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 of the debate was delete one keep vote was contingent on sources being found, no one was confident that this was verifiable. It's a bit irregular for a closer to do this, but I did a quick check and found nothing off-Wikipedia about this guy, even with a broad search [1]. verifiability is not optional regardless of a vote, so I think the decision here is clear. If verification emerges, contact me and I will undelete. Thanks. W.marsh 17:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well may be a real person, but unable to verify his notability without reference sources. No vote. Medtopic 00:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)edited 05:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think it makes more sense just to have a ((citationneeded)) tag placed here. The information seems credible: there are no exaggerated claims. The author has made a sincere attempt to present (mostly) NPOV and has also given references in the form of names of books. There seems to be no good reason to doubt the veracity of the material. It's true that more citations would be a good idea. However, there's a problem with finding Internet references to material more than a decade old especially when it comes from languages less commonly studied or countries that are poorer. Since I'm committed to the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias: WP:CSB, I'm afraid that a delete would discourage contributions by those who are writing about such languages or cultures. Interlingua ^talk 03:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've attempted to draw attention to the article and this AfD on the Talk pages of a few contributors who might be more knowledgable about this person. -Medtopic 05:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with Interlingua on this. Although I haven't heard of this individual and were he a man of notability, I would most likely know him and so, on the outset, I am inclined not to be favourable towards the article's worthiness to existence...however, as was rightly pointed out, there is a great difficulty in citing references for lesser known scholars and languages and if indeed he has published 5 books (which I have no reason to doubt), then that is a veritable claim to notability. That said, Sindhi is not really such an obscure language and I am aware of several scholars on the subject who all already have their own wikipedia articles and I don't think Dr. Bohyo is really of a similar stature. Nevertheless, I think that all this debate and discussion merely warrants a citation tag and little else. I think it would not be beneficial for the article to be deleted. KEEP, but also keep the citation tag

I havent heard of this man before, but that doesnt mean he doesnt exist. I will surf the web for this person's existance and if he does, I will cite some sources. If nothing comes up, then the article goes. Afghan Historian 05:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if sources were found to back up the claims made, the claims themselves aren't notable enough for Wikipedia, even taking systematic bias into account. The level of notability is similar to that given in a newspaper obituary of a locally well-respected but not especially distinguished or well-known minor scholar - there are many of these obits, in the West as well as the East, and they are generally not notable enough for Wikipedia Bwithh 05:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: 5 published books isn't notable? ---J.S (t|c) 16:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book publication is no guarantee of notability. Bwithh 17:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have a problem with how this AFD was done. Edit summarys are extreemly important when doing AfDs. ---J.S (t|c) 16:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eh? Bwithh 17:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary of the article has been updated to reflect your concern. Medtopic 18:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep IF the publication of those books can be verified in the next 5 days. (otehrwise, delete.) I attempted to find evidence of the books a while back, but was unable to find anything. Right now the article violates WP:V, but it does make claims of notability. ---J.S (t|c) 16:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I tried to search suitable referecnes, but drew a blank. The contents do not indicate notability as per our requirements. Pulication of books may not be a factor for notability unless the books published are notable. His life and work, in my opinion, do not warrant an article in wikipedia. --Bhadani 14:12, 16 June 2006 (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.