Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalilur Rahman 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khalilur Rahman Chowdhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The politician in question appears to lack notability as there are no available credible sources or external references to support their significance. The links provided lead to dead web pages, and no additional information or reputable sources could be found to establish their importance.

Non-notable politician who fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Thesaurabhsaha (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now at least. Subject passes NPOL though the sourcing is poor. Refs 1 and 2 are from the same publication which seems to have deleted the relevant pages. Ref 2 has no bearing as it’s for the 2011 elections so does not mention the subject. If someone wants to argue this is a hoax that’s one things, but otherwise it’s a notable subject with shoddy sourcing. Mccapra (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG as all sources are unreliable. It is crucial to have reliable and credible sources to support the notability of any subject on Wikipedia. Without proper sourcing, there is a risk of promoting unverified or potentially false information. I will recommend you to read Wikipedia's core notability policies WP:SIGCOV and WP:N. Thesaurabhsaha (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Assam. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thesaurabhsaha: Please strike your delete !vote as you are double-voting (your nomination already counts as a delete vote). Also what is your view on sources such as 1, 2 and 3? Mccapra (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Passes WP:NPOL as a member of an Indian state legislature. Sourcing is sufficient to prove this, no BLP issue. Curbon7 (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Members of an Indian state legislature pass WP:NPOL. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:NPOL. The person who loves reading (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2023 (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.