Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hero Alom


 * 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 no consensus. Noting that there was a lot of refs added midway through this discussion that caused a number of opinions to sway from "delete" to "keep". Disregarding opinions calling for deletion because the subject is not "serious" or a "joke", there's still not enough to fish a clear consensus either way out of this rather complicated discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hero Alom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Doesn't meet instruction for Biography and also unreliable links Anhgamat (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I've already had to revert the article twice since anons seem to like adding all kinds of nonsense to the page. Hopefully it won't get so bad as to require semi-protection. No opinion as to whether or not the article should be kept.  Fei noh a   Talk 20:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is becoming a nuisance with unreliable links and multiple instances of vandalism. Talk 20:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment- The article two links, both Prothom Alo and The Daily Star are reliable sources. What is an unreliable link?- Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Admin note Article semi-protected for the next 12 hours. Clerks, please consider that IPs and newly registered users will not be able to improve the article during this time. Thank you. Samsara 06:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete does not appear in any national TV drama or any movie. non-notable according to, WP:ENT. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn in light of recent information. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and improve Strong keep The above deletion rationales are correct for the name spellings given in the article. But I'm seeing multiple significant coverage of him in WP:RS, when searching for "Hero Alom" in Bengali: হিরো আলম. I get the impression (via Google translate) that he's notable as a meme in Bangladesh, rather than as someone for whom we should be looking for straightforward notability as an actor. Wikishovel (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Admin note Semi-protected for two days this time. Samsara 16:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:TOOSOON. No notable production. - Mar11 (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 *  Delete Keep - Not notable. Less references and only local ones. Considering a global view this article is not necessary. Considering the fact that he is well recognised in his native place and according to the sources(more references added later) this article meets WP:BASIC. So I think it should be there in wikipedia.-- Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 09:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * when the notability guidelines talk about "local coverage", they mean small town newspapers. This article now has four six references from national dailies of his country. Wikishovel (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, This article is absolutely unnecessary, wikipedia should be a place for knowledge, not for nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:4084:CC59:C0A1:E355:213:AF8 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The references have recently been improved to the point of this now passing WP:GNG, with substantial coverage shown on six references from national daily news sources. may I ask you to reconsider? Wikishovel (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not chaning my view. Hope you have been through WP:ENT. There is a reference which links to his youtube channel. I believe It is too soon to add an article about him. -- Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 18:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've never said he was notable on the basis of WP:ENT. As I've noted above and per the article, he's not just an actor, he's also a bit of a social media phenomenon in Bangladesh, with 3.6 4.2 million views on YouTube, and he does meet WP:BASIC. Wikishovel (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The deletion discussion is poorly framed. With the exception of biographybd.com (which has been removed), the original sources were reliable, albeit not all that deep. To those original sources, has added four more solid Bengali-language sources. I don't like the topic, don't relish guarding it against vandals, and won't shed any tears if it's deleted, but I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that it still doesn't meet WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources are solid, and the article is well sourced for stub. The Subject is a cringe pop star and source of Viral memes in Bangladesh. The fact that he received coverage from Independent National Newspapers support notability. The deletion discussion was framed poorly and some of the arguments for deletion are not policy based. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Admin note Semi-protected for 4 days. I will not post further notices regarding protection - please just check the prot log, thank you. Samsara 13:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Non-notable per WP:ENT.  ~ Moheen    (talk)  16:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * as noted by several other editors, WP:ENT is not the only basis on which to judge notability. Wouldn't you agree that he has enough significant coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:BASIC, as someone notable on social media? Wikishovel (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-notable. The page is full of nonsense stuff.--Anup Sadi (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain what in the page is nonsense? And how he fails WP:BASIC? Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep:- This article probably should not be deleted. The person is a social media sensation of Bangladesh and India and the source are completely reliable. Some says discussion that he did not appeared in National TV but seriously in nows day national tv is not needed for becoming a notable person. I understand that the article in poorly written but the article can be protected from vandalism but should not be deleted. Ominictionary (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Alom is not an actor; at best, you can call him a wanna-be amateur model. Lately he received considerable negative publicity, specially on facebook because of his ineptitude as an actor, his unsuitable physical demeanour as a model, and (maybe) skin colour as well. People are mostly mocking him on facebook; few are amused and sympathetic. The publicity he receives in Bangladesh is mostly negative. Hence, I will suggest to delete this article albeit he is a very interesting phenomenon, perhaps would be a great subject of interests to social science experts, sociologists, anthropologists who are interested to work in the field of racism, classism, patriarchy, social media phenomena, pop culture, pop psychology, and etc. - Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 02:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think he got enough RS to pass Notability and the article, as it is written now, is a nice representation of him describing why he is in Wikipedia. - Mar11 (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Alom has just become the joke of the country and hence received negative publicity, especially on facebook, and other social networking sites. How come that can be considered a criterion for an entry on wikipedia? And most of news sites (/links) covering him except Prothom Alo/Daily Star have little credibility. So, my afterthought recommends the deletion.- Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability isn't contingent upon the coverage being positive. And as you've said yourself: he's now known nationally. Wikipedia also has many articles on the most terrible criminals imaginable, not because they're worth immortalising, but because they're notable. And since he's received in-depth coverage for a significant time in national newspapers, he's notable. Wikishovel (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by in-depth coverage? Would you please mention one? The most credible or reliable newspaper in Bangladesh, The Daily Prothom Alo, published with a reference to a spam news from India that Hero Alom is more sought-after person on google.com than Salman Khan; it's an utter falsehood. Please check https://www.google.com/trends/yis/2016/BD or https://www.google.com/trends/yis/2016/IN . I have already said most of the links are not credible; they are mostly spam news. I think it is better to keep wikipedia spam-free. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I forgot to say that though I said the joke of the country, I didn't necessarily mean he's known nationally. He is known by some facebook users, and other social networking sites users; he's become a social media phenomenon when facebook users began mocking and lampooning him online, and then, some online news portals (mostly spam news sites) covered him following the trick of clickbait journalism. And in their print versions, many newspapers avoid publishing many things which they publish online as clickbaits. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * By in-depth coverage, I mean whole articles about him in multiple WP:RS, not just passing mentions. "Significant coverage" isn't precisely defined in WP:BIO, of course. The Prothom Alo reference that's actually used in the article is an opinion piece about him, but it's quite a long article, and describes him as an example of what can be achieved in Bangladesh today. Thanks, 14:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That is a populist piece, and it barely mentions Hero Alom. Hero Alom is just a passing reference in that piece. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The article obviously passes the WP:BASIC. -- P G ho sh  (Hello!) 12:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:BASIC says "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable". Hero Alom has not received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, and most of sources are not reliable. Even The Daily Prothom Alo's claim that Hero Alom is more sought-after person on google.com than Salman Khan is an utter falsehood. Please check https://www.google.com/trends/yis/2016/BD or https://www.google.com/trends/yis/2016/IN . Therefore, the article completely fails to meet the WP:BASIC. I think it is better to keep wikipedia spam-free. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That might indeed be a falsehood, but that reference isn't used in the article. Wikishovel (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As per as I'm concerned Prothom Alo and The Daily Star is considered two of the most reliable newspapers! The article has references from those papers with one link from Kaler Kantho and Jugantor each! Coming from that, Zee News and NDTV are two of the most reliable medias in India. They too published news about Hero Alom. (Sources: Zee News & NDTV) Though they are not used in the article. But I think this is enough to prove that this guy has received, here,
 * Multiple = Prothom Alo, The Daily Star, Jugantor, NDTV, Zee News etc.
 * reliable secondary source = I don't need to proof that I think!
 * Significant = A "reputed" and reliable media won't publish anything at their Page 3 without any research of their own.
 * So under the current circumstances I don't need to be an judge to say that this article does meet the WP:BASIC.
 * PS: I think you need to search the trend under different idea. The news says Hero > Salman, it doesn't say Hero is trending in top 10. Mind that. But I won't say anything, since I didn't do any personal research on this! Oh yes, the reference isn't used in the article. Mentioned the correct thing -- P G ho sh  (Hello!) 17:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment
 * I have already said that The Daily Prothom Alo's claim that Hero Alom is more sought-after person on google.com than Salman Khan is an utter falsehood. I compared them on google.com/trends/. Hero Alom is nowhere near Salman Khan. Who says Prothom Alo reliable? How can you still claim "a "reputed" and reliable media won't publish anything at their Page 3 without any research of their own"?
 * Indian news portals like Zee News, NDTV, etc published things just following the trick of clickbait journalism without minimum research. Just sheer clickbait yellow journalism. I'm from Bangladesh, and I'm sure about what I'm saying. Did some research.
 * If the issue of coverage and significance is taken into consideration, Hero Alom received really very little print media coverage. There are thousands more things getting covered in daily national newspapers, and they don't get into wikipedia. Just few weeks back an elephant from India crossed the border; he got live coverage in tv, dailys, even named Bangabahadur nationally. But he's not in wikipedia though more widely covered than Alom.
 * First, I thought Hero Alom would be an interesting study of racism, classism, patriarchy, social media phenomena. So I didn't recommend deletion. But then it occurred to me Hero Alom is yet to be covered in an academic research paper.
 * Also keep in consideration that in their print versions, many newspapers avoid publishing many things which they publish online as clickbaits.
 * Hero Alom simply does not meet the WP:BASIC. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * None of these rationales reflect Wikipedia policy on notability. Which policy says subjects of bios have to be the subject of a research paper? Wikishovel (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * What about multiple reliable secondary sources? Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Several editors have already responded that the article does have multiple reliable secondary sources. You don't agree. That's fine. Wikishovel (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If this is a ballot going on here, I admit defeat. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's the Hero Alom article. Just tell me on which line the "utter falsehood" reference is used. If it is not used then there's no value in the concern of the article. Now what you are talking about clickbait seems unreal to me as the false news was published on December 17-18 while heas featured in Zee News at 15th of December. Moreover the trust level of these media are compared to Al Jajeera of Middle East. So, they obviously does there research before publishing any news and you may find out These news says about him and his "works" not some "utter falsehood" news. But this info is also unimportant as these sources are not used in the article. Now the last thing you told they surely can do that. But that doesn't mean the news becomes unreliable. Cause the online version of a print media is also reliable. See WP:RS for details.
 * Coming to Bangabahadur. Bangabahadur is a pure and classic case of WP:1E. In fact we didn't know who Bangabahadur was (probably elephants don't use nicknames/names) and after his death we almost forgot who Bangabahadur is. That elephant was stuck in Bangladesh which ended in the tragic death of him. So Bangabahadur is only known for 1 event. So in this case you may start an article about that event! While Hero Alom is a guy who has always been in the news, sometimes being a Youtube celebrity, sometimes his videos, sometimes his interviews etc etc. So this guy is not a 1 event person. And now-a-days he has gained a huge amount of fanbase at Youtube, so this guy is notable. -- P G ho sh  (Hello!) 18:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * So you don't know that any media can lie, make mistakes, even take side, be biased in their judgement, propagate specific propaganda, and spread hatred, violence whether that is Al Jazeera or Bal Jazeera, Time (magazine), The Washington Post, The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Huffington Post or Zee News and so on. So you don't know what they can do or how they can use clickbaits to attract click-throughs. So now I admit the words of Zee News is the words right out of the Vedas; they are truisms, and from India, they did so much research on us that they know much more about us than we ourselves know about ourselves. Please study a little on media studies, then talk like that. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Alom obviously passes WP:BASIC. Prattya has explained it quite clearly, so I think I don't need to repeat those words. — ANKAN GHOSH DASTIDER (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * So you don't know that any media can lie, make mistakes, even take side, be biased in their judgement, propagate specific propaganda, and spread hatred, violence whether that is Al Jazeera or Bal Jazeera, Time (magazine), The Washington Post, The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Huffington Post or Zee News and so on. So you don't know what they can do or how they can use clickbaits to attract click-throughs. So now I admit the words of Zee News is the words right out of the Vedas; they are truisms, and from India, they did so much research on us that they know much more about us than we ourselves know about ourselves. Please study a little on media studies, then talk like that. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * With due respects to you, I don't need to know media's policy, I don't need to know that they lie and I also don't need to know how they make news; in this article's concern. I just want to know whether it fulfills the WP:RS or not. If it fulfills it then I don't need to know any more. I would count them as reliable and OK.
 * Moreover I would dearly request you to go through WP:RS once then please post comments. Cause, you just give one example from Prothom Alo (that news may be non-true; which is yet to be proved) saying "utter falsehood", which were reported with the reference of Yahoo India and you are starting to believe every media produces false news. Now let me also tell you, it's not a proven fact that was a false news, So innocent until proven guilty. That's why that too will be counted as a reliable news until proven wrong.
 * Finally If the one's you mentioned above is not reliable then probably no media in the world is reliable, cause everybody thinks about business and sometimes make mistakes in producing news. Just one bad buzz (needs to be verified!) from Prothom Alo doesn't make it unreliable. By the was it's not a good practice to remove a comment fully and make a new comment at that place in discussions. Do use the Strike Through option instead! -- P G ho sh  (Hello!) 14:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The Daily Prothom Alo has already been proven guilty. It made two terrible mistakes; it made the first mistake when they said Hero Alom is more sought-after person on google than Salman Khan; then it made the most terrible and unforgivable second mistake by attributing the false info to Yahoo India. Yahoo India never said that. Even if Yahoo India published it, why don't you compare Hero Alom and Salman Khan on google trends. Go and check yourself https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=Salman%20Khan,Hero%20Alom.
 * Zee News's website should not be considered a good source becuase the website is not particularly a regular news portal. Zee News is a tv channel which is notorious for controversies; check its wikipedia entry. Hence its website is untrustworthier. I'm sure the links referenced in the article are going to be dead soon.
 * In Bengali Wikipedia, similar discussion is going on, the majority (6 out of 8 users) there recommend the deletion of the Bengali article because Bangladeshi and Bengali people are aware of the real scenario.
 * Finally it seems you're consciously exploiting the system loopholes and augmenting the systematic bias by being unabashedly and unduly recentist. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow! But I haven't heard anything from either PA or any other source that it's false! Though I myself can search I too know that, but still I don't think that proves it wrong. Cause unless it's been granted, mine or yours opinion don't count. Anyways let's agree that news is wrong, but what is next? That specific link is  NOT  used in the article. So I don't know why this dead rubber is being discussed now and then! The next point you said is why Zee News should not be considered a good source! Well would you be kind enough to propose this at WT:RS or WP:VPP. Cause until now the rule says the different thing. The official website is a part of the Zee News channel, so that's surely trustworthy! Moreover the news we are discussing about was published by the Zee Media Bureau, so henceforth the news too is OK. Now I request you, please understand one or two bad buzz doesn't make a media non-reliable. Every Media has history like this. You see there's a long list at BBC controversies, but that doesn't make either BBC Channel or bbc.com non-reliable. So that's the same for Zee News. And if still you tell Zee News not trustworthy, then  probably, no media in the world is trustworthy. Your third point was about Bengali Wikipedia's AFD. Dude, frankly what Bengali Wikipedia people thinks, can't be counted at English Wiki. Cause this discussion is going on at English Wiki, so what people at that place think has no value. Moreover I, myself is also a native Bangladeshi and Bengali speaking person, then I think different! Still I'm enlightening some parts of that Bengali Wiki Debate; You added   at the top of this page. Oh! one thing, you may counted wrong. Actually, 10 people commented there, with 6 saying delete and 4 saying not delete (one of them is me). So what I was telling, since this is not a ballot, so the logic of 4 others should be counted and those 4 are also Bengali speaking person. So the situation you are saying is not like that and I too am aware of the situation. -- P G ho sh   (Hello!) 14:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment:- I know that Hero Alam has recieved a lots of negative publicity, he is not one whom can I admire at all. But the matter is here that he is notable so we should not delete it and please guys prothom alo is a reliable source it is one of the leading newspaper of Bangladesh just one false news can't made a reliable news paper to unreliable.Ominictionary (talk)
 * You people whatever have said, all are half truth. Hero Alom is man of inspiration of thousands around the globe , so it should be remained in Wikipedia. Despite being left by his parents, poor health , poor financial condition of Hero Alom , he has erected to entertainment industry as a Hero.Kalamya (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Similar to Worldbruce above... I think the topic is cringeworthy and vandal-bait, and the article is currently of bad quality. But the guy has received enough media attention to be notable, so the article should stay. 1292simon (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article may very well remain a magnet for spamming and other trolling-type behaviors for a while, and it certainly needs some work as of right now, but that doesn't change the fact that as an individual Alom is broadly notable. He's not just covered by the likes of mere random blogs. We're talking about well-known, widely looked at publications such as The Daily Star. The article should be kept. It needs work, but it shouldn't be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2017 (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.