Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A H M Khairuzzaman Liton

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A H M Khairuzzaman Liton[edit]

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

No sources and a BLP article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mayor of Rajshahi city, one of the Divisional capitals and major cities of Bangladesh, passes WP:POLITICIAN. --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet WP:POLITICIAN? The 1st source is not even about him, just a comment from an official capacity. The 2nd one is just about some committee backing him, nothing in depth at all. 3rd one is his running. We have zero sources about his biography or any indepth coverage. Unsourced material can be challenged and removed, which is the entirety of the article at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went by the first criterion which states sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This is an in-depth source about the politician, from the city portal of Rajshahi.--Zayeem ^(talk) 20:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a primary source. Are there multiple non-primary reliable sources that give significant in-depth coverage of the subject of this AfD?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the subject has received passing mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, that being said none of the sources that mention the subject do not appear to give the subject significant coverage, nor do the available sources added up appear to add up to a single in-depth source about the subject; therefore, it can be well argued that the subject of this AfD has not yet received coverage from reliable sources to pass notability as defined by GNG and/or ANYBIO. Furthermore, most of the mentions of the subject appears to be routine coverage that a mayor would receive for actions that are in the normal course of the elected office the subject is verified to have.

All that being said, the subject is a mayor of Rajshahi (population 842,701 in a 2012 estimate) which would be considered a major city and thus we must look at the following from WP:POLOUTCOMES:

Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty (e.g. having previously held a more notable office). Note that this criterion has not generally been as restrictive as the criterion for city councillors. City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo or London.

Based on POLOUTCOMES and the size of the city, I am not inclined to support deletion of this biography article. The article may have issues and may appear to be a glamour resume, but AfD is not a replacement for article improvement.

Alternately, the subject maybe locally notable, but notable outside of the city, and thus one can argue per WP:LOCAL that the article be redirected to the article of Rajshahi, and a list of the city's past mayors be created with the article being specifically redirected to that list.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern extends to that biography section which seems to be entirely unsourced and added by someone with a close connection to the subject because of the wording and the structure. "Free from spiteful attitude and broad minded politician Kamaruzzaman was connected with Journalism and newspaper too." If this isn't peacocking and poor/confusing grammar, I don't know what is. We can fix some of this, but what more then 5 sentences will be left when we are done? I do understand the size of the city, but I want at least a stub and not 3 sentences which would likely be merged into the article anyways. The city has huge issues as well, a large portion of our Indian coverage is like this, but that doesn't change how we apply policy. It is just not patrolled as much. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern stated above, and although a stub maybe all that is left after clean-up it's better than bad unverified promotional content. I would not oppose a redirect to a section about the city government of the Rajshahi, perhaps into a list of past mayors. If any of them receive significant coverage from reliable sources in the future, an article can always can be created from the list.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately independent sources with significant coverages about the politician are difficult to find, but I can assure you that it won't be just a rephrasing of the title if the information (uncontroversial and unambiguous) based on the primary source are added.--Zayeem ^(talk) 19:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A poor article certainly, but this man is mayor of a city of nearly 1,000,000 people. I can imagine the comments if someone tried to delete an article on the mayor of a city this size in Britain or the United States! Much of the article should be deleted, possibly leaving no more than a stub, but that's no reason to delete the whole article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP covers the world on equal terms. The mayor of a city of 860,000 in the US would certainly get an article. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know what Emerson said about foolish consistencies?
  If significant sources don't exist, there can't be an article. Not saying they don't exist in this case, but your comment betrays a misunderstanding of what "equal" means on Wikipedia. 66.108.176.187 (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fear the misunderstanding may be yours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are misinterpreting Emerson. The type of consistency that he characterised as foolish is the type that follows the letter of the law, such as unqualified statements like "if significant sources don't exist, there can't be an article". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the contrary, it's quite foolish to suggest baselessly that every mayor of a large city should "get" an article. By contrast, my assertion was not baseless at all. How are you supposed to write a good article without significant sources? 66.108.176.187 (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is the mayor of a truly major city, that means he meets a notable criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because this is an encyclopedia, and the mayor of such a major city is the type of subject that an encyclopedia should cover. There are plenty of sources available online in English covering various aspects of the subject's political and mayoral activities, so there's no need to worry about lack of sources, and many more sources certainly exist offline and in Bengali. Of course nearly all of the current content should be removed as non-neutral and irrelevant, but this discussion is simply delaying the addressing of that issue, the real problem with the article, rather than the issue of whether the article should exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 21 May 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.