Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moyukh 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moyukh Chowdhury (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)

Fails to meet the guideline Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article as it stands seems to contain one acceptable source (a Bangladeshi newspaper), and certainly does not adequately demonstrate notability as it stands. However, we should consider WP:BIAS: authors writing in languages other than English often do not have much coverage in English, even when sources in their native language (which are standardly regarded as acceptable here) uncontestably establish notability. In this case, there is what looks like a substantial and well-referenced article on Bengali Wikipedia - as I have had to use Google Translate to judge this, I can't be certain that I am right about this, but if I am, then we should be using that article's sources to improve this one rather than deleting it. PWilkinson (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I searched online and found no authoritative sources supporting notability.--Rpclod (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, as there appears to be coverage from only one reliable source, but even that may not be true, as the page does not load for me, and it appears that the Suprobhat Bangladesh website may be down. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Suprobhat Bangladesh article is at the Wayback Machine, and it seems to be properly cited. At the moment, I think there's three reliable sources that mention him, but I don't know really know what to do beyond that to improve the article given the language barrier. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - In terms of Bengali language sources, it looks to me that he's been referred to as a notable poet several times. I can't be sure since I'm just looking at Google-based translations, but I feel inclined to keep the article. In this news site, his recently published book is praised while he's described as having many fans that have waited decade after decade to see his take on the socio-political trends going on (again, I'm just looking at a jumbled translation, so I'm not positive). This site, which I think is news related, have him mentioned as one of the most famous recent poets in that language (again, same situation). I guess I lean to keeping the article in the hope that someone that speaks both languages can improve things. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources found by and the analysis of CoffeeWithMarkets (talk · contribs). The coverage in Suprobhat Bangladesh, Banglamail24, and Alokitobangla is enough to establish notability. That the sources describe him as having many fans and being one of the most famous poets in the language also strongly indicate that he is notable. Cunard (talk) 04:39, 29 August 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.