Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadik h khan

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadik h khan

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

I tagged it as A11 but it was removed by another editor. There are zero sources to backup the claim of 1st Bangladeshi millionaire (much less the actual net worth). Cahk (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A claim of significance does not need sources to fail A7, A9, or A11. Far too common a misconception. Adam9007 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely a made-up vanity page. The name doesn't show up in any reference to Bangladeshi millionaires, and the first Bangladeshi millionaire is generally considered to be Muquim Ahmed. clpo13_(talk) 17:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as the article does not make a credible claim of notability since we know that the claim of being the first Bangladeshi millionaire is false. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably would have been best to WP:BLPPROD it. Arguably A7, A11, and/or G3 as "blatant" and "obvious" hoax by user Sadikkk lacking any credible claim of significance. The claim to be the "most beautiful person in the world" is implausible, "most popular man in his university" is plausible but would not lead to notability, and investigtion of "1st Bangladeshi millionaire" shows that the unsourced claim is not straight-from-the-horse's-mouth original research, but straight from another part of the horse's anatomy. Worldbruce (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A credible claim of significance does not even need to be true, just not obviously false. The fact it needed investigation to disprove it means it's not obviously false, and therefore credible. Adam9007 (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an obvious hoax. It's probably just some college kid from Dhakka having fun. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 10 November 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.