Talk:Sajeeb Wazed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]


Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 2, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

what kind of bio is this?

Why has this been nominated for speedy deletion? The subject has clear notability. If the article needs improvement (eg adding reliable sources), improve it. Recurring dreams 02:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please state exactly where the assertion of notability is in this article. --Deskana (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Please state exactly where the assertion of notability is in this article. --Deskana (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, and the blogosphere, and complaining about his mother's arrest asserts no real reason for notability. His mother, if anyone, is the notable one here --Laugh! 02:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The son of a major political figure currently imprisoned, and hence acting as major spokesman. A major figure in the Awami League party. A major figure in Bangladeshi politics. A major figure vis a vis Hasina's trip to the US this year. Mentioned and discussed as a successor to the Awami League leadership. This in a country of over a 150 million people. Over 10000 ghits, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of sources will be in another language, and not on the web. Recurring dreams 02:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Information not stated in the article at all. At present, this article does not assert the notability of the subject. I suggest you add them before another administrator deletes it. --Deskana (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I will. Isn't using speedy deletion and afd to improve an article using a sledgehammer to break a walnut? A cleanup or add more sources tag would have sufficed. Recurring dreams 02:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it worked didn't it? Plus, it's not like L knew all this stuff you just said. It should either be in the article, or the article should not exist. --Deskana (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but you're under the mistaken view that I care to improve the article. I don't really care if it stays or goes- if it asserts no notability (or doesn't even hint at it), and there's no reason to believe it's notable from reading through it and checking external links, then I will nominate it under A7. If it's notable, people take notice and it gets fixed quickly, if not, it gets removed quickly. Like Deskana said, if you can't put it in the article, the article should not exist, and if you can't source it in the article and prove that it is notable, then it will be taken to AfD to see if the assertions are correct --Laugh! 02:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've done the best I can with referencing for the time being, I may add a few later when I have more time. But I'll say this: the day that deleting articles without doing any research about the subject becomes policy, is a very sad day for wikipedia. I thought this signpost story may have been exaggerating, but I am off to join the article rescue squadron. Recurring dreams 03:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It already is policy. --Laugh! 03:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Please read that policy: Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved or reduced to a stub; if so, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate. Recurring dreams 03:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Please read the entire policy, including the criteria, A7- does not assert the importance or significance of the subject.. I did consider it, and it could not be improved because it does not meet notability requirements. --Laugh! 03:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
And how did you decide that? A gut feeling that it was not notable? Looking for some reliable sources? Recurring dreams 03:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been over this far more than enough times with you. You can read our speedy deletion policies if you like, I have better things to do with my time --Laugh! 16:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I have declined to delete it. The article asserts importance or notability, and thus cannot be deleted as speedy. It is enough to make some good-faith claim to notability to prevent speedy--it does not have to meet the requirements for actional retention in WP. If the notability is uncertain or disputed, then the place to dispute it is AfD. DGG (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New material

OK, I've done my fourth revert, but I think this is clearly libelous material and should be removed. I have posted my concerns at the WP:BLP noticeboard, and raised the user's conduct at WP:AIV. The source given is essentially an attack piece from a magazine, and the user is clearly using language that violates WP:NPOV. Until these concerns are addressed I don't think the material should be included. Recurring dreams 07:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it libelous if the facts are in public record? The magazine in question is Probe News Magazine which is a widely published and reputated magazine. They publish their magazine articles online as well from which you can clearly see that the magazine is not some online tabloid Recurring dreams made it out to be. Also their is nothing libelous or dubious about a plain and simple arrest that was made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapedkrusader (talk • contribs) 14:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's the article in question: [1].

  • It is a hatchet piece from a source that does comply with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Just an example from the lead: He seems quite happy with his cushy life in the United States, notwithstanding his several scrapes with the law and other shady tales.
How is this not reliable? How else would you term a 'cushy life'? Probe Magazine is not an online tabloid. It is actually a well published and distributed magazine in Bangladesh. Look at their other articles and see if there are traces of tabloid material and then you are welcome to accuse the publication. Kapedkrusader 13:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If you believe this information is in the "public record" as you put it, see if you can try finding another reliable source?
Do you want me to contact the Texax police on this? How would I "prove" the conversation I would have with them? Kapedkrusader 13:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Your own edits to the page violate WP:NPOV. You start your included material with "Like his mother, Sajeeb Wazed is no stranger to arrest."
Sheikh Hasina has been arrested numerous times now. Sajeeb Wazed has also been arrested a few times. This makes both of them no stranger to arrest. I don't see how much neutral you can get. Kapedkrusader 13:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You clearly have an agenda with regards to this issue, as you have been also adding a link to this "Probe Magazine" article to Sheikh Hasina; the link does not comply with WP:EL with regard to this article, as it has nothing to do with the subject of the article.
You also have an agenda trying to hide widely known facts. I am simply giving everyone an npov while you are trying to present a one sided view. Kapedkrusader 13:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please discuss your inclusion before making IP reverts. Sign in and discuss your concerns. Thank you.
I have not done any IP reverts. So stop accusing me of your misdemeanors. Kapedkrusader 13:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Recurring dreams 13:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You want to show that the Probe Magazine is a tabloid but with all their articles online you are unable to show that the reference is indeed tabloid material. There's nothing libelous about a plain and simple arrest. Kapedkrusader 22:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Read the article itself. Also, is there any mention of this in any other source in the press? Anywhere? If the publication was so reliable, and clearly this is a notable event, would there not be some mention? You also have some misunderstanding about the nature of sourcing; because you know of something first hand, doesn't mean you can use that as a verifiable source. See WP:OR. Recurring dreams 05:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
As for IP edits, several IP addresses have been making identical changes to you, using the same sources. You really can't expect us to believe that was someone else? Recurring dreams 02:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Its not me knowing something. It WAS PUBLISHED, YES PUBLISHED in a widely distributed PRINTED MAGAZINE. Understand that first and then talk about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapedkrusader (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)