Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thamina Kabir


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thamina Kabir

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Autobiography of lawyer and beauty contest entrant. Of the 14 cited sources, mrsuniverseltd.com and thesbbs.org are non-indpendent primary sources. The Sun is generally unreliable and deprecated, according to WP:RS/PS. Only two, Samakal and Banglanews24.com, have a general reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. However, their two articles (so similar they're probably based on the same press release) are brief human-interest stories, which may not be up to the same standards as their news reporting, as described at WP:NEWSORG. Searches found nothing deeper than brief quotes in connections with clients she has represented in court. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Worldbruce (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Beauty pageants, Bangladesh,  and United Kingdom. Worldbruce (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The lawyer is famous in the UK for the landmark case where she represented a Muslim client and secured dowry payment and compensation for harassment. Please see link below for Landmark UK court ruling due in ‘bride price’ dispute.
 * https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/aug/16/landmark-uk-court-ruling-due-in-bride-price-dispute 2A00:23C5:9198:A901:F1C3:F22E:C694:5E99 (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The lawyer is famous in the UK for the landmark case where she represented a Muslim client and secured dowry payment and compensation for harassment. General public should be aware of this case as it relates to many women from different background not just Muslim background in the UK.
 * Please see links below for Landmark UK court ruling due in ‘bride price’ dispute.
 * https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/aug/16/landmark-uk-court-ruling-due-in-bride-price-dispute 2A00:23C5:9198:A901:F1C3:F22E:C694:5E99
 * Relevant paras: “If this case is won in favour of Nazma, this decision will be an overwhelming triumph not only for her but also for other women in her circumstances,” said Thamina Kabir, the principal solicitor at Thamina Solicitors, who is representing Brishty.
 * “There is no established case law or parliamentary law dealing with women in this position. The decision itself would be the best and most thorough examination of a problem that has vexed legal practitioners for decades.”
 * “This decision, if made in the favour of Nazma, would be a landmark decision of this decade and would positively influence the justice system by forcing the legal practitioners to think in a different way to ensure the claimants’ entitlement that they deserve. Certainly we will see more and more cases at the doorsteps of civil and family practitioners.”
 * If the court finds in Brishty’s favour, the case will establish a precedent that cases involving mahr can be heard at UK county courts for breach of contract and at the family court as part of financial settlement. This would enable women to demand the payment of their mahr in full as is required by sharia law.
 * The ruling would be applicable not only to Muslim women but to women from all cultural backgrounds where the tradition of giving mahr is practised, regardless of their immigration status in the UK and whether the contract was in oral or written form."
 * Source 2: https://www.muslimwomenscouncil.org.uk/media/news/landmark-uk-judgment-bride-price
 * Source 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He1sHdzgBU8
 * Source 4: https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed222992 2A00:23C5:9198:A901:F1C3:F22E:C694:5E99 (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the sources in the existing article and the comment by 2A00:23C5:9198:A901:F1C3:F22E:C694:5E99, I would say this page merits remaining as an article. Surely, it should be improved, but deletion is not the answer.Historyday01 (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a single one of those sources that is reliable, independent, secondary, and contains significant coverage of Thamina Kabir? --Worldbruce (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Notability is not inherited from court cases, noms source evaluation is accurate, BLPs need proper sourcing and there is not SIGCOV from Ind RS that address the subject directly and indepth. Article reads like a resume, not a biography.  // Timothy :: talk  13:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per nom. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2023 (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.