Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaykh Mahmudul Hasan

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. ✗plicit 11:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaykh Mahmudul Hasan

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Prodded by Joe Roe, but de-PRODded without any reason given. Original reason for PROD was:

Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or the WP:GNG. Sources are primary, non-independent and/or trivial passing mentions. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Islam, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my PROD nom. – Joe (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ontor22: Since you removed the PROD from this, can you please elaborate on why you did so? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a PR piece containing rubbish links as sources. Doesn't meet GNG and I don't see any indication of subjective notability either. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete At first I created this page with weak evidence so I got the tag of nom and AfD. Then I developed it by more evidence and suitable reference. Also removed the rubbish links. (Dependent on review and discussion of administrator) Tfrz.04 1:33, 9 July 2022 (BST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the newly expanded article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirming nomination to delete. Adding more sources and content hasn't improved this article. The sources are still failing to demonstrate notability, as they are still either not independent, or they are only passing mentions. The PR-ness of the article has been toned down, but he is still not a notable topic. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 03:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request not to delete Only about him, there may not be such news. His special significance is in the notable news source. Just such news about him may be related to another language. However, he is present in all reference links. Maybe his profession are not mentioned and even if he is, he is significantly less. But does it not reveal notability? And I think all those news reveal his notability and profession. According to Wikipedia, it will be improved in the future, so it would be better not to delete it. Tfrz.04 9:53, 10 July 2022 (BST)
Delete as per nom. All refs are just no refs. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:31, 10 July 2022 (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.