Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jalal Uddin 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jalal Uddin Chowdhury[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not Facebook. The subject has a Facebook page,[1] and has asked there for help enriching his Wikipedia article. The article has been tagged for BLP sources since it was created. Despite those appeals, the article cites a single reliable source, published by a former employer, that contains a one-line directory entry for the subject. Searches of the usual types, by article title, by "Md. Jalaluddin Chaudhury" as in the source, and by name in Bengali script, found no independent reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC. Worldbruce (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete no inherent notability of district judges. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not for district judges, no, but for the secretary of a country's bar council? I think that attests to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

can you point to a guideline or other examples where secretary of a country's bar council has an article. I fail to see inherent notability of that position either. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion. You really don't think the executive head of the national lawyers' organisation for an entire country might be notable? Fair enough, but I completely disagree with you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it change your opinion if the secretary weren't the executive head? Because they aren't; the vice-chairman is. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

good point. even if he was executive head, there is no inherent notability attached to such a position. Necrothesp would be better served finding actual significant coverage to demonstrate WP:BIO is met. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly not what it implies here. It's like the difference between the chairman of the board of a company and the CEO. The latter is the actual executive head of the company. Same with the secretary of this organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: You may be reading more into the page of officers (who aren't members of the Bar Council) than is there. The comparison to a CEO is not apt. My reading of The Bangladesh Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Order and Rules, 1972 is that the position is what would commonly be called secretary-treasurer. They are responsible for convening the first meeting, after which ordinary meetings are convened by the chairman or vice-chairman. They are responsible for taking minutes. Certain things must be delivered to or by the secretary. Payments are made to the secretary. They maintain a cash book and disburse funds for all petty expenditures, but no payment shall be made except upon the order of the chairman or vice-chairman. In an emergency, the chairman may designate any person to act as secretary. In my experience, a CEO makes key decisions on policy and strategy. The secretary is a day-to-day administrator, but they are not a decision maker, it is not a leadership position. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I would disagree about the role of a secretary in an organisation such as this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, you're more than welcome to your opinion. I'm having trouble following your reasoning, though. Do you think the secretary does something vital that I'm not seeing in the Bar Council Rules? The organisation would certainly fail if no one ordered stationery, took minutes, and kept the accounts, but does performing those functions, for any sort of organization, really make a person notable? --Worldbruce (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The secretary runs the day-to-day business of the association. He is therefore effectively its chief executive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you have done a search as always for significant coverage to establish this person meets WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I have expressed an opinion and would cite WP:BURO and WP:IAR to counter those who incorrectly continue to believe that Wikipedia is bound by strict rules that are incapable of being broken even on the grounds of common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR hardly trumps notability guidelines. Otherwise it would be a free for all for every single article. What surprises me the most, is that you are extremely unwilling to use the best means to save an article, prove there exists significant coverage. Instead you waste your time arguing inherent notability based on position. You used to argue all ambassadors are inherently notable, then it softened to all ambassadors to "major" (and not defined ) countries are notable. Neither holds any weight and is not backed by consensus. You never use the proper channel and open a discussion on WP:BIO to get a certain occupation to have inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in fact WP:BURO states Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. None of your " position X is inherently notable " ever reflect consensus. LibStar (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, you merely reiterate your mistaken apparent belief that there are rules on Wikipedia that must be obeyed at all costs, despite IAR, a policy I might add, clearly stating there are not. As to ambassadors, I still maintain my belief that they are all inherently notable and will continue to do so. Why don't you just accept that our opinions differ on this and move on? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you accept that your opinion of inherent notability is not backed by community consensus? Secondly why do you never make the effort to find sources? As an administrator you very well know it's the best way to get a keep outcome. LibStar (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in fact every time you invoke WP:IAR it really is a WP:ILIKEIT argument. In all my years if Wikipedia, if a person does not have an inherently notable position as defined in a notability guideline then they must satisfy the significant coverage test. WP:IAR can be used if there is consensus, not the opinion of one person that consistent gets disproven in AfDs. LibStar (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a "this is my opinion" argument. Something that you, hidebound as you appear to be by non-existent rules and bureaucratic procedures, are clearly unable to accept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it is a proven fact that not all ambassadors are inherently notable. So now you believe things that have proven overwhelming community consensus not granting notability. WP:IAR is not intended as a vehicle for one opinion !voters to overturn long running and overwhelming community consensus. LibStar (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's "proven" is it? Really? By whom? There is no "overwhelming community consensus", as you know very well, and even if there were it wouldn't be a "proven fact", since this is Wikipedia not the real world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

if ambassadors are inherently notable, none of their articles would be deleted. QED. You're either too lazy or too stubborn to look for sources to establish WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I believe and know all police inspectors to be inherently notable. Because I believe this, no police inspector article can ever be deleted. They are simply inherently notable. This is fact and I will argue this at every AfD even if no one agrees. I will not bother to get police inspectors included in a notability guideline because WP:IAR gives a free pass to turn anything notable. LibStar (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New voices, please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 07:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not satisfying our standards since it shows he was only an area judge. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 6 February 2017 (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.