Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruqsana Begum


 * 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 keep. Subject clearly meets notability criteria. If the article contains inaccurate information or the subject wants to formally request deletion for whatever reason, I encourage User:Sajmeister1 to reach out to our Volunteer Response Team where they can explain their concerns and prove their identity/relationship to the subject in a confidential fashion. RL0919 (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Ruqsana Begum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is purely a technical implementation of a request repeatedly voiced by, using edit summaries like "Please help delete this page ASAP". Please imagine, for all purposes including the (non-)applicability of "speedy keep" criteria, that this deletion discussion has been created by, not me. See the revision history of the article for details.

The user has apparently attempted to provide a conflict of interest disclosure in the edit summary of Special:Diff/920619391. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Passes GNG. Can’t see why this would need deleting. – 2 . O . Boxing  09:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: clearly notable, with much of the article sourced to Daily Telegraph profile. There does seem to be perhaps too much of her personal life: if there is content to which she objects she could read WP:AUTOPROB for suggestions. We need not heed her asserted "digital marketing manager".  Pam  D  12:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. i didn't find any reason for deletion this article. almost added on this article reliable source. So, Clearly significant pass General notability guideline.- Nahal (T) 16:38, 6 January 2020 (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.