Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sab Kichu Bhene Pare

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. Too much socking for a good discussion. Can be renominated. Sandstein 17:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sab Kichu Bhene Pare

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~The given references of the article are not worthy of it, they do not provide any strong information about the book. Shoikot H ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)~~ This account has been globally locked for “long-term abuse”. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:BKCRIT #5. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete'. The page must be deleted, the book is not notable in Bangladesh at all. TBF 93 (talk) (contributions) 07:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC) This account has been globally locked for “long-term abuse”. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note Both Shoikot H and TBF 93 are sock of Bishal Khan aka জঙ্গলবাসী and globally locked. ~ Nahid ^Talk 09:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete', lack of proper information, also the book is not notable. Saif Rasel (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC) This account has been globally locked for “long-term abuse”. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As some of the participants were identified as socks, relisting to get more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 07:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject (book) is not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, three of the !voters have been globally locked for long-term abuse, which does normally include sockpuppetry and other shenanigans. I’ll strike out their !votes. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only !vote left after removal of votes by globally locked accounts is a WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE vote. As such, requesting more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The book is notable, because it's clearly stated here: WP:BKCRIT #6 The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. @MrClog: You must know that the deletion process is not voting, so why you wait for others vote as well? ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 06:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This book does not meet any of the WP:BKCRIT criteria. Hasn't been reviewed in multiple reliable sources (in fact, the sourcing in the article all seems unreliable, and I was only able to find passing mentions in articles about the author), hasn't won literary awards, and certainly wasn't historically significant like the creator of the article argues it to be without any reason or proof. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2019 (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.