Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antik Mahmud

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 sourcing isn't sufficient. Star Mississippi 14:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antik Mahmud

[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)

No evidence or claim of notability. None of the sources provide the in-depth coverage needed for GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Television, and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Comics and animation, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 15:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability found for this student. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. A well-known YouTuber. Ahammed Saad (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Having over 1,000,000 subscribers and over 153,000,000 views on YouTube, seems pretty notable in my opinion. But following, WP:NPOV, there's more than enough credible sources aswell as editor/writer(s) of those WP:RS article makes it more essential than ever. Don't know the point/reason of create/have(ing) a deletion talk for this article. Bruno 🌹 (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improve

He is notable, but the problem is there. I think the lack of proper writing, the need to add more information, and the carrier is empty. UzbukUdash (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UzbukUdash, I kinda agree with you. He’s definitely notable, but yeah, I see the problem too. The writing feels rough in spots, and there’s definitely more information that could be added, I’m working on it in my sandbox and trying to develop it further. Bruno 🌹 (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve as per @Bruno pnm ars and @UzbukUdash Keemstar148 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC) — Keemstar148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment 1 million subscribers is not, and will never be, notable by Wikipedia's definition of the word. Geschichte (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please provide references supporting your keep !votes to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. subject meets WP:GNG,
WP:RELY Sources: 1 The Business Standard, 2 The Telegraph India, 3; 4 The Daily Star (Bangladesh), 5 The Daily Ittefaq, 6 BBC NEWS, 7 Daily Sun (Bangladesh) Bruno 🌹 (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bruno pnm ars: It's great to elaborate on your recommendation, but you've already said "strong keep" above and get only one !vote. So please strike those two words above or change this entry to a "comment". --Worldbruce (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only sources I can really find are this and this. Not enough for an article. Procyon117 (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. Available sources do not establish notability because those that contain significant coverage are uncritical interviews (The Business Standard 1 Jan 2022, The Daily Star, The Daily Ittefaq, and BBC) or reprintings of his social media posts (Daily Sun). What he says about himself is a primary, non-independent source.

These pieces are generally accompanied by an introductory bio. The news organizations aren't transparent about where those capsule bios come from. One has to evaluate how similar they are to the "about me" section of his website and YouTube channel, and whether any independent sources are credited (e.g. "According to his class 9 teacher ...", "His college roommate said ...", etc.). If the bio has been supplied by him and is republished without analysis, evaluation, or interpretation by the journalist, then it is non-independent.

In my evaluation the only independent, secondary source addressing him directly and in any depth is the one review in The Daily Star mentioned above by Bruno pnm ars and Procyon117.[1] It is insufficient to satisfy WP:NBIO. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2024 (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.