Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazrat Shah Sufi Amanat Khan

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 speedily deleted: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.banglapedia.org/httpdocs/HT/S_0234.HTM —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hazrat Shah Sufi Amanat Khan

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

Questionable notability. I can't find any references to this person outside of wikis and a few guides to sights in Chittagong (including one that's a copy of this, or maybe this is a copy of that). No evidence of coverage outside of Chittagong. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. If there are reliable sources that show that this individual is notable, then by all means - I'm happy to keep. But I can't find any. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 01:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Procedural Note. It looks like this debate was started on 26 January, but wasn't included in the log (or the article tagged) until 18 March. So, despite the ancient debate (by AFD's standards), I'm going to pretend this debate is a regular March 18 2010 debate, and recommend that it be closed accordingly on the 25th (or whenever). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 01:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove copyvio. The subject is a well-revered religious figure in the history of Bangladesh. In fact, the 2nd largest airport in Bangladesh is named after the subject (See Shah Amanat Airport). Banglapedia states that the subject is ranked among the great saints of Chittagong [1]). So, the subject is definitely notable. However, the article is actually a copyvio from Banglapedia (see [2]). --Ragib (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article needs to be moved to the proper name of the subject, i.e, remove the "Hazrat" and "Sufi" honorifics. --Ragib (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that I'm looking more closely at Ragib's notes, I see the part about the copyright problem. He's right. That page has a 2006 copyright notice on it, and there's no evidence that it's a copy of the page here rather than the reverse. Other articles that that resource have in common with Wikipedia don't share content. I've nominated the article for db-copyvio. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast: it's gone. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2010 (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.