Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdur Razzaq (barrister)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Michig (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abdur Razzaq (barrister)[edit]
- Abdur Razzaq (barrister) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Does not fail WP:GNG, as can be seen on the article talk page: [1]. Darkness Shines had originally nominated this for speedy deletion. Not sure on what grounds. He's done this before, and has been blithely overruled by the community. I recommend to him to think through these nominations before making them. Aminul802 (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources give indepth coverage as required by GNG. Him making statements to the press will not an article make. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per refs here here here here and here PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources give any indepth coverage at all, first sources ha a few lines of him talking about being watched, second is an op-ed by him and gives no information on him. Third a statement to the press. Forth is a statement from the investigator of the ICT saying he may be charged with war crimes. One of your links is a duplicate. You cannot write an article using those sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so start with the war criminal thing, and go from there. I tend to air on the side of caution with dismissing something I can at least find 1 half decent reference for about a non-english/western topic. You also say they are not in depth. Maybe so, but they are not necessarily trivial either which is a key difference. Hopefully someone from that side of the world will grace us with their presence and shed some much needed light and perspective onto the matter. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know one Bangladeshi editor, shall I ask him to take a look? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so start with the war criminal thing, and go from there. I tend to air on the side of caution with dismissing something I can at least find 1 half decent reference for about a non-english/western topic. You also say they are not in depth. Maybe so, but they are not necessarily trivial either which is a key difference. Hopefully someone from that side of the world will grace us with their presence and shed some much needed light and perspective onto the matter. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bangladeshi editors may be considered to have a COI in deciding this, especially since this person is involved with the controversial defense counsel of the International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh). If you can offer a non-Bengali, that might be a better idea. If the Bengali author can give a fair-minded exposition of the matter, that could help, though.Aminul802 (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is like saying I should not comment on American's AFD's because I am one. Not everyone is a nationalist. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean it quite like that, but knowing DS's inclinations on this matter, I made that comment. This is because I thought I might know the Bangladeshi in question, and it turns out that I do [2]. It's User:Freemesm. His own views on the tribunal strike me as distinctly partisan, as can be found on the ICTB's talk page here: [3] and elsewhere on the same page and its archives. He is highly critical of any material that is unfavorable toward the tribunal. His POV can be discerned here: [4]. I do not trust this users judgement, as our most recent interactions have been less than pleasant: [5]. You can view the history of this article to see that his POV appears to have blinded him to even edits of mine that cannot be seen to have any POV content whatsoever. I speaking of his editing my spelling correction here: [6]. So, I agree, it's silly to generalize about Bangladeshis. I was worried about the specific Bangladeshis Darkness Shines may know. Aminul802 (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know, why Mr. Aminul is so angry to me. Every piece of his claim could be answered. But, that is not relevant here. I just want to say, just follow User:Aminul802's contribution and ICTB talk page. You will see, how this person upholding alleged war criminals. I'm just trying to make these article according to WP:NPOV. Whatever, come to the main point. I don't think that a living person's article, only with 2 sentences and a reference can stay in wikipedia. Bangladeshi media cover him as a defense lawyer of alleged war criminals of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami leaders. Currently I don't have sufficient material to enrich this article. If any one have, please come forward. Thank you.--Freemesm (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean it quite like that, but knowing DS's inclinations on this matter, I made that comment. This is because I thought I might know the Bangladeshi in question, and it turns out that I do [2]. It's User:Freemesm. His own views on the tribunal strike me as distinctly partisan, as can be found on the ICTB's talk page here: [3] and elsewhere on the same page and its archives. He is highly critical of any material that is unfavorable toward the tribunal. His POV can be discerned here: [4]. I do not trust this users judgement, as our most recent interactions have been less than pleasant: [5]. You can view the history of this article to see that his POV appears to have blinded him to even edits of mine that cannot be seen to have any POV content whatsoever. I speaking of his editing my spelling correction here: [6]. So, I agree, it's silly to generalize about Bangladeshis. I was worried about the specific Bangladeshis Darkness Shines may know. Aminul802 (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is like saying I should not comment on American's AFD's because I am one. Not everyone is a nationalist. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources give any indepth coverage at all, first sources ha a few lines of him talking about being watched, second is an op-ed by him and gives no information on him. Third a statement to the press. Forth is a statement from the investigator of the ICT saying he may be charged with war crimes. One of your links is a duplicate. You cannot write an article using those sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - per WP:ONEEVENT "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. ..The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person.". Also read WP:NOTNEWS.
Per WP:BLP1E - "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." I am personally iffy about the subject myself and tending towards a delete. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 11:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would say delete, but I just asked a question on the talk page, so it wouldn't be fair to jump to that right now. None of the sources that I looked at there really proved notability and are just fringe mentions. Dreambeaver(talk) 23:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per GNG. No substantial coverage apparent, except for mentions of his involvement in notable events, which should be covered in the context of these events. Sandstein 20:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Here is one more, and it clearly goes beyond the WP:ONEEVENT.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with previous arguments for keeping this article. Josh1024 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The nomination is simply too poor to accept in light of the sources being provided here. His titles and these sources lay a sufficient claim for notability.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:43, 4 February 2013 (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.