Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdur Rahman Madani

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. WP:LISTPEOPLE requires that the person meet our notability policies, which require more than passing mentions or just one source. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Rahman Madani

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

All of the sources provided are non-reliable. insignificant coverage, PR profile, public directory and some link just list the name of the subject in theirs teacher/news presenter list. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with CSD G5. Created by the blocked user User:Hukgiol for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aldota) - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 06:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with having tagged the article G5, but I've reverted this non-admin closure because a CSD tagging is insufficient to resolve the issue at AFD (sometimes CSD requests are rejected, for example). If the article is actually deleted via CSD, then it's entirely acceptable to wrap this up as a housekeeping process (I do so frequently myself). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have in fact declined the speedy nom. While it does appear to have been initially created by a sock, other users acting in good faith have edited it in the intervening months. So it's probably better to let the article stand or fall on its own merits instead of just zapping it because of the initial creator. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I have seen a few passing mentions in multiple reliable sources. I would support a redirect to List of British Bangladeshis, with a short description. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not enough independent notability - and what is claimed is IMO WP:UNRS. I.e., Muslim Aid's history of back-door financing of Hamas renders it a less-than-credible source, and said questionable sourcing features heavily in this article. Pax 21:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You believe that these[1][2] sources are unreliable? Please learn the meaning of redirect and notability. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, neither of those are actually in the article at present; secondly, single-sentence in-passing mentions in large tomes do not constitute notability. (Lastly, please learn the meaning of WP:Battleground.) Pax 06:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not mentioned on article, that means it has no existence? Passing mention do constitute notability, they would pass the requirement of a redirect. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Bangladeshis is merely a list highlighting notable persons with their own articles; your "trivial mentions" (often call passing mentions) would not confer sufficient notability for a redirect to that article if they are insufficient to confer notability to a stand-alone article. Pax 10:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't know the meaning of redirect. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make any sense to redirect a non-notable name to a list where the name will NOT appear. Pax 11:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know about WP:LISTPEOPLE? One reliable source is enough. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:03, 13 February 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.