Dhartung | Talk 08:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete There should be sources to establish the reality of every one of them: for the UK, there is http://www.navylist.org/. For Iran, I haven't any idea what would be the equivalent, but others may . But this might be a good time to question that earlier assumption that they are all notable. In this case there are apparently not enough sources to write a meaningful article. A little odd, because the orig. editor was "AminSh," & this is his only article. DGG 01:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eastmain 01:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no sources exist. If sources exist, I'll reneg. --Wafulz 04:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending addition of any information displaying his military (or other) notability, other than by dint of holding rank. --Dweller 11:26, 2 March 2007 (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.