Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rokeya Lita (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Rokeya Lita
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The person has no notability in general or as an author/journalist. The language of this BLP article isn't encyclopedic. It highly lacks WP:NPOV. The primary contributor created and edited this article only and had clear intention of adding her name in women writers’ lists only (which is a case of WP:PROMO). Moreover, the notability notice is hanging on since December 2017 and it hasn’t been improved in years. Last time the deletion request ended in no consensus so I am briefly explaining the notability issue this time.

This article doesn’t belong to WP:BASIC because of following reasons.
 * The person has only coverage as a journalist/reporter in numerous online news portal which do not quality to make notable. She made occasional contributions to known media sources like BBC, and HuffPost, but the volume of the work is low and it doesn’t qualify for WP:BASIC.
 * There are no primary sources backing the person’s notability. The primary google search outputs belong to Wikipedia and its mirrors, some BBC article which she wrote and maybe on her being threatened (a case of WP:EVENT) somewhere and some articles she wrote for online news portals. Again, online news portals are not likely to back notability of any person or organization.

This article doesn’t fall under WP:ANYBIO because of following reasons.
 * The person has received no notable awards or nominations.
 * The person made no widely recognized contribution that could be historical.
 * The person has no entry in any notable list as a writer or journalist.

This article doesn’t belong to WP:AUTHOR because of following reasons.
 * The person or her work is not widely recognized. No peer reviewed work as well.
 * The person originated no significant concept, theory, or technique.
 * The person made no contribution to any major/notable work. She did write a few books but those have no notability nor that they received any notable critical review.
 * The person’s work doesn’t belong anywhere as a permanent collection.

Finally, the creation of this article belong to WP:PROMO which Wikipedia is clearly not about. I believe the only contributor contributed mainly to this article significantly backs my claim that this article is intended to self promotion. The contributor also tried to include her as an author in women writer's list and Bangladeshi women writer's list both of the edits were reverted because of her notability issue. &mdash; T. 12:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Failed WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. As it said in previous AFD, online news portals in Bangladesh are not a highly reliable source and do not prove notability every time for any BLP. Even subject has no individual identification by any of Authority control identifier. Also, the language of this BLP isn't encyclopedic. Creator has no other contributions except the subject seems trying to promote personal biography herself. ~Moheen (keep talking) 13:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: She has received substantial news coverage as a result of the reaction to her novel - see this from the BBC, of which Google translate gives a very rough idea. Pam  D  10:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How can one BBC report of getting threatened be considered "substantial coverage"? In fact that's what I meant when I mentioned WP:EVENT. If you can understand the report from Google translate, it is not a review of her book. That is simply a news about a writer being threatened because of a book she wrote, what is the say of the writer about this threat, and what are the BBC readers think about threatening writers in Bangladesh. Additionally, that report also states, it happens during every Ekushey Book Fair in Bangladesh every year. So do we have to make all of them notable because of that event? That's exactly why she is not notable per WP:EVENT. &mdash; T. 15:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks notability and most of the news coverage this person got is not for her literary works. The language of the article is not encyclopedic and lacks quality sources. Moreover, the main contributor of this article does not have any other contribution on Wikipedia and looks like it's another case of self-promotion. Ali Haidar Khan Tonmoy (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination, it's self promotion article. Kayser Ahmad (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I have edited the article so that it is shorter, has a neutral point of view and is more encyclopaedic in tone, and also to show the reason for notability in the introduction. (The quality of the article is not a reason to delete it.) It does not matter who the first author of the article was - it has been revised by several editors since then. The subject of the article meets WP:BASIC because she has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The AfD nominator appears not to fully understand the WP:BASIC criteria. No, the subject of the article has not received coverage as a journalist or reporter - she received coverage for the themes of her first two novels and the threats made against her because of them. Primary sources are not required - secondary sources are required, and have been provided. It is irrelevant whether the coverage is in digital sources or print sources - most print and broadcast news media also have an online presence these days. Nor does it matter what the first online search results are - what matters is the existence of coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, and this has been demonstrated. I have added another today, from 2018, which indicates that her notability deriving from publication of these novels is ongoing. If other authors of works released at the annual book fair are also controversial, they may also be notable if there is also significant coverage of them - whether there are Wikipedia articles about them yet or not is irrelevant to establishing the notability of the subject of this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I’m not sure if you can identity reliable sources. Yes, you have added a reference to the article to ensure notability. It’s a news website which isn’t a reliable news site. Bangladesh has hundreds of online news portal like this to spread fake news, trivial facts, etc. According to Wikipedia’s policy this kind of websites cannot be considered as reliable sources and therefore unacceptable. It’s absolutely not what you say, “reliable, intellectually independent” according to Wikipedia’s policy on reliable sources. It seems like you are googling and putting any website link you find without verifying the reliability of the source, and you claim that as ‘significant’. No, it doesn’t work that way. Additionally in the reference links, it say what the writer said during interviews, she said, she brought suffering of tribal women to light. Not an Independence person. I can say anything I like about a book I wrote, right? So, it's not said by notable neutral sources. Mark my point. It's said by the writer. It cannot be considered as a review of her book.


 * WP:BIO says in a nutshell, “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.” The source you just added isn’t at all reliable, and the overall coverage isn’t significant. One threat because of a book someone wrote doesn’t make anyone notable. I am not sure if you read what I wrote in reply to PamD. someone can’t be considered notable if they got coverage just of one event! It’s just one single case of getting threatened. There I mention about the event she was threatened. I translated the BBC article (this is a reliable news site). It clearly said this kind of threatening happens every year during this book fair when some groups don’t like some books. She can’t be notable because of this.


 * I would like to see people defend this article based on reliable sources. There are absolutely no neutral, notable critical review for any of her books. Please do present if you have any! You don’t have to trust me, see what you can find here: search result of dumurer phul and search result for Shomokameeta. Or get some from anywhere you like and present here in this discussion.


 * Tell me where I am wrong. I would request you to defend article with references, not just by saying things like, “got significant coverage” and so on. You must provide reliable sources. &mdash; T. 23:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep- The subject is notable. There is a reference, that is a review of her book in The Independent, a national daily. There are refernces to Amader Shomoy, Kaler Kantho, Bangla Tribune, and Manab Zamin. All national newspapers which are published. There is a reference to bdnews24.com, a prominent news website in Bangladesh. All reliable and notable sources with their own long standing Wikipedia articles. I am confused by nominator talking about neutral source, what do they mean? Her books have been reviewed on notable national news organizatios and she herself has been talked about. This is not one event, but a young author whose works, yes more than one, have received critical coverage. There are more than 5 reliable sources referenced in the article, I do not understand what the nominator is asking for. Some people create one page, someone they heard about, used google to find out more, and learned that person does not have an account. They proceed to create that article and move on, not uncommon. There is no evidence to suggest COI for creater except pure conjecture. Is she notable? Yes. Does the article have reliable sources to prove that? Yes.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Independent has a review. Okay, you mentioned Amader Shomoy, Kaler Kantho, Bangla Tribune, and Manab Zamin. Yes, they are all notable national dailies. But what do they say? You said review of her book. It's wrong. Only The Independent has a review. Others news sources have only news of her being threatened or her publishing some books which are available in book fair. Now how do you all say, one or two references as substantial coverage? It's not what the policy says substantial! &mdash; T. 08:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * What the references in the article say on Rokeya Lita (current version as of November 29, 2018)
 * For better understanding of the community. Please do compare. Thank you.


 * 1) Source: Kalerkantho Type: Notable Bangladeshi daily
 * Not a review of her book. It’s a small news consisting an interview of her saying what she thinks about her novel ‘’Shamokameeta’’. The report is full of her quotations of her saying. Not considered independent as she talked about her own books.
 * 1) Source: Muhurter Khabor Type: Online news portal, not a notable news portal
 * Same news as published in reference 1. Full of her saying her own book. Even the wording of the report is same as the first reference. Probably a copy-paste report. Very common in news portal like this.
 * 1) Source: The Independent Type: Notable English daily from Bangladesh
 * The only reference in the article that is a review of her book. The only link we found as a review on her book when we google to find reviews.
 * 1) Source: Manab Zamin Type: Notable Bangladeshi daily
 * News of her book being published. What the writer says about her book, the writer’s background, plan about future writing, etc. Also news of her being threatened for the book she wrote.
 * 1) Source: Parbattanews Type: Blog site (says news on the name but it’s not registered, not details, not considered acceptable source according to Wikipedia policy)
 * The post is not directly about Rokeya Lita or her book. It’s about suffering of tribal women in Bangladesh. In the post, the writer mentioned Rokeya Lita mentioned this on her book. That’s all what the reference is all about. Two sentences.
 * 1) Source: Amader Shomoy Type: Notable Bangladeshi daily
 * Short news of Rokeya Lita filing a general diary in the police station because she was threatened to write the book. No review of her work at all.
 * 1) Source: BBC Bangla Type: Notable International daily
 * Same news as above. No review of her work at all. The report focuses actually on threatening writers in Bangladesh. Almost half of the report is about what the BBC readers say about threatening writers in Bangladesh. Use google translate if you think I'm lying.
 * 1) Source: cht-terrorism.blogspot.com Type: Blog site
 * Unacceptable reference as it is a blog. It contains details about her threat though.
 * 1) Source: Kalerkantho Type: Notable Bangladeshi daily
 * Interview of her talking about her second book. No review from a third party.
 * 1) Source: Bangla Tribune Type: Notable Bangladeshi news website
 * News of her second book being available in the book fair. No review. Mentions the plot of the second novel and quotation of Rokeya Lita about the book. No further details.
 * 1) Source: Bdnews24.com Type: Notable Bangladeshi news website
 * It’s a report written by Rokeya Lita herself! I don’t have to say anything about the report as it’s not acceptable by any chance.
 * 1) Source: Worldcat Type: Online book listing site
 * No review. Simply listing the book with ISBN.
 * 1) Source: Worldcat Type: Online book listing site
 * No review. Simply listing the book with ISBN.

Now in all of 13 references, only one (reference number 3) can be considered as a review of her book. Two are blogs, two are book listing websites, one is report written by the writer. Rest are small news of her threat or her publishing some books, or interview about what she says/thinks about her own book. They are not at all independent nor reliable. According to Wikipedia's policy.

If you think the threat makes her notable. Then Wikipedia policy says, one event doesn't make anyone notable. And see the BBC news [//www.bbc.com/bengali/news/2016/02/160209_bangladesh_dumurer_full_rokeya_lita_cht here] (it's also one of the references in her article, only from the international media). Look at the 3rd paragraph. It clearly says, the threatening happens in every Ekushey Book Fair every year (see translation by Google if you don't know Bangla). If you know Wikipedia policy you can't say that makes all of them notable as all of them receive threats! So she can't be considered notable because of one single threat.

This is the full forensic of the references we have in the article. It clearly says, there are no reason for this article to be notable for Wikipedia. Guys, give reliable sources. You have one (kind of, because The Independent isn't high profile like The Daily Star from Bangladesh) but that's not at all substantial and that isn't enough for the article to keep.

Thanks for reading. &mdash; T. 09:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per nom. self-promotion. Alieninfluenza (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This user has no contribution to wikipedia aside from this one vote and not a newly created acount. Rather suspicious indeed.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Note to admin! this user is make one vote with new account. I think is be Someone's Sock. 74.50.214.141 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User T. has already showed detailed information regarding the gap of references in this article, which clearly indicates, still there is lack of enough references to show her notability in encyclopedia. The history of this page creation both in Bengali and English Wikipedia also raises question on this article being a self promoted page (WP:PROMO). S Shamima Nasrin (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Well, Like I said in Bangla Wikipedia this article fails WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR for a number of reasons and also per Tanvir. One can argue that there are lot of sources to establish notability. But did they really cover in depth about the subject independently? No. Most of those sources are self interviews, news about the release of her book and some trivial coverage. BBC Bangla is a notable source but it's not independent of the subject. She worked for the organization and still writes on behalf of the organization.~ Nahid</b> <sup style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;">Talk 10:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Failed WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. As it said in previous AFD, and explain by User:Wikitanvir. All website are not reliable at all.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 16:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment You say "One threat because of a book someone wrote doesn’t make anyone notable"; "only one (reference number 3) can be considered as a review of her book .... Rest are small news of her threat". Where is the policy that receiving threats of rape (in this case because of the theme of her books) does not make someone notable? I made no claim at all that she meets WP:AUTHOR. The BBC reference that you refer to says, in translation, "there is a growing mentality of threatening it .... The authors say that, because of this, their concerns are increasing." Then you say, "you can't say that makes all of them notable as all of them receive threats!" If there is significant, reliable, independent coverage of each of those authors being threatened because of what they write, then yes, they could all be notable. At the very least, threats to authors in Bangladesh would be a notable topic. The fact that it happens to many authors does not make it non-notable! Checking to see what else Wikipedia has on this topic, I see that there is a List of journalists killed in Bangladesh, "about journalists killed in Bangladesh while reporting or on account of their journalism." I also find that another novelist, Taslima Nasrin, has lived in exile from Bangladesh and West Bengal after receiving death threats because of a novel published in 1993. That novel "attracted wide attention because of its controversial subject matter". Clearly, threats to writers in Bangladesh are not trivial. To return to your list above, I see that you state that references 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 are reliable Bangladeshi news sources; they are independent of each other and of her; and they report news about her books and/or about the threats to her. (That is not including the reliable news sources which published interviews with her.) How is that not "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaGreen (talk • contribs) 18:38, November 29, 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the policy doesn't have a notability guideline for rape threat receivers, but it says someone isn't notable if they got coverage for one event only. See WP:ONEEVENT. It says in this case, The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. Therefore, she might be a part of some list where people got threatened because of their published works. A separate article of her own is quite unnecessary. All those people who got threatened can't be notable if they got coverage only for their threat. I agree with you that threat to authors in Bangladesh is a notable topic and we could list Rokeya Lita if we could have an article on that (I encourage you to create one), but separate articles for them aren't notable nor necessary. You mentioned a list of Bangladeshi journalist who got killed during their duties. Now see they might be notable to be in that list but all of them are not notable for separate articles of their own. Many journalists in that article do not have their own article in Wikipedia. That's why they are there. Some also have their own articles because they aren't only notable for getting killed, also for their works. Taslima Nasrin is totally irrelevant here. She is notable for her work, she published many books, got threatened for a few so she lives in exile now. But she is not notable for threats only. She also received international awards. In our case, Rokeya Lita has none of these.
 * Reference 4 and 10 says she published a book. That's all. It's a notice type news! No review! For all the times you were saying you got "significant reviews/coverage" where are these reviews may I ask? It's just short news that the books have been published and available in the fair. During Ekushey Book Fair Bangladeshi newspapers publish hundreds of similar news saying someone's some book have released and available in some stall. It's not at all significant. Remember she works freelance for some newspapers in Bangladesh. In Bangladesh it's very common to have (even trivial) news about their correspondents' work/family even if they are not significant. It's very difficult for people outside of Bangladesh to understand how trivial that could be (example title: "grandfather of our district correspondent died yesterday", etc)
 * You consider reference 7, 10, 11 as independent? She writes columns for all of this newspapers. See here Bangla Tribune, BBC Bangla, bdnews24.com. It's their writer. So, they can't be independent! The persons who wrote the reports are her colleagues! How could you say "they are independent of each other"? Please think! &mdash; <span title="Tanvir (aka Wikitanvir)" style="font-weight: bold; cursor: help;">T. 22:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep agree per . Some editor are make delete vote for personal case and use sock. 74.50.214.141 (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if a comment from an IP without any logical explanations have weight of any kind. However, I would politely request the valued unknown contributor to consider my logical replies to respected RebeccaGreen to change his/her thought. And please create an account, we don't bite. :) &mdash; <span title="Tanvir (aka Wikitanvir)" style="font-weight: bold; cursor: help;">T. 11:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete The references and sources provided to prove the notability of the article doesn't say why this user is notable. Among the 13 references, few are blogs and non-notable news portals. And the rest are actually interviews of her, which is actually self quotation. Now I'm not listing them again and again as it's already been sorted out above. So among the references nothing states the notability of this person. Some interviews of her or reviews of her book doesn't state the notability of this BLP. -- P G ho sh  (Hello!) 11:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.