Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabnam Nadiya


 * 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. MER-C 11:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Shabnam Nadiya

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A prolific short fiction author, but I'm having my doubts about notability. For honours there's a fellowship that seems to be quite generous in its requirements, a journal short story competition, and a blog competition shortlist. WP:GNG appears not to apply, based on provided coverage, and I don't think we are reaching WP:NAUTHOR either. Not too hawkish on this one though; please assess. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Examining the cited sources: Your Impossible Voice and Center for the Art of Translation are capsule contributor bios, likely supplied by Nadiya, so not independent. The Martha Heasley Cox Center for Steinbeck Studies, Himal Southasian, and NewPages confirm that she was awarded a fellowship, won a short story competition, and was a writing contest finalist, but say no more about her. The fellowship and contests are a spoonful of recognition, but are not especially remarkable. They don't demonstrate the same regard as a Nobel, Pulitzer, Booker, Newbery, or similar top-tier literary award. Arsenic Lobster contains a one-sentence review of her work. The remaining sources are simply translation or writing credits, they are not significant coverage of her.


 * Searches of the usual Google types found more of the same types of sources, and passing mentions, but only one deeper review of her work. She is prolific, good, and doing useful work, but hasn't yet gained significant attention by the world at large for it, so is not suitable for a stand alone encyclopedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete article has insufficient 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 14 May 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.