Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Rajib Haider (3rd 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 keep. procedurally, perhaps; but the nominator is globally locked; there is no strong feeling towards deleting this—indeed, the nom seemed to prefer redirection—and there is absolutely no reason to waste anyone's time any further. serial # 09:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure) serial # 09:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Rajib Haider

Ahmed Rajib Haider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Redirect- Was an assassination that made worldwide headline news, and not just for a few days after the incident. Other famous bloggers who faced assassination and attempted assassination knew him, he knew Avijit Roy. After his murder Asif Mohiuddin, another notable blogger who survived a machete attack spoke of him, and he knew him. International media coverage continued long after the incident (March 2015), as shown here. The original article was deleted in 2015 on the grounds of lacking news coverage after the incident, but after it was deleted there was more, rendering such reason invalid. The article also exists on other language Wikipedias. Consensus on the previous deletion was in no way unanimous, and the topic has come up again and in the news after the deletion. On the original deletion many argued for it to be kept. He many not have been in international worldwide news before the incident, but had presence in Bengali language media. Mithun Rahman (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC) — Mithun Rahman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Mithun Rahman has been globally blocked as a sock of the globally banned user:Bishal Khan
You can read the previous discussion and closing comments yourself. Someone's reading seems to be that the original problem was a lack of news coverage after the incident. Although that concern was raised during the discussion, my own reading is that the major problem was that Ahmed Rajib Haider was a low profile individual notable only for one event. Quite an alphabet soup of policies and guidelines were cited in arguments:
-- Mithun Rahman (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mithun Rahman (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mithun Rahman (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Mithun Rahman (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Vinegarymass911. Sockpuppeting and IP editing, vandalism, and harassment of atheist editors of the article by said vandal(s) has been a repeat problem, and this article has already been nominated for deletion before and kept. Also, lack of PD photos on Commons is NOT "proof" that someone wasn't notable. Standard copyright rules and practices vary significantly by territory - even some heads of state don't have photos on Commons! Due to the persistant IP attacks on the article, I reccomend that only registered users be allowed to comment in this discussion (to prevent the vandal(s) from spamming the discussion here). I would also like to note that the nominator is a very new user whose first (and only) contributions are in the realm of this deletion nomination - very suspicious. The fact that Haider received so much media coverage throughout the past decade and was the first Shahbag death is incredibly notable.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:PlanespotterA320, the article's deletion discussion was 'keep's before; it must be kept in this discussion also as the person was notable because he was the first person to be killed in 2013 Shahbag Protest in Bangladesh. I have read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washiqur Rahman (2nd nomination) and it was nominated by User:PlanespotterA320 and User:Worldbruce commented there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.67.156.118 (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Obviously redirectable to Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. No reason to keep as a single article, where the subject is only notable for his death, and in Bangladesh, it's some kind of normal thing in the 21st century. Being an atheist doesn't meet the subject's notability. Most of them are non-native Bengali user commented who haven't proper idea about the actual event. ~Moheen (keep talking) 10:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is not just famous for being an atheist. He is famous for being an atheist political/social commentator with a high profile who was assasinated and received a large amount of media coverage. Being an atheist doesn't automatically render a famous writer less notable.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect Wikipedia is neutral, it does not rely on atheist people nor any religious person, Wikipedia can have articles of Muslim people and also Wikipedia can have articles of atheist people; the person Ahmed Rajib Haider doesn't seem to be notable as his news covered only for one event (the attack after the person and the person's death) and I don't think Wikipedia should have a separate article for the person, the article can be renamed as 'Murder of Ahmed Rajib Haider' or the article can be deleted and redirected to Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. Wikipedia can't have all atheist peoples' articles, if it is a biography then where is the person's birth date and other personal information? Jason Aaron is an American atheist, his article is full of good information and contains public domain image in Wikimedia commons. ChokLador (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: ChokLador has only four edits, this being their first edit, as of the writing of this comment, and is a brand new account. Highly suspicious.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, lack of photos on Commons is not a "litmus test" for notability. Not all people who have photos on Commons are notable, and not everyone who lacks a photo on Commons is not notable. Commons copyright policies are strict and result in significant variances in the amount of free content available for given subjects. There are far less Bengali medias that are released under Creative Commons licences than other counterparts on Wikimedia, and because of deficits like this we allow fair-use photos to be used on English Wikipedia. There are plenty of people, some far more notable than Haidar, including living heads of state, who do not have portraits on Commons. This argument reflects a previous failed argument brought up by another delete vote (and I would be quite shocked if you had no connection to IP 43.245.121.8 given all the shenanigans surrounding this article in the past year).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom (fix the merger). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.58.200.28 (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* Biographies of Living People (and low-profile individuals): WP:BLP1E
* Notability: WP:N, WP:NEVENT, WP:ANYBIO, WP:VICTIM, WP:BIO1E, everyone must see these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.121.43 (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleete The person is not notable per notability investigation in google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.120.92 (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment again: I recommended that this page be closed as keep immediately due to the intense amount of sockpuppeting and unethical behavior from the nominator who is clearly pushing so intensely for deletion on political grounds (as evidenced by the comments from the sockpuppeter on various editors talkpages, their vandalism in the article history, harassment of editors of the page, user contributions, and clear repeat voting here [note the similarities in unusual syntax and vocabulary used by various anonymous "delete" votes]). There nominator behind this deletion has demonstrated through their behavior their very unethical agenda behind this deletion nomination.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PlanespotterA320:, I have taken my votes back! This deletion nomination can't be political agenda or something, I think you can understand Bengali-language (though you are not a native speaker). As this article was nominated by a sock an administrator must close and keep the article immediately (I am on behalf of your speeches), by the way I am also a female and radical atheist like you. ChokLador (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep no less notable than before. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to "Murder of Ahmed Rajib Haider". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least until the actions suggested by user: mazca in the close of the first AFD have been implemeted.a full merge and redirect is not necessarily excluded if a trimmed article is trivially short. A merge discussion on the talk page about what content shouldn't really be here is the way forward, from the point of view of AfD this article is clearly not being deleted. I agree that some of this material should be moved, but another bad-faith renomination by a globally banned user (and support by another host of SPAs) should not be rewarded. Merge the off topic material, and then discuss what is left to see if it should be merged. Meters (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ahmed_Rajib_Haider_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1169587795"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Rajib Haider (3rd nomination), released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.