Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asif Mahtab Utsha

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Mahtab Utsha[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 article is very poorly sourced. The photos and content suggest a conflict of interest. It should be deleted for the lack of notability and verifiable sources. Many tangentially linked sources are gathered to create a wall of references, but none cover the subject in-depth, which is needed to prove notability. The subject has no claims of significance and does not hold any office that would confer automatic notability. There is one event coverage of his contract not being renewed at a private university allegedly over homophobic and transphobic comments, which generated some coverage but would fall under Wikipedia:Oneevent. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sexuality and gender, Education, Islam, and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The person in question is one of the most searched person in Bangladesh. He is covered in almost all the mainstream media and the links of those media is referred. The pictures in question can easily be collected from his page and should serve as further evidence. And therefore, to suggest the 'photos' suggest a conflict of interest is not true.

Given the importance and relevance of this figure in Bangladesh, I recommend the article to stay. Nafisa06 (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Popularity is not the same as notable. Let us do a source review of the 78 sources present. Source 1: One line mentions the subject. Source 2 about his contract not being renewed at a private university and mentions the subject's transphobic comments. Source 3 and 4 have one line about him. Source 5 is about a University English club speaking competition in which the subject came third. Source 6 does not mention the subject despite it being used to claim subject co-authored booklet. Source 7 is a YouTube video. Source 8, an academic article written by the subject in the Philosophy and Progress journal, could not find an impact factor. Sources 9 to 28 does not mention the subject. Source 29 is a YouTube video blog. Sources 30 to 34 do not mention the subject. Source 35, YouTube video of a talkshow. Source 36 is a YouTube video of an interview with the subject. Source 37 is about subject's contract not being renewed. Source 38 is a YouTube video. Source 39 is a non-reliable source about the subject of tearing a high school literature book for featuring a story about a transwoman. Source 40 is a news report on YouTube. Source 41 is a critical opinion piece criticising the subject for his transphobic and homophobic comments. Source 42 has one line about the subject. Source 43 is a news report on his termination. Source 44 is a news article about a anti-LGBTQ rally calling for subjects reinstatement. Source 45 is not a reliable source. Source 46 is a news article about his termination. Sources 47 and 48 are about his termination. Source 49 is a duplication of source 3. Sources 50 to 62 do not mention the subject. Source 63 is a news report about the street protest against Israel, in which the subject was one of the speakers. Sources 64 to 70 do not mention the subject. Source 72 triggered my anti-virus. Sources 73 to 75 do not mention the subject. Source 76 is a Facebook post by subject. Sources 77 to 78 do not mention the subject.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- 43 out of 78 sources, more than half, do not mention the subject.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A stack of sources can be found in this article, but the sources have not written independently about the individual and most of the sources do not even trace the individual's name. Imitation of WP:NOTEBOMB. Ontor22 (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Clear case of paid article creation without meeting WP:GNG. Irrelevant links are used as reference, where most are not even mentioning the subject. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source analysis by Vinegarymass911. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2024 (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.