Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sad Bin Kader Chowdhury

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. Geschichte (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Bin Kader Chowdhury

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reference in the article is just a routine listing in a primary source, containing nothing more than his role in the students' union and his phone number. My WP:BEFORE search came up with a passing mention here and here. Some sources may exist in Bengali but nothing in the article suggests that he would be notable as none of his roles would make him notable by default. I can't see any criteria under WP:BIO that he meets. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More content seems to have been added since this was tagged for AfD. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The few references notwithstanding, I don't see anything to suggest notability of any sort, let alone such that would warrant an encyclopaedia entry. Pure vanity piece, and poorly written and largely unreferenced at that. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only one that is more than a trivial mention, in terms of references, is this one, which I don't think is enough on its own. I agree that this is vanity or at least COI of some description Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. I agree, this appears to be a vanity piece. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in media. Kryzaal (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV in its field. Jenyire2 07:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when an article opens by saying someone is "very promising" it means "this guy is not yet notable but we think he might one day be notable, so we are jumping the gun and creating an article on them before they are notable because we think we know what will happen in the future". Wikipedia is not the place for such article, although we have several, most egregiously Jack Schlossberg, a person who still has not amounted to anything and there is still zero reason to have an article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I bit the bullet and nominated the article on the clearly not notable Schlossberg for deletion. Having said you plan to at some point enter politics is not at all a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2021 (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.