Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadat Hossain (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus. There's a small number of good-quality, policy-oriented contributions below, and sadly a lot of rather rubbish ones. Taking the good ones, this is a good old-fashioned debate over whether the sourcing meets the requirements under our notability guidelines, or if this has just been ref bombed to death. There is no agreement amongst established editors on this subject, and no argument was sufficiently proven or disproven to form a consensus in the absence of agreement.

Two procedural notes: the canvassing in this debate is really poor, and while DGG is smart enough to see through it, it leaves a cloud over the debate as a whole. Consider this the strongest possible admonishment for the individual who canvassed. Secondly, due to the narrow nature of the no consensus and the potential flaws procedurally in this discussion, I am explicitly noting that this can be renominated for AfD by any interested editor in a shorter period of time than may have previously been expected. Further, I strongly urge anyone who comes along to AFD4 (if it happens) and complains about the frequency or quantity of AfDs to be rebuked by participants, for not focusing on the content of the article. Daniel (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadat Hossain

[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 seem notable per WP:AUTHOR. All the references, here, are regular coverage, hence, does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Furthermore, this image is uploaded as an "own work" by the original content creator triggering doubt for a possible WP:COI. — Meghmollar2017 (U T C) — 09:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MdsShakil (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —MdsShakil (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —MdsShakil (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —MdsShakil (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —MdsShakil (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: WP:BOMBARD and WP:ADMASQ. I have not checked 100% of the references, but I find interviews with Hossein and passing mentions. Trivial coverage. The BOMBARD is such that this smacks of UPE, and done poorly Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep Two substantial book reviews would be enough for WP:AUTHOR. SamHolt6 said in the first AfD that "For example, two of their novels have been the subject of full article book reviews in notable English-language newspaper" but they didn't indicate which: the only one I find substantial is one in the Daily Star, but it's almost entirely a plot summary. I looked at the Google translation of all the Bengali book reviews, and none of them are that substantial. I did not look at the reviews of the other work. Judging by their wide range of contributions, the creator of the article is more likely to be a fan than a coi editor. Nor do I find the article particularly spammy, as such articles go. (I was pinged to come here, but I'm at least as likely to !vote delete as keep on topics like this) DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is coverage of the author in The Daily Star, the largest circulating daily English-language newspaper in Bangladesh, along with other major papers and media outlets in the country including The Daily Observer, Ei Samay Sangbadpatra, and The Independent. As stated in Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people under creative professionals, notability can be determined by "multiple independent periodical articles" and there are definitely enough independent articles either about or mentioning this subject to prove notability. Also as a side note, this article was the subject of two previous AfDs, with the outcome a keep in both instances. The article now has even more reliable citations than during those two previous AfDs, so I'm not sure why it was brought up for AfD a third time. --SouthernNights (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article undoubtedly contains too many sources, but they are either interviews or press coverage for some insignificant prize distributing ceremonies (a prize named after a notable litterateur does not imply that its recievers will automatically be regarded as notable) and, hence, can not be explicitly determined as intellectually independent secondary sources. Thus it fails WP:NBASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:CREATIVE. And so can be said for WP:NFILM refering to the press coverage for the film Gohiner Gaan, too. Primary sources can support the content, but they do not contribute to prove subject's notability. This article still fails to explicitly meet the criteria of notability guidelines even after three years since its creation and so, brought up here for a third time. — Meghmollar2017 (U T C) — 03:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the sources before my first comment and you are incorrect. Many of them are specifically focused on this subject, either interviews or reviews of his work or coverage of him and his work. And your statements about intellectually independent sources is also incorrect. As per Wikipedia guidelines, "all article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources" and that's what we have a ton of here, 46 independent, third-party sources from major news outlets in Bangladesh. As I stated above, Wikipedia's notability guidelines for creative professionals says notability can be determined by "multiple independent periodical articles" and there are plenty of independent, reliable articles about this subject to prove notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- This is already the third nomination, and at least five editors have been CANVASSed to this one with a decidedly non-neutral invitation. One has to wonder why so much interest around this (on both sides). DGG's opinion is valuable in any discussion, but for appearance's sake if nothing else, I think he should at least make his !vote a comment, given the content of the message he received[1]. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My user talk link was given above. When asked to look at an article or draft, I look at it. Whether I do what is asked for or implied is another matter: I've gotten good at never even seeing that part of the request. This is a !vote, not a comment. It represents my own opinion. DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jubair Sayeed Linas: I also wonder why you are taking it personally and canvassing in the background! Can't I nominate any article for AfD using my wikisense? Looking forward to your reply. — Meghmollar2017 (U T C) — 06:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: Sorry for the late reply. Third nomination is frustrating me. I am inviting wikipedians who worked on literature and I don't know them. I request them to express their opinion. I am not telling them to vote keep. I think if they against it, it should be deleted. And there was other wikipedians who I am not talking. They are also voted for this keep or delete. If anything is not right according to wiki rules let me know please. Jubair Sayeed Linas (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Meghmollar2017: Sorry for the late reply and my apology for any words that hurts you. If any article is deleted I feel pain. It is natural for me. I am always try to keep my articles online. I created 21 articles in english, 117 in bengali and only 4 in English and 12 in Bengali has been deleted. All articles is matter for me. 14:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jubair Sayeed Linas: I understand. Any of the deletion proposals is certainly frustrating, though it is also a natural process in Wikipedia that the articles must go under the scrutiny of other wikipedians. However, starting a discussion does not imply that the article is surely going to be deleted or the person is conspiring against you or the subject. I have also created a few articles on both wikis and gathered some knowledge for which you can assume good faith on me; or, maybe, because it is a part of recreating the article on the other wiki for a third time [by someone else whom I am helping] that was deleted previously. — Meghmollar2017 (U T C) — 15:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hi! I have not been notified by anyone about this discussion. I agree with DGG and SouthernNights that the subject is notable and that there are sufficient sources to keep the article. gidonb (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have improved the categorization. Due to the frequent nominations that always end in keep, I recommended a freeze on further nominations once this is kept again. Some topics just get nominated time and again, wasting precious community resources. gidonb (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need more Bangladeshi author pages not fewer. It is getting harder and harder to create wikipages or add content as many 'participating' editors go around deleting things (which is very easy to do). Germsteel (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Germsteel: Surely, it is tough to increase the number. But should we only focus on that "number" without checking whether they are really notable? The article was previously proposed for deletion twice by other wikipedians who are Bangladeshi administrators on bnwiki; it also didn't seem to be notable to me, too. However, it is satisfactory that almost all have expressed their opinion that this article should be kept. — Meghmollar2017 (U T C) — 15:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article contains many references but those doesn't make this subject notable at all following our notability policy. That's look like WP:BOMBARD. This article was deleted two times in bnwp —MdsShakil (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was kept both times that it was debated. gidonb (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Other than interviews, press releases, passing/trivial mentions, and sources written by subject himself, i see no WP:SIGCOV. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,The Gohiner Gaan fim written and directed by Sadat. I think this fullfil WP:AUTHOR 3 no point. And This article contain many independent articles on him. -- Prodipto Deloar (Talk • Contribute) 02:07, 30 November 2021 (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.