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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zubaida Rahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTINHERITED. There seems to be decent coverage on her arrest alongside her husband, but WP:BLP1E. Redirect to Tarique Rahman as an WP:ATD. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 23:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Withdrawn per sources found. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 03:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Previously prodded but recreated. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 23:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and Bangladesh. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Policy WP:BLP1E would apply only if the person were covered solely in the context of a single event. The 2014 Risingbd.com, and 2018 Jugantor and Ekushey TV articles cover her without reference to her involvement in any legal cases. Moreover, apart from the event, the person would have to be a low-profile individual and be likely to remain so. She does not meet the definition of a low-profile individual, and several articles discuss her as the potential leader of the opposition (and therefore future prime minister, if the opposition were ever to regain power), so we can't assume that she is likely to be low-profile in the future.

Essay WP:NOTINHERITED says the argument that "Zubaida Rahman is notable, because she is married to notable person Tarique Rahman" would be a fallacy. But no Wikipedian is making that argument. Being associated with a notable topic does not prevent a person from being notable. The essay goes on to say, "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." --Worldbruce (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Zubaida Rahman meets WP:GNG based on independent, reliable, secondary sources [1] and [2]. The first contains significant coverage about her family, education, and political prospects. The second contains significant coverage of the legal case against her and what would have to happen for her to be elected. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Worldbruce. She has received significant coverage in reliable sources.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only WP:BLP1E, Fails in WP:GNG Worldiswide (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What one event do you believe is the only thing she is notable for (to avoid your !vote being a WP:VAGUEWAVE)? Consider coverage of her in reliable sources such as [3]. How is that coverage "in the context of" your single event? --Worldbruce (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well says Worldbruce, This article does not apply WP:BPL1E. Rather than Zubaida Rahman got significant coverage on media. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 05:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn per sources identified. Can't be closed since someone !voted delete. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 03:27, 12 September 2023 (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.