Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shafiqul Islam Masud

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. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 03:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shafiqul Islam Masud[edit]

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

Notable for only one event which fails the guideline. Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:MILL also. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject has received in-depth coverage from a variety of sources. To be frank, Ibrahim Husain Meraj it appears to me that you sort of have it out for any article regarding people associated with this Jamaat-e-Islami party. --Non-Dropframe _talk 13:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Non-Dropframe, one but all the references are from his arrest incident. As a politician, he is not notable and as a political party, Jamaat-e-Islami party is minor (may be 5-10% supporter). Shafiqul Islam Masud was the president of their student wings and now he is assistant secretary of the party, which is not enough to prove his notability. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Husain Meraj, at AfD, we not only consider the sources listed in the article but any other sources to be found also. Further, you've cited WP:BIO1E which states in part: "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." So the question becomes if the event is significant. Even looking only at the sources in the article, the event received in-depth attention from many news sources. Finally, you didn't really address my concern that you may be targeting this group specifically. --Non-Dropframe _talk 16:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not target this group. As far as my knowledge as a resident of Bangladesh, Mr Shafiqul Islam Masud, is not a notable politician. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom, per WP:1E; do not pass any WP:BIO. --nafSadh did say 14:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article emphasizes an event that began as arson and led to the charging, arrest, and alleged torture of Masud in custody. It has been suggested that he is notable only for this event and (as one of 154 Jamaat-Shibir men indicted for it)[1] that his role was minor enough that any article should be about the event, not him, per WP:ONEEVENT.

However, Masud was covered before the 24 December 2013 arson:

February 2013, Syed Zain Al-Mahmood wrote long articles, largely critical of Jamaat, in The Wall Street Journal and The Guardian. They quote Masud as the only pro-Jamaat voice.[2][3]
May 2013, the Dhaka Tribune reported that the government blamed senior leaders of Jamat, and specifically Masud, for violence.[4]
November 2013, the Dhaka Tribune quoted Masud saying "the entire 56,000 square miles of the country will be set on fire", if Jamaat doesn't get the verdict they want. [5]
HighBeam shows 32 mentions going back to 2010.

He clearly fails nearly all points of WP:POLITICIAN because he has never run for or held office. One point, however, is: "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success."

The student wing of Jamaat is a major part of the party (the world's third most violent terrorist group, according to Wikipedia). Being the former president of it meets the spirit of this criterion for notability as a politician. Furthermore, Dhaka, as the capital and home of 7-10 percent of the country's population, meets the spirit of "major sub-national level" (politics in Bangladesh doesn't really take place at the divisional level, the step immediately below national). "Assistant secretary" of Jamaat's Dhaka organization doesn't sound very grand, but judging from the press coverage he is considered a significant leader of Jamaat. Worldbruce (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. He is notable for more than just his arrest. Also, judging from the press coverage, he is regarded as an important leader of Jamaat, which even if on the fringe (and now banned), is an established political party, which during most of Masud's career has held seats in the Parliament of Bangladesh and has been in an opposition alliance with the BNP.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper and does not need to give a blow-by-blow (so to speak) account of Masud's detention. How many days remand was granted at each appearance is less important than mentioning what the charges are, and of course the eventual outcome. Secondary sources that reflect, analyze, and put in context would be good. Also, non-English sources should only be used where no English source is available to support the material. Worldbruce (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, having been national president of Chhatra Shibir, which is a major organization in Bangladesh, is definately enough to pass notability criteria many times around. Here is a video from Cahhatra Shibir from 2006, around the time he served as president, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiUfQfyfMUg --Soman (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2015 (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.