Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shibli Rubayat Ul Islam


 * 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. Consensus is clear that this subject does not meet current criteria for notability. No prejudice to restoring to draft if additional and better sources became available in the future. BD2412 T 04:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Shibli Rubayat Ul Islam

 * – ( View AfD View log )

"Chairman of the Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission" is not an important title/post for which you will become automatically notable. Apart from regular news, press release, single mentions there is no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. I also have concern that this might be paid article. Just look at the images in the article, there is no way you can capture those images unless you are in there. Also some information not present in the sources (how did they got those?). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The subject appears to be notable but our article is very promotional. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Problem is subject lacks significant coverage where it addresses the subject directly and in detail. Most of the sources are regular press coverage e.g Shibli Rubayat become BSEC chairman (same PR added from different site 12-15 times), or single mentions (most of them) or noting to do the subject (like "37th BCS preliminary test stays on Sep 30", "The real cost of evening and professional programs at public universities"!). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that being chairman of the Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission, which is confirmed by the sources, does not grant notability. Anyone with an equivalent position in any much smaller Western country would be considered notable. Having said that, the current content is so promotional as not to be worth keeping. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination -Shakil Hosen  Talk 10:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * As there raised a question about if the article appeared promotional, I have updated the article and removed unnecessary references. So, kindly have a look at this article now, and please let me know if I need to change anything. I want to request humbly not to delete the article. I will provide any further development touch for this.TARWIND (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom & due to promotional tone of the article. The subject even promotes this of his social media platform, thus I suspect that subject may have direct connection with the author. -Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting (archive), yet they claim they don't have any connection! --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagreed, In this article, I have just gathered all the information I got about him from my research and mentioned all the sources as references to verify the statements. And here you are talking about the news source's headlines are "promotional"! Don't you know how to assess a reference? And can you please explain what do you mean by "promotional/promotional tone"? Please kindly mention what is getting promoted here and explain how you can say that he is "not important" after reading the current version of the whole article and the talk page. Coming to another point, What makes a Facebook's unverified fake/fan page's post a strong opposition against this article, and how can you be sure that I have personal relations with him? I clearly said that earlier that I have done it from my personal interest. Why are you opposing the article with irrational opinion and coming with your whole team by taking it personally? If you think any information of the article is irrelevant/going against the terms of Wikipedia, then you and everyone are welcomed to edit to develop the content. TARWIND (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Bangladesh is not the financial powerhouse that the U.S. is, or even that Norway is, and the BSEC doesn't have the clout of the U.S. SEC. But I found it plausible, as Phil Bridger suggests, that the chairman would be noteworthy enough that sufficient independent, reliable, secondary sources would exist so that we could write a whole, fair, and balanced biography. So I started editing to fix the promotional tone. Halfway through I regretfully concluded that the nominator is correct. Problems with the available sources include redundancy, a lack of secondary coverage beyond parroting his official bio, and coverage that merely quotes him or say he attended or spoke at a meeting rather than supporting claimed achievements. In 10-20 years, analysts looking back at his tenure may write enough about his accomplishments to justify a stand-alone bio, or he may end up in the dustbin of history. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom. Not enough to pass notability for BLP. Kolma8 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom and Worldbruce. --hroest 00:21, 26 May 2021 (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.