Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazi Maruf

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 keep. J04n(talk page) 12:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kazi Maruf

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

Description is rubbish, no reliable sources, lacks in suitable links and references Md31sabbir (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 29. Snotbot t • c » 04:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Evano1van (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Evano1van (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those appear to be content issues. Please give a policy-based reason why the article should be deleted, rather than a list of ways in which the article needs to be improved. I note that this editor seems to be nominating quite a lot of articles related to film in Bangladesh for deletion at the moment, mostly on what seem to be content grounds. Dricherby (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Yes, another Bangladesh-related AFD from this nominator using improvable content issues as a deletion rationale. Perhaps he might visit WP:DEL#REASON and rethink his "justifications" to make them seem less that he simply dislikes Bangladeshi topics. And a hint to him, even if a source is non-English that does not mean they are unsuitable. Notability need not be world-wide. Notable even if only to Bangldesh through Bangladeshi sources is perfectly fine. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence to meet WP:NACTOR. there's not even a Bangladeshi version of this article. would happily reconsider if indepth coverage is found in Bangladeshi. LibStar (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no language called "Bangladeshi", so that comment is obviously based on ignorance rather than any proper attempt to evaluate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not ignorance, you know I am referring to the local language. your comment is rather condescending. I looked at the article, and didn't think the sources supplied (in Bengali) looked in depth. they merely confirm this person appeared in certain roles. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references with significant coverage about the subject already added, passes WP:GNG. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in what way are the sources indepth? WP:INDEPTH LibStar (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A moment ago, you thought the sources were in "Bangladeshi" but now you can read them well enough to determine whether they're in-depth? Dricherby (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i used Google translate. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that myself but I couldn't even figure out what the pages were about because Google translate renders Bengali into total nonsense. Dricherby (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you say it meets WP:GNG, when you say yourself the sources are nonsense? Kind if renders your keep !vote null! Cant have it both ways... Keep because it has nonsense sources?! LibStar (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the article meets WP:GNG. I didn't say the sources are nonsense. I didn't !vote, precisely because I can't understand the sources. Dricherby (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies got mixed up, but as the sources are nonsense, it demonstrates this article's notability is questionable. LibStar (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are in a language that neither you nor I can read and which Google translate handles very badly: that doesn't make them nonsense. See also WP:NONENG. Dricherby (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source covers the actor quite significantly, along with some other actors (each actor having their own section). While this source, not an indepth one, but says that Kazi Maruf is a popular actor of recent times in Bangladesh (with many other sources saying the same). This one talks about the recent successes of Kazi Maruf. This is another source with an in-depth coverage. Hence, the article passes WP:GNG and quite easily WP:NACTOR. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea db eef 07:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not trusting google Translate for this, I find at least one English-language source referring to her in a starring role: Dakar Tribune . and one in a clearly significant role Financial Express. I found them by a method which apparently did not occur to the nominator, searching Google News. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 19 May 2013 (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.