Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Muhammad Shibli (2nd nomination)

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 sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 00:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Muhammad Shibli

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Deleted earlier this year after an AfD that attracted no participation. Then restored without improvement. The articles in other languages wikis aren’t much help in determining notability or providing sources. I’ve looked in English and Bengali and don’t see anything that looks like in depth coverage in RIS. There may of course be sources in Bengali I’ve missed, but if so it would be good for someone to add them. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and West Bengal. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as the last two times, zero sourcing found. Might be some in a local language, but I can't find any. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep, as no policy based argument for deletion has been offered. Sources don't have to be online or in English. It's misleading to write "zero sourcing found" in AFD when the article has citations.Jahaza (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for deletion is that notability is not demonstrated by the current sources and no others have been found. Mccapra (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

except that you give no evidence of having actually reviewed the current (offline) source.Jahaza (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven’t, but that would not be sufficient to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you say so? It appears to be a standard biographical dictionary in Bengali. It's used as a source in dozens of Wikipedia articles. Generally, being listed in a national biographical dictionary is good evidence of notability. Jahaza (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's presumably acceptable for use. But there's a big difference between "acceptable for use as one source amid a mix of solid WP:GNG-worthy sources" and "able to singlehandedly clinch the notability of a person all by itself even if no other acceptable sources are present at all". You have to prove the latter, not the former. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although difficult to find more sources, it is clear that he is very notable as he was worth being mentioned in books like সংসদ বাঙালি চরিতাভিধান SalamAlayka (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sources does not meet GNG.Saturnrises (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody with much better access to Indian source repositories than I've got can find additional sources to bolster his notability. One acceptable source isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, one acceptable source is often enough, per WP:ANYBIO, 3. Jahaza (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in ANYBIO suggests that one source is enough. His presence in a biographical dictionary counts as a notability claim, but it still can't be an article's sole source. Bearcat (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2022 (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.