Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emdad Rahman

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. Killiondude (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emdad Rahman

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

The subject has been complaining on OTRS about this BLP for years for it being unfair, and inaccurate which is damaging to his reputation. I tried to fix some issues but he's not satisfied and want a large chunk of material be taken down which is sourced and I'm not in position to remove it outright upon his request.

I don't really see any major notability here , and now the subject has requested deletion on otrs: 2014022610016708. . so I'm bringing it here for community permission to delete. Saqib (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per request. I'm disappointed that we've produced an article which has upset Mr Rahman so much. I don't see the contentious content (I see some minor age and address information reproduced from a local newspaper), and can see nothing that is either inaccurate or damaging.

However WP:N is the ability to have an article, not a requirement to. If he doesn't want it, and there's no public interest where we ought to record some dreadful wrongdoer despite that (Mr Rahman has been so constructive in his community that he's been rewarded for it), then we shouldn't force anyone into a biography they don't want. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP request from a marginally notable or possibly not notable individual. He averages 4 page views per day on WP so no great loss. Szzuk (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt The subject does not appear notable and I see no reason for it's inclusion. Salt it to prevet recreation.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing comes even close to showing notability. Producing poetry does not make one notable, nor does getting extremely local awards for volunteering, nor does being an editor of non-notable publications, or somewhere down the line on somewhat notable publications. I am actually trying to figure out why this article was ever created, and not seeing any reason to have created it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not satisfied with this amount of notability. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2018 (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.