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. Consensus herein is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Sazzad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Subject of article does not merit inclusion into the encyclopedia as he barely passes WP:GNG , WP:GNGACTOR and fails WP:ANYBIO The subject, an actor, has little to no significant coverage, the Article itself is written poorly. I say a Speedy Delete is best. In future when or if he has more coverage, an article about him could be written Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I'm confused. The nomination states that the subject barely passes WP:GNG. A topic that passes GNG (and doesn't violate what Wikipedia is not) is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. So why is this at AfD? Seems a tad bitey to A7 it 20 minutes after it was created, and take it to AfD hours later, despite several editors pitching in to improve it. It sounds like a speedy keep.

If the article is poorly written, that's something to address by editing, not by deletion. And it isn't as if the five sources cited in the article are the only coverage. If you want to look at his TV work, there's 2014: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]; 2015:[9][10][11][12][13][14]; 2016: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]; and 2017: [30][31][32] And that's just the English-language, online, no-subscription-needed reliable sources. Since his work is in Bengali, I wager there are more sources available in that language. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sources provided by editor above, Worldbruce has been scrutinized by me and from the very few reliable sources he provided, it is observed that they do not in any way show subjects notability, they are mere announcements, eg "Mr A, Mr B, Mr C, and pretty Miss D" are going to feature in this film, that is not Wikipedia standard now is it?? as per WP:GNG, that isn't significant coverage enough. As of today I am still unable to locate a source that discusses the subject in depth. a speedy delete is still best option Celestina007 (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You write "very few reliable sources", but there are 37. 36 are articles in major English-language newspapers of Bangladesh: The Daily Star, The New Nation, Dhaka Tribune, The Independent, and The Daily Observer. The 37th, Jago News 24, is a Bengali-language news operation that, according to Alexa, is the 26th most popular website in the country. To quote from WP:RS, "'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact" (about non-academic subjects).
  • With regard to the depth of sources, you ask "that is not Wikipedia standard now is it??" Yes, it is. WP:GNG says, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." As an example, no original research is required to extract from the first source above that:

Sajjad featured with actress Sadia Islam Mou and singer Agun in director Arun Chowdhury's 2014 telefilm for Channel i, Kaliganjer Audbhut Bari. To reach the three day shoot at an ancient Zaminder Bari in Taota, Sajjad and the rest of the cast had to travel by ambulance to get through roadblocks set up by political protesters.

WP:BASIC elaborates, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Each of the sources above adds a different nugget of information about his TV career. Individually they may seem insignificant, but together they convey the picture that for the past four years one could hardly turn the TV on in Bangladesh without seeing him in soemthing. Deeper sources than those above are the second and fourth sources cited in the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worldbruce I suppose it is left to the community to decide notability as we clearly do not think alike, notability should include significant coverage as stated by WP:GNG if you feel because the subject has announcements from websites, he deserves inclusion into the encyclopedia then I really am dazed. please know this ; Majority of sources you cited are gossip blogs just copying from themselves over and over again. With all due respect sir it is as though a WP:CONFLICT is at play here. Celestina007 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- It is absolutely unreasonable to call nationally published (i. e. printed) newspapers gossip blogs. I assume you, Celestina007, are not from Bangladesh and are not familiar with the newspapers there but Worldbruce has wiki linked them. You have the option to learn about them. These are Newspapers, The Daily Star is the largest circulated English language newspaper in the country. These are just English language sources, the Bengali (the national language of Bangladesh) sources should be more numerous. The sources are solid and numerous, enough to demonstrate notability.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources cited in the article and those identified above show that the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Nom has advanced no coherent rationale for deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2017 (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.