Deletion of Badiuzzan Khan

Comment: without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can find proper |reliable sourcing for it. In principle, the claim that he was "a member of the legislative assembly of Bihar" passes  #1, but we ''have'' seen articles created which ''claimed'' that their subject held an NPOL-passing role when in fact they did ''not'' — so it's not the ''claim'' of serving in the legislative assembly that passes NPOL, but the sourcing that can be provided to properly |verify that the claim is actually ''true''. And I'm especially suspicious of articles about legislators which ''fail'' to specify what district the person represented or when. So no prejudice against recreation if somebody can actually locate verification that he actually held the claimed role (they don't have to be English-language ones, but can be in any language as long as they're |reliable and properly verify the claim), but he can't keep an unsourced article just because he's ''claimed'' to have held an ''unverified'' political office
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NPOL||WP:V||WP:RS)