Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Abdul Haque (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 No Consensus defaulting to Keep, disagreement over whether his notability is established. Davewild (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Abdul Haque

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Muhammad Abdul Haque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable politician. Was found only in a couple of reliable sources that mentioned him in the passing. Very trivial. The claim of 12 years of political career becomes more non notable considering there is no claim of participating in an election, even at the lowest level. A face in the crowd. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NN. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A mention in a one-liner wild rumor, citation as a reporter's witness of an event that doesn't involve the subject, part of a long list of equally non-notable people as a part of those present in gathering... very trivial, very non-notable, and falls very short of WP:NN and WP:BIO criterion. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep He's been a leader in the political party for 12 years, not an elected official. He doesn't appear to be notable as a politician, but there are enough references to make him notable as a person. I think that this is what happens because of being a politician in Bangladesh: if he were a similar politician in a developed country, there would likely be plenty of references for him. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, there ARE plenty of references for the politicians of Bangladesh who are truly notable. Unfortunately, the subject is not one of them. --Ragib (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, Bangladesh politicians get way more coverage in news media than anything else. And, any politician worth his or her salt would have much more coverage than a couple of trivial mentions that doesn't even meet the Wikiepdia notability criterion. His only claim to fame seems to be his role as politician. Failing that there is almost no way he can be considered "notable as a person". Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have received similar press coverage (an article), would that make myself notable and wiki-worthy? Also, let me remind you about Wikipedia policies on notability, quoting from WP:N (people)
  • Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[7]
  • Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[6] Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.
  • Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.
Let's stick to policies on notability. If you claim every person receiving a mention in a newsreport, please go ahead and start one article on each person mentioned in today's New York Times. You'd get thousands of equally Non-notable persons in no time. --Ragib (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am sticking to guidelines on notability. He is not just an unelected candidate for political office: he meets the requirement that you quoted as a major local political figure who has received significant press coverage. If you have received similar coverage then point me to it and I'll write an article about you. If this was an American or British politician who had been leader of one of the Republican, Democrat, Conservative or Labour parties for 12 years in a region with a population of 8 million we wouldn't dream of deleting the article. Why shouldn't we give the same coverage to an equivalent Bangladeshi politician? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the subject the leader of Sylhet District, Sylhet city, or Sylhet Division? It seems to me that he's the leader of the Sylhet city which is a small part of Sylhet division BNP. Even within Bangladeshi politics, this person is utterly non-notable. Perhaps you do not get this point because of your unfamiliarity with Bangladeshi politics ... the subject is does not get any particular non-trivial coverage in local news media. (you mentioned one report on the subject, I can provide 2 to 3 reports in national media on any other equally non-notable person (including myself), and just a few news reports do not make a non-elected politician notable in their own right.) You can verify the notability of the subject within Bangladesh by asking this question to any other wikipedian from Bangladesh. --Ragib (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we were both wrong. He wasn't party leader in Sylhet Division or Sylhet city; he was, according to the reference I cited above, the leader in Sylhet District, which has a similar population to Wales. As a UK resident I can't believe that any leader of a major political party in Wales would be considered non-notable, so I would apply the same standard to Sylhet Disctrict. Whether you or any other Bangladeshi Wikipedian has heard of him is irrelevant. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to be able to find out about things you don't know about already. Do you think that I've heard of all of the pop groups, TV characters, footballers and politicians from the UK who have articles in Wikipedia? Of course not, but that doesn't mean than I say that their articles should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". Please apply the policy. --Ragib (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's apply the guideline, but taking into account the word just. He was not just those things, he was leader for 12 years of a major political party (for much of that time Bangladesh's governing party) in a district with a population of over 2.5 million. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the claim that the subject was "leader for 12 years of a major political party" is the main claim of subject's notability. If that is the case, do we have a reliable 3rd party source that states that the subject was an "influential", or "major" or "active" leader of BNP for 12 years? Unfortunately I don't see one. What we have here is a Wikipedia article probably written by the subject or someone close to the subject which claims that the subject was a an influential leader for Sylhet district for last 12 years and uses a small number of references that have merely trivial mention of the subject. The very source that Phil has provided rather proves that he is leading one of the three factions of BNP and the central command of BNP is yet to recognize the faction led by the subject as the legitimate faction. Being the President of District BNP really doesn't mean much in a situation where we have several groups claiming themselveds the legitimate faction of BNP. If the claim were that the subject held a public office, it would be verifiable from public records, even if there were no newspaper coverage. But unfortunately a claim to be an " influential leader" is not verifiable in such way and hence unless substantiated with solid 3rd party references should fail WP:VER. The only verifiable fact about the subject is that he is candidate for an upcoming Mayor election - which by itself is not enough to assert notability of the subject. Arman (Talk) 10:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He may be leading just one of the factions now, but he was previously the recognised leader of the district party before it split. See the sources which I provided below for confirmation. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(inserted for clarity) Is this cheering a piece of argument or evidence? Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is very interesting. I see that the proposition that he was "leader of a major political party in a major geographical area for 12 years" is being used as a major point of argument. I completely agree to the "major political party" and "major geographical area" bits, may be the "12 years" thing is somewhat acceptable as well... but, what about this "leader" bit? Was he a leader for 12 years? He doesn't seem old enough to be that. And, what sort of a leader is he? Political parties have all kinds of leaders, most pretty non notable. At the risk of being accused of lawyering, I'd like to ask - is there any non-trivial mention (if not a clarification) of the 12-year leader thing from an independent reliable source available? Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You ask what sort of a leader he is. According to the Daily Star he was president of the district party.[4] [5] [6] [7] I can't find anything online to back up the 12 years, but that is already sourced to the Bangladesh Observer in the article. There is no requirement that sources need to be online. I don't understand the comment about his age. Are you saying that he couldn't possibly have become district BNP president at about 40? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wondered if he'd been a district president or whatever since the age of 28, i.e. for 12 years. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still don't understand what you are saying. He was born in 1954, and seems to have been district president until very recently. That means that if he was president for 12 years he would have been about 40 when he started in that position. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as a sylhety i think an article on the subject should not be deleted. as it gained rational attention on systematic bias last time by the sylhety people living abroad. as far as i am concern, he is quite popular, and is considered as one of the back bone figures who worked to establish BNP in sylhet division. i therefore believe, an article on such person should not be deleted merely because of less online recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.69 (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep thank you aditya for drawing the attention.. well, it seems quite interesting.. my personal opinion is not to delete the article, as we, the sylheti people consider him well notable. however, i would like to draw attention in terms of the non-elected bit. the procedure of being the distric president is not un-democratic. all the councilors (members of BNP entitled to vote on party's enternal decissions, i.e. electing leaders among the aprty) called upon in every four year (i guess) and elect the president and other executive members of the committee. thats you can say it as an election, indeed. moreover, the subject was elected (presumebly) three times by thousands of councilors. its not that small thing to ignore. and last time as long i can remember there was an dispute on the distric committee election and one died due to it. so, we couls say he was elected through the election that attract enormous public awareness. thus, please do not apply the policy. Syl007 (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I have gone through the article again, and there seems to be absolutely no improvement. One tall claim has been made that has not been verified at all (the in-line citation says nothing to support the claim!). The peacock words and weasel words so abundantly used are not helping either. The ManabJamin, a political tabloid, is not a reliable source at all (though the cite isn't about the subject's claim to fame). On top of that, I can't believe (without supporting cites) the claim made by Syl007 that BNP elects its "leaders" internally. Given the concern shown by international community and warnings by the current Bangladesh government in installing some democracy into Bangladesh political parties (including BNP), it seems a bit far fetched. Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, whether the BNP selects its leaders democratically or not is irrelevant - the fact is that M. A. Haque was the district president, as confirmed in the Daily Star references above. When you say that the in-line citation given doesn't support the claim that he was leader for over 12 years, does that mean that you have checked the 9 September 2003 edition of the Bangladesh Observer? If so could you please let us know what says about him? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does it become irrelevant when put forward as a delete argument? Or is it as irrelevant when put forward as a keep argument? Please, read through the only non-trivial cite you have dug up. It pretty well tells the a story of a short-lived presidency earned through bickering between factions and quickly lost to to the same. Looks like one of a million Bangladeshi "political leaders" that wash up to newspaper pages with political tides. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant whether it is used as a keep or as a delete argument. Undemocratically appointed politicians can be just as notable or unnotable as their democratically elected counterparts. Please answer my question. Did you actually check the Bangladesh Observer source cited in the article? I'm not asking that out of awkwardness - I'd like to know whether or not it actually supports the 12 year claim, because that has a bearing on the subject's notability. Unless it has been checked and found to be wrong we should assume good faith on the part of the editor who added the citation and take it at face value. I hold no particlular truck for Mr Haque - I very much doubt if I would vote for him (or any of his BNP rivals for that matter) if I lived in Sylhet. I just want to apply the same standards of inclusion to Bangladeshi subjects as we do for American or British ones. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(reduced indent) Yep. But, for fairness' sake let me check it once more (not easy fumbling through a newspaper archive, not for me, alas). That would a day or two (even if the AfD is close by then, it can't be rushed, alas again). For the irrelevant part and the Sylheti "nationalism", I was never responding to you. But, you see, aggressive irrationality may get a bit irritating at times. Sometimes I feel that to be my undoing, but what the heck... it is irritating as I stand. Alas! Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ofcourse keep i absolutely agree with phil bridger. it seems like the article was proposed for deleation merely for the sake of the believe of two bangladeshi wikipedians, not for the sake of wikipedia's notable defination.

one of those who claim himself as notable as m a haque.. joke of the day! hahaa.. if you are so, then mr , you are notable enough to deserve a wikipedia article on you. this man lead at least 3/4 million bnp supporter of sylhet vicinity for more than 12 years. how come you ignore this? another, who i believe resided in the US, who point him as a face in the crowd. however, miss, i can see from that picture, he is leading the crowd of thousands of people along with the prime minister and ministers, rather being in the crowd.. to sum-up, i would say, i agree with the point that phil bridger arose, he is a distinct leader of a political party, and leading a huge number of political supporters. we should not, therefore, delete just for the personal opinion of two bangladeshi wikipedian.. if we do so, we should then also consider the opinion of sylhety wikipedians as well, what i presume is complete diffrent from their thought.Angel eye222 (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User's only edit in Wikipedia. Possible sockpuppet. --Ragib (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's really sad to see a Sylheti stand against Bangladesh. What are you trying to imply? Bangladeshis hate Sylhetis, and therefore the notability of all things Sylheti should be left to Sylhetis? Aren't Sylhetis included in the list of Bangladeshis, at least yet? Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep i have edited the article, have a look, it might helps. however, just to infrom you ADITYA, what the current government is doing, is only to keep-away the corrupted politicans. as we peopl are informed. its not the duty of the government neither the election commission to put their nose in terms of a party's internal affairs. the government and elcetion commission also mention this on their press note several times. though this is not relevent, let me say, khaleda zia, or sheikh hasina were the elected chair persons of their parties, they were not acquiring post merely bacause of their family's history. as a matter of fact, its regretful that the constituion of those political parties are not that democratic, as it allows the chairperson to act like a dictator. thank you.. Syl007 (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The government is wrong, the international community is wrong, the top two leaders of the top two parties are wrong... only MA Haque is right!!! Not much of an argument there. May it indeed is a fact that he was never elected to the post he occupied for a short time, but gained the short lived opportunity as part of favoritism inside the party. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a duplicate "keep" as Syl007 has already commented "keep" above". --Ragib (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
with due respect my friend, i never said government is wrong, nor the international community and the top leaders. what i simply tried to convey is, your believe about the action of current government is not so appropriate, as the government per se said said several times they are not going take any step to implement democracy inside the political parties, its their own business to do so. and i do not think 12 years time is a 'short' period of time'. and apologies for put keep again, it was a mistake.Syl007 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Ethics of a government's operations shouldn't ideally be a consideration in a Wikipedia deletion discussion. All that I had to say is that the parties in Bangladesh has no electoral system internally, as testified by the current government (including the election commission) and the international community (including UN observers), and the convention is to accept these authorities as reliable. It isn't important if they are making comments beyond their scope (the point is they have already done so, within their scope of not). Therefore an election inside the party can't be an argument, unless supported by ample references. On top of that, it has already been shown that the issue (raised so forcefully by you) of an internal election is not even relevant. Verification of the 12 years thing is on its way already (though Wikipedia policy clearly puts the onus on the editor who put the information there, but someone who advocates a delete doesn't necessarily have to be unfriendly).
  • Keep - the idea that "not inherently notable" is the same as "inherently non-notable" is probably my biggest pet peeve surrounding the interpretation of Wikipedia's notability guidelines generally and WP:BIO specifically. Per WP:N, any subject that has received non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources is notable. This person has. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Looks like a very good guideline to go by. Makes me half willing to retract my nominationation alreadt. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Again, per WP:N, "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." I do not see how a few small articles on the politics of Sylhet count as "in depth", "significant press coverage". Note that, the same articles are not focusing on Haque as a politician, rather are commentaries on the politics of Sylhet (involving multiple other local politicians). A cursory look at any Bangladeshi newspaper any day shows thousands of other equally non-notable local politicans being mentioned ... do they also deserve a Wikipedia bio? Mere mention or a few paragraphs on a news article does not mean "significant press coverage". --Ragib (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How little should be considered as "significant press coverage"? May be one major report in a reliable newspaper that repeats the name or the subject three/four times, with at least once/twice a bit of commentary attached. Or may be not. Also a few unverified cites that includes a majorly distrusted tabloid may fall a bit short on the standards. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)::[reply]
* ’’’ comment ’’’. Seems, we have now changed our position regarding to our opposition of the subject’s notability. We now involving a new discussion whether or not this person attract appropriate media coverage, i.e. internet news sites.

From the discussion above, i reasonably assume, we have sufficient ground to consider the subject as notable; which is the most radical concern. I would like to draw an attention in terms of his internet coverage; that the numbers of internet users are relatively few in Bangladesh. Probably around 2-5% of total population use internet frequently. Nonetheless, the Bangladeshi newspaper, i.e. daily star presumably does not have enormous archive on the internet, which leads to an end to delete most of its report from the web. For instance, i read an article (on daily star) on the subject last week regarding to the potential candidates of coming election. However, could not find it anymore. Therefore, in my opinion, I do not think the lack of internet sourcing manifest him as non notable. I would also like to add, there is no such definition of reliable newspapers. The news media of Bangladesh are experiencing their freedom of expression, and is no bounded by any political parties. Thus, we should not define ‘reliability of newspapers’, in terms of personal taste of believe. Manabzamin is the most powerful tabloid in the country, in terms of circulation. And seems like quite popular back in Bangladesh, and therefore, could be regarded as a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel eye222 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muhammad_Abdul_Haque_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1146728218"