Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of the article has no valid claims to notability. He has not been elected to any local, state, or national post. Fails NPOL. The article is somewhat promotional. The person has some coverage for a few controversial comments and his relation to his father but not enough to meet notability guidelines. While his father is notable, he is not. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. It should also be noted that the IP address that authored the article has focused almost exclusively on this page and pages related to the subject. best, GPL93 (talk) 2158, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is about a sociologist, historian and a politician. His aristocratic lineage and genealogy are well documented and it is among the oldest, historic and finest of his nation. His major academic publications as a renowned academic historian and sociologist was cited. The proposed deletion is vindictive and reflects the attitude of supporters of the repressive regime in Dhaka who won an election by rigging. All sources were cited. The article should be kept and not deleted. Also, notability is subjective --there could be a wikipedia page on Al Capone on the notability of organized crime, as well as a page on Mother Teresa and everyone in between. Notability of the public figure being disputed stems from his academic work, aristocratic family background in Bangladesh and anti-dynastic politics. Most wikipedia editors from Bangladesh come from humble social background and could refer this page for deletion out of jealousy or on the basis of political alliance to the repressive political regime in Bangladesh. For that reason those editors have imposed their personal subjective value judgment on notability and should refrain from doing so for maintaining the objectivity of the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.116.164.242 (talk)
 * Maybe this should be kept, but after seeing you argue on the basis of personal attacks rather than the availability of sources I'm very reluctant to do the work of looking for sources that might substantiate notability. It's a sure sign that someone is here to push a point of view rather than create a neutral encyclopedia article when that editor makes unfounded accusations that others are pushing a point of view. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The same person who nominated the page for deletion Vinegarymass911 have now nominated the pictures on that page for deletion. He seems to be having an agenda. Please see the talk page of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.116.164.242 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)  voted twice. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Different users, two different users.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC) (This comment was removed by the IP user, do not remove or alter the comments of other users, thank you).Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL for his political activities or WP:AUTHOR for his writing, but the article is referenced nowhere close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu — for either of those things, the notability test is not just that the subject exists, but requires that he has enough reliable source coverage about him and his work to clear GNG. But that's not what the sources here are showing: this is referenced almost entirely to sources that aren't support for notability, such as Blogspot blogs and other user-generated wikis and primary sources and very short news blurbs that aren't substantive enough to constitute a GNG pass all by themselves. This is not enough sourcing to get a person over the bar. And when a brand new user with no prior edit history jumps straight to "the nominator has a political agenda" as their rationale for opposing a deletion discussion, without presenting any credible evidence of the nominator's agenda at all, it's very nearly always a sign that the accuser has a political agenda to misuse Wikipedia as a promotional venue for the article subject (and thus probably has a direct conflict of interest.) Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a Major local political figure in anti-dynastic politics in Bangladesh who have received significant press coverage as per WP:NPOL The proponents of deletion are pushing an agenda and this is clear from another deletion request to delete the pictures associated with this page. Having received few support for deletion of the page, they have moved on to request deletion of the photos associated with the page. The book titled  written by this person is on display at the Library of Congress as evident from google search, satisfying WP:AUTHOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.116.164.242 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)  voted twice. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't vote more than once.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This page is not a voting booth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.116.164.242 (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No it is not, but DISCUSSAFD says "do not repeat a bolded recommendation". Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Vinegarymass911 and Phil Bridger are correct that while you're allowed to comment as many times as you like in a deletion discussion, you're not allowed to "vote" more than once: you may not preface any of your followup comments with a bolded restatement of the "keep" you've already given, but must format them strictly as comments rather than new "votes". Secondly, AUTHOR is not passed just by showing a card catalogue that technically verifies the holding of his book in an archive or library — it is passed by showing reliable source coverage about his book, such as critical reviews or analysis in newspapers or magazines or academic literary or political science journals. Thirdly, if he's received significant press coverage, the article isn't showing that — the only press coverage it's showing at all is a couple of short blurbs, neither substantive enough in content nor voluminous enough in number to get him over GNG at all. Fourthly, nominating the article's photos for deletion is not proof that anybody has a political agenda — photos on Wikipedia still have to comply with all of our rules, including WP:COPYRIGHT, and you have no inalienable right to upload any photo here that is not correctly compliant with our rules for photos. And at any rate, two of the three photos are of buildings, while the third is just people eating at a banquet — there is literally nothing about any of the photos which suggests any reason why deletion discussions would be politically motivated at all. Speaking as a site administrator, let me be very clear: if I see you make one more accusation that anybody in this discussion is acting in bad faith, you're going to find yourself on the business end of a temporary edit block for being uncivil and disruptive — and this is your only warning, you're not getting a second one. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * We are asked to believe that this person is notable because his "aristocratic lineage and genealogy are well documented and it is among the oldest, historic and finest of his nation" and simultaneously that he is a figure in "anti-dynastic politics". The contradiction there is blatantly obvious. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Aristocratic lineage and genealogy are inherited while anti-dynastic political activism is ideological. Inheritance of aristocratic notability is received and not earned while notability for anti-dynastic political activism is earned through hard, painful and often difficult political work. In case of this individual that also included long jail sentences and lawsuits for standing up against dynastic politics in Bangladesh. Coming back to inherited aristocratic notability, in the world of the "Self-made-man" who has shed his past to forge a future with his own merit and hard work, inherited notability of aristocracy is not only unacceptable but also illegitimate. Therefore giving credit in Wikipedia for inherited aristocratic notability in Bangladesh is contestable and debatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.116.167.226 (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * In terms of aristocratic notability, one should read WP:NOTINHERITED. Coming from an aristocratic background or a prestigious family does not guarantee notability. Secondly, the coverage regarding the subject is not sustained or particularly significant. In regards to the subject being notable as an academic and author, he clearly doesn't pass the standards of WP:SCHOLAR or WP:AUTHOR. I'd also encourage 103.116.167.226 to disclose any possible WP:COI as this point, it would appear highly likely that the article fits the profile of an WP:AUTOBIO and his defense of the article appears to be highly personal. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Found nothing notable in Bengali also. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * writing in Bengali is not a prerequisite for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.116.167.226 (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to try to twist anything anyone says. আফতাবুজ্জামান has simply mentioned searching in Bengali as well as English in order to help you keep this article by finding sources, but found nothing. Bengali is the most likely language in which sources might exist, followed by English, so it's a good idea for those who are capable of doing so (as I am not) to search in both languages. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Please note I have requested that both 103.116.167.226 and 103.116.164.242 disclose any potential WP:COI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am a member of his campaign staff for the Mayor of Dhaka in 2007/2009/2012 and for the Mayor of Dhaka North in 2015/2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.116.167.226 (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for disclosing that. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2019 (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.