Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akhlaq Choudhury

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 that neither the who's who listing nor the interview statement contribute towards WP:N requirements —SpacemanSpiff 08:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akhlaq Choudhury

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

non notable junior counsel; no reliable sources for notability other than listings. I am not prepared to accept the article in Emel, as he wrote the part about him by himself. DGG ( talk ) 08:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Emel article is an interview credited to Sanjana Deen therefore not self-published. If you are familiar with the magazine, you will know that all their articles are written in this format. Tanbircdq (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources not enough to meet GNG. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's received significant coverage in two different reliable independent sources (an Emel magazine interview and 4 editions of British Bangladeshi Who's Who) therefore meets GNG. YousufMiah (talk) 19:35, 6 August 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability of a junior barrister is not determined simply because they are junior barristers, and normally a junior barrister would not get a Wikipedia article. However, based on the WP:GNG and WP:BIO standard, the subject is notable based on the amount of coverage he has received. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does a self-written statement published in an unknown publication and appearances in a niche ethnic minority Who's Who guide equate to meeting GNG? That is not nearly enough. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am afraid you're mistaken and your attempts to discredit the article and the publication are poor. The article is not a self-written statement as claimed, it's an interview credited to Sanjana Deen as Tanbircdq has already stated. After reading their articles it seems all if not most of their articles are written like this. Emel has been deemed an unknown publication according to what? Your POV? YousufMiah (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think we have ever accepted a Who's who listing in any country, "ethnic minority" or otherwise, as a sufficiently reliable source for justifying notability. Their standards might best be described as erratic. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 9 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, lacks notability. One or two articles that he's mentioned in are non RS and/or provided directly from the subject. Caffeyw (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I cannot see much in the article that really qulaifies as notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both sources are clearly independent and reliable. 178.17.70.1 (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources meet GNG. 86.136.93.185 (talk) 21:14, 22 August 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.