Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gausur Rahman

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gausur Rahman

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

Not enough sources to establish notability. This is the only thing I could find. 舎利弗 (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is substantially copied from that solitary Daily Star piece, so if it survives this AfD the WP:COPYVIO will need to be removed. AllyD (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing that. I forgot to check. 舎利弗 (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Foundational copyvio and not enough sources to rewrite into an independent article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to establish the Bengali name "গাউসুর রহমান" .. but there's nothing of substance on Google. Other than a single article in the Daily Star, there isn't much to build a case for Keep. -- GreenC 00:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, IMO; also some SPIP going on here, I think. Quis separabit? 20:39, 6 June 2014 (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.