Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarker Protick (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 keep. Keep per consensus and any lack of new arguments since the previous AFD in 2014. KaisaL (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarker Protick

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

According to the WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE guidelines the article can not be promoted. And the photographer is not widely known in his country. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 12:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 12:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 12:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the basis this article has already been to AfD once and the consensus was "keep". Whether or not the nominator knows of him, he appears to have had some noticeable level of recognition in his own country (for example the articles found by Zayeem at the last AfD) and in wider circles, for example 3-page profile in BJP, winner of several awards. Sionk (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't matter in the slightest if this person were completely unknown in his own country. How has the situation changed since the first AfD was closed as "keep"? -- Hoary (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, AfD nominator? Please explain either (i) how the situation has changed since the first AfD was closed as "keep", or (ii) how the first AfD was defective. Additionally, please explain what you mean by "promoted". -- Hoary (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No response from the AfD nominator. Well then, keep per Sionk. -- Hoary (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Not appropriate AfD. There are enough references in the article as well as it was AfD'ed before and the decision was "keep". Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2016 (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.