Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Ziauddin (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus agrees that this fails WP:BLP1E with one of the keeps confused with the policy of 1E and another one of the keeps not based in policy. Secret account 04:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Ahmed Ziauddin
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:ONEEVENT & WP:BLP1E Per this suggestion by Peter James I created an article on the skype controversy which is all Ziauddin is known for and redirected the articele to that per BLP1E, this however was reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * When this article was nominated, it had not been developed sufficiently. Since there has been much activity in editing and adding fresh sources to show Ziauddin's work for Bangladesh to create a structure for its membership in the international court system. This adds much needed context to the Skype controversy for a reader who wants to dig deeper.Crtew (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect. On the sources so far this seems to be 1E. But redirect, rather than delete, as there is a chance someone may search en.Wikipedia for Ahmed Ziauddin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, This is not a true 1E. One give away for a real WP:BLP1E is that you can ONLY find sources about the ONE event, but that's not the case for Ziauddin as he was also active, notable in fact, in the Asian ratification of the Rome Treaty. To treat him as 1E, you would have to completely write off the sources about his efforts on behalf of the treaty and further human rights work. Of course, he did play a major role in the one event where there are the most Internet hits in searches, and his role is in fact well documented in Bangladesh's Skype scandal. His conversations with Justice Huq made international news, and to give you an idea of how important this was in Bangladesh: one journalist wrote that it has been likened to the British News International phone hacking scandal.Crtew (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fresh sources and I would also add WP:SIGCOV to my reason. Out that out of the 22 current references at this moment, 12 of them have nothing to do with the Skype scandal that he was involved with. Those references span over a decade. Much of his work prior to this time occurred in an era when online newspapers were not as vibrant as they are today in Bangladesh. There are, however, some of his writings from the late 1990s that were found in better databases than Google and listed. And I'm not even counting the major world media that covered the scandal when it broke December 2012, like The Economist.Crtew (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * One more point: right now this is a stub article. How many stubs have almost 30 cites? Still it's important to keep this in mind because it means the community doesn't think the article is of the quality needed. If you look at other players in this Bangladeshi story, such as Mahmudur Rahman, his page is quite advanced but took some time. This is a more difficult search than contemporary searches. He was working in a place and time when not all news stories were stored or archived that you need for our expectation about a contemporary, simple Google search. Transliterations can also be a problem: Look at the variations of the transliterations for Mohammed Nizamul Huq. The stub assessment gives this story time to grow and develop.Crtew (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I disagree with Crtew's assessment on the grounds that while he is involved in the Asian ratification of the Rome Treaty, I can't find any reliable sources regarding that treaty of which he is a significant figure. All of the sources that mention him fail to provide significant coverage of the subject.  He also fails WP:SCHOLAR.  Right now I agree that WP:BLP1E applies to this subject.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Quoting from WP:ONEEVENT, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." I think therefore the article conforms to Wikipedia policy and should be kept, although attention should also be given to the weight of the article. Applesandapples (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, some selective quoting there, ONEEVENT "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate." Apart from this, what is he known for? And please do not say "his advocacy of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court" as the source for that failed verification, all it says is he lobbied to a few people about it. The source also mentions three other people who did the same. It does not support the current statement that he is "known for it". Darkness Shines (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Everybody can read the whole policy of ONEEVENT and should. Experienced Wikipedians know it's not one way or the other. Policy asks us to make a decision about whether the person (to put it in cinematic terms) was an extra/bit character part or a supporting character in the film.Crtew (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's clear that he is very much a central figure in the whole Skype affair. Not a "less significant" role. Applesandapples (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Very clear instance of WP:BLP1E. The size of that one event is not really of importance here, since the event itself was of such little importance. Qworty (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would strongly disagree that the event itself was of little importance. It was international news, and The Economist wrote two features with the event as the main subject, and a very large number of newspapers inside and outside Bangladesh have covered the story. Applesandapples (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete/Redirect per WP:BLP1E. This guy appears to be insignificant aside from being at the epicenter of one news event. Ray  Talk 01:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E and Notability (academics). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Crtew (talk) 06:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Substantial coverage in reliable independent sources for only a single event. Sourcing for rest of bio is scant, and doesn't meet the requirements of WP:SCHOLAR or any other notability guideline. Since the material pertinent to Skype controversy has already been added to that article, there is nothing more to merge. The subject does not INHERIT notability from the event. Argument for keep boils down to WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, none of which is sufficient to establish notability, even if taken together. My own search turned up nothing even faintly promising. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: content is already in the Skype controversy, this is a clear WP:BLP1E and the arguments by the keep voters don't stack up, per things like WP:NOTINHERITED. I would not describe this article as a stub, but as a start class, and citation count doesn't mean anything as a raw number. Some bits of this article seem a little bit more fluffy than they need to be, but not bad enough to need removing. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody here has been making a WP:NOTINHERITED claim. Yes, he has known the resigned judge Huq for over 25 years, but that's trivia. Ziauddin was the other caller of the inappropriate contact. Ziauddin had written charges for the court and was talking and giving advice to the judge. Moreover, there wouldn't have even been a justifiable war crimes court in the country in the first place had Bangladesh not ratified the Rome Statute.Crtew (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the Asian treaty bit. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fresh references added that were translated from Bangla.Crtew (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep since I frequently worry about cultural bias at Wikipedia. If it's not a major event in the United States, Canada, the UK or Australia, it often doesn't get the attention it deserves here. This is an encyclopedia for the entire world. This gentleman is at the epicenter of one noteworthy event (Skype controversy in Bangladesh), and contributed substantially in another noteworthy event (Asian ratification of the Rome Treaty). This is a close call, but I think we should give this article more time to see what develops. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete:It is clearly WP:BLP1E and doesn't have sufficient information and reference to poetry AZ and it is full of the description of so called Skype controversy.-- FreemesM  (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's put it into perspective. The Skype controversy comprises only half the article. Furthermore, the Skype scandal comprises less than half of the subject of the references.Crtew (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I just went through the references in the Asian advocacy for the Rome Statute section. Of those that I have access to; Three of them don't have any mention of Ziauddin  , one is an article written by Ziauddin reproduced on a blog (which I think can be used for information, but not to establish notability), two simply mention he facilitated a workshop  , and two give him a combined total of four sentences of coverage mentioning either that  he was an "advisor to bangladeshi rights group Odhikar" or simply that he "attended the meeting".  This does not signify significant coverage, and the entire section is more about what the organizations he is a part of are doing rather than what he has done.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Bengali-language source clearly summarizes Ziauddin's involvement in the Rome Statute 1998, the lobbying of Asian countries, and Bangladesh's government to ratify. Is it perfect? No -- and I think we actually all agree on that. The other sources provide relevant sourcing for a low-profile activity that spanned years. For me that's enough to suggest more time is needed to develop this other significant activity of his and to leave this as a stub until it can develop; that and his activity with the Rome Statute was connected to his activity in the news event. I also believe, he played a major role in that news event (see above for the 1E qualification). Moreover, the Skype scandal is still currently developing with the arrest of editor Mahmudur Rahman on 11 April and Ziauddin will soon be appearing before the court in a few weeks.Crtew (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If a person has doubts that Ziauddin's role in the scandal was important, then why was Judge Huq's contact with him inappropriate? Crtew (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if wikipedia documents "low-profile activity".Coffeepusher (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume you have made a WP:GoodFaith misconstrual of my words. The end result that Bangladesh was an important signer and ratifier of the declaration is the same no matter whether you see it in the long-term of short-term. And to note, I don't see one delete vote that actually explains how he could be insignificant in the 1E and why contact with him was so innappropriate.Crtew (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * please explain how WP:AGF applies to this.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per WP:ONEEVENT: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Both of these criteria appear to me to be met here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.