Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdur Rahim (scholar) (2nd nomination)

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. This has had three weeks now and while there is a slight numerical majority in favour of keeping there isn't a clear consensus. Michig (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Rahim (scholar)[edit]

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

Fail to pass general notability. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is a notable scholar and politician in Bangladesh history. He has been studied widely in academia and has many notable books, as indicated in the article. I believe this nomination is invalid. ~Mohammad Hossain~ 03:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment isn't this nomination flawed on procedural grounds? The prior decision was a keep.--JumpLike23 (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's bad form to bring it back to AFD so soon, but not unusual to do so. Article needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Previous AfD was "keep" based only on the assertion of a few eds. Sources here are just a few web pages. Is there anything more definitive that would demonstrate notability, because it appears to be lacking at the moment. Agricola44 (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't it have been better to seek the attention of someone from Bangladesh, like a scholar from that country or an expert on the topic before you nominated the article a 2nd time? This is going to be a difficult article to evaluate because 1) his name seems rather common in Bangladesh 2) academics are difficult even when they come from your own country! So my vote is...
Keep and get expert advice if expert says not notable, then delete. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, nom wasn't involved in the first discussion, and did wait six months for reliable sources to be found. Oh, and nom is from Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Examining the cited sources, we have: a self-published blog (marrf), a political party "supporters' forum", and a book with a scholarly appearance (although from a publisher that, as of the publication date had "recently been restructured to include a self-publishing division"). Whether the book is a reliable source or not, its sole contribution to the article is the sentence, "1974:Maulana Abdur Rahim, a senior leader of the provincial party before 1971, returns to Dhaka."

Are there other sources out there that establish notability? The first deletion discussion identified none. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and JSTOR for this Abdur Rahim uncovered two positive matches and one possible one. [1] and [2] (which share an author, so are not independent of each other) each include one sentence about him:

"Maulana Abdur Rahim, who was the first ameer of Jamaat in the then East Pakistan, was the brain behind the unity."
"Taking advantage of this, Maulana Abdur Rahim, the first Jamaat ameer for East Pakistan, brought religion-based parties, including Jamaat, Nezam-e-Islam and Khelafat-i-Rabbani, under a common umbrella, Islamic Democratic League (IDL) on October 23, 1977."

[3] includes a "Maulana Abdur Rahim" in a list of war criminals. It is unclear whether it is the same person or not.

One or two independent, reliable, secondary sources with between them at most two sentences on the topic, does not prove that the subject has received significant coverage, so none of WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:ACADEMIC have been met. The article's original author has asserted in these deletion discussions that the subject is notable. No objection to userfication to let him continue looking for sources, but the article as it stands does not belong in mainspace. Worldbruce (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, it seems Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk · contribs) is doing several ill-informed AfD. This should be a speedy closure. Yes, Maulana Abdur Rahim is the same person ('Mawlana' is a title, not a name). See for example "Moulana Abdur Rahim, the Naebe Ameer (vice chairman) of the All Pakistan Jamaat", "to revive the party, which led to a tug of war in its leadership — the opposing faction headed by Moulana Abdur Rahim", "Jamaat-i Islami Maulana Abdur Rahim, Ameer, East Pakistan Jamaat-i-Islami", etc. (Amer = Leader). --Soman (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources listed above demonstrate that Abdur Rahim was a leading political figure in Bangladesh in the 1970s. Unless people here read Bengali and have consulted relevant Bengali sources, I would question the claim there is no indication of notability. The provided sources are enough to show he is notable and justify a stub article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 25 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.