Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zobeda Khanom Chowdhury

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. and it does not appear one is forthcoming with two relists generating zero incremental input. No prejudice against a speedy renom if you believe it would get traction. Star Mississippi 03:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zobeda Khanom Chowdhury[edit]

[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)

~~The subject has no reason to be notable and sources do not prove otherwise.~~ Notability is not inherited from her son. Apart from a single source (M. R. Mahbub) we have no significant coverage of the subject even in Bengali. If Mahbub's claim that she was among the first Muslim women to join politics in Bangladesh were true (it isn't), such a scarcity of sources is not to be expected: Language Movement has attracted attention of thousands of scholars in S. Asia across the last few decades. Anyways, a single source and some name-drops cannot guarantee passage of WP:N. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not read Bengali but the statement that the "subject has no reason to be notable" is about as far from the lede as possible, which says a leading woman of the Bengali language movement and one of the pioneering women in Bangladeshi politics. TrangaBellam, do you think this statement is fabricated? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such subjective claims are of no value and not supported by scholarship. The body has a lot of objective details and I leave the judgement to you. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @AleatoryPonderings: I had edited an article drafted by TrangaBellam with good faith a couple of hours ago but they were not content with these edits and thus responded by criticising a number of my recent article translations from Bengali to English. This is very inappropriate behaviour. SalamAlayka (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm baffled by the nominator's WP:NOTINHERITED argument. The article text only mentions her son briefly and he doesn't even have his own article. There's no obvious attempt to coatrack notability here. pburka (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the many arguments.

Overall, there were thousands of ML Women Cells each having their Muslim women office bearers, who partook in routine party bureaucracy and outreach including submitting memorandum etc and dissenting with higher ups. None of this is an exception including criticism by press. The acts engaged in by our subject do not seem significant enough to merit anything more than a footnote in the annals of Language Movement. There were many women with far-significant contributions.

And a profile over a single book by a single scholar arguing the subject to be some kind of revolutionary woman (minus the evidence) is not sufficient to pass notability guidelines either. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article says her son died in 1952 but according to this Obituary he died in 2008. Or is this a different son?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC) *Keep per this source.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutal- It is written by the same author, M. R. Mahbub.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a source analysis table would be really helpful here. The article makes claims about her notability that look good on the face of it, but I don't know if the groups she's associated with are notable either, and the nominator telling us they're "subjective claims" doesn't help the rest of us understand why. I can't read Bengali so I can't put one together effectively. I am concerned with the tone of the article, though, which doesn't strike me as WP:NPOV. (And what does "indecent" mean, anyway?) And I'm not sure what's going on in the "Political Activism" section. This looks like it's mostly about people who are not the article subject? I think this might be what the nominator's WP:NOTINHERITED argument might have been aiming at, though I agree with pburka that there's no apparent attempt to coatrack notability using her son. -- asilvering (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might need a subtle rewrite, but is notable.103.109.56.38 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving time for multiple WP:GNG passing sources to be presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:21, 3 February 2022 (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.