Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sezan Mahmud

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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sezan Mahmud

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 20:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability extremely questionable. Per WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE the article dose not passed the criteria and failed WP:NPOV. No significant coverage and reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Written like a resume. All of the references are given in a tricky way try to make fool the readers. In the given references, there are some of personal website links, university prospectus, even YouTube links and multiple dead links. Hundreds of academics are reported in each university's website, that alone doesn't make them notable. Also the person is not known widely and not received notable award for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique in his literary/creative works. Self-published article, cause article creator have no edit except this. I was surprised that, how Wikipedia contains this article since 2007! In 2008, Administrator Ragib asked for the notability in the talk page. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 20:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep (Updated, see Ragib's comment). This is odd. I can vaguely remember his name and he is definitely a published author. However, none of the cited links checks out. None of his appointments checks out from relevant websites. Either he is Not Notable or the entire article is filled with miss-information. Some part of the article may even be hoax. IDK. But, I'd concur with all of nom, and would say the subject matter of the article is not-verifiable. So, Delete. --nafSadh did say 17:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to keep. --nafSadh did say 18:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.According to Notability,WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE policy and with the refernces check It is should be delete.--Rafaell Russell (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, primarily on WP:V grounds. Indeed, none of the awards claimed in the article check out when verification is attempted. The references given lead to either dead links or to pages that do not mention the subject, as, for example the reference cited[1] for the award by the American Public Health Association. A search for his name[2] at that organization's website returns no results, and the outcome is the same for a search[3] at the website of the American Association for Cancer Research, where that award was referenced. Altogether, there are too many dubious WP:V failing claims in the article, and they are too hard to separate from what is actually verifiable here, before we even get to the issue of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I was the user who originally prodded it back in 2008 or so. However, since then I have come up with enough proof of notability to my satisfaction. Mr. Mahmud is an award winning author -- he has indeed won the Agrani Bank award for juvenile literature. Note that this is the top award in Bangladesh for children's literature. Quoting Bangladesh Shishu Academy, Before introducing Bangladesh Shishu Academy Award in 1396 BS, this was the major national award for children's literature.. Mr. Mahmud uses two names -- Sezan Mahmud is his pen name, while professionally, his real name is Saleh M. M. Rahman. I have personally verified his professional credentials (after all, he's an alumnus of my current workplace), and it is incorrect that his appointments do not check out ... they do [4]. Besides his books, he also wrote the lyrics of many popular pop songs in Bangladesh (Bangladeshis can recall these songs I guess, "নেলসন মেন্ডেলা (ফকির আলমগীর), আমি নই সেই বনলতা সেন (কনকচাঁপা), কোন এক সুন্দরী রাতে (সামিনা চৌধুরী),). Overall, te article needs good citations, but the author is definitely notable. --Ragib (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying the confusion regarding the two names. Can you provide a verifiable reference for the fact that he won the Agrani Bank award for juvenile literature? Right now this claim in the article remains unsourced. Or rather, there is kind of a reference "[Shishu, 15th year, 5th vol. p 43-46]" but it is unclear what this reference actually means. Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

@Nsk92, Shishu (শিশু) used to be the official publication/magazine by Bangladesh Shishu Academy. I do not know if it is still published now. The reference you mentioned seems to refer to a print edition of Shishu. Such references are fine for WP:V. Not all references have to be online. Given the award predates the Web and no Bangladeshi newspaper maintains online archives, a web reference is unsurprisingly not available. --Ragib (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Good. Thanks for your input. I guess I only tried with his pen name. It feels really odd, when the name sounds really familiar and I can't relate. --nafSadh did say 18:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't formulated an opinion on his notability as an author, but thanks to Ragib I was able to look him up as a professor of medicine. Given his citations on Google scholar [5], he does not appear to pass WP:PROF#C1, and I don't see any evidence of passing other WP:PROF criteria, so if he is notable I think it would have to be only as an author. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. @David Eppstein: FYI, anyone can create his own profile on scholar.google.com. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 21:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Moheen Reeyad: What is your point? The profile is self-curated but the citation counts it shows aren't. And in this case the profile shows low citation numbers. Why do you think that its self-curation should change the inferences I draw from these low numbers? If someone had fraudulently obtained high numbers by including other people's publications, that would be relevant information in an AfD, but that's not what's going on here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I have explained my statement above in the nomination. User:Kaushik kamal 71 and User:BidhanShaha are the main contributor of the article and they have no edits except this topic. They are also highly interested about this person. And most of the edits comes from IP, while it seems self-written article. There is widespread lack of WP:NPOV. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 22:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Besides Mr, Mahmud's books, he has also created documentary films. In 2014, one of his documentaries "The Morgue", won an honorable mention at the Richmond International Film Festival (RIFF). [6]. Granted, it's not a very big name in film festivals, yet the point is that his film was shown in various festivals and has the track record of at least one awards. This and the Agrani Bank Award for Juvenile Literature should satisfy his notability. --Ragib (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Ragib. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Ragib.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead because there are apparently, at least from what shows, no actual major publications and library holdings, the article then contains nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I trust Ragib's judgement in this case. I would reconsider if another Bengali-speaking/reading user has a different view. --Hegvald (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- appears to meet WP:NAUTHOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 17 October 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.