- 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 per SNOW,
pace to LongRoad, but no point in wasting people's time (although it should be noted that this closure is
in spite of !votes from the ARS, not because of them: they are no more convincing than usual!). But there has, apart from that, been much good work done from other editors. I suggest the sources now apparently available, particularly those in Bangladeshi, are utilised in the article to avoid the otherwise unavoidable impression of fancruftdom.
While we're at it,
Timtrent, may I suggest that you adjust your signature in accordance with
WP:CUSTOMSIG/P (
A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username
). All the best,
——Serial # 18:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
(non-admin closure) ——Serial # 18:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
[reply]
- Shuvro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fictional character. No google hits. A dearth of reliable newsoutlets provide coverage. Nothing whatsoever in the literature. Pure fancruft with no current hope of passing our most basic requirements for a standalone article. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE applies. ——Serial # 13:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC) ——Serial # 13:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ——Serial # 13:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Fiddle Faddle 16:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. I was more charitable than the nom by leaving a PROD on it, but I'm as happy with their replacing that with AfD. Support exactly as nominated. These are wider than my reasons, which were simply no indication that it could pass WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Timtrent: I'm awfully sorry, but your prod wasn't there when I opened the twinkle interface—if you look at the time stamps we were three minutes apart, and I assure you it takes me longer than that to write a nomination :) but sorry to have erased your work, particularly as it was exceptionally thorough reasoning! ——Serial # 13:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Serial Number 54129, I'm content with AfD. Worry not. It still gives the creating editor and others seven days to work on it if they can save it. It would have been my next stop had PROD been removed unchanged.
- For extra clarity my rationale was "Fails WP:GNG. PROD added to give author a fighting chance to sort out referencing. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this article survive (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today." Yours is more succinct 👀 Fiddle Faddle 13:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. I declined this at WP:AFC, user moved it to main space regardless. Theroadislong (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have searched for references under the alternative spelling of "Shubhro" and found a published work on Amazon that indicated that this is an alternative spelling. I have used it to cite that factet. Even so I see this as a primary source. More diligent work at sourcing may find more than passing mentions, but that is all I can find. I have not found anything so far to make me alter my !vote, but I am willing to be persuaded by the work of others Fiddle Faddle 15:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I now see referencing sufficient to allow me to suggest the article be retained. There is more referencng required, but as we are often reminded, AfD is not a Cleanup process. Though a cleanup is a useful by-product. Fiddle Faddle 20:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The character appears in a series of six books by Humayun Ahmed, a best-selling author in Bangladesh. It doesn't appear that there were many (if any) English translations of the books, so most of the coverage is in Bengali. I found a couple of good sources:
- Ahmed was tremendously popular, described by The Times of India at the time of his death as "the Shakespeare of Bangladesh". I know that notability is not inherited; I just mention Ahmed's reputation to say that there are likely to be more sources in Bengali. Unfortunately for us English-speakers, the name শুভ্র can be transliterated as Shuvro, Shubhro or Śubhra, and the word means "white", so it's not easy to search for. Still, I would encourage people in this discussion to think globally, and not assume that a character is unimportant simply because the work is unknown to English speakers. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Toughpigs you have come under some criticism on your talk page for use of some sources seen as less than reliable. On your own talk page you have explained and justified to me why you have used them. I accept that deployment, since they are simply showing non contentious facts. In your comment there to another editor you suggested that discussion come here, so I am opening it by asking for your comment either here or on this AfD's talk page, at your discretion. As a side note, it might be worth using ((efn)) for those to split them out as notes, avoiding a dispute over referencing. Fiddle Faddle 22:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I was using Goodreads to verify the publication dates for the six novels, since it was an English-language source verifying simple facts. However, I don't want to upset people, so I took the Goodreads citations out. The list of books can live without citations, if you think that that's better. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- How about using ISBNs, which does a similar job? Fiddle Faddle 22:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Humayun Ahmed is obviously a versatile genious. And one of his 'genious' creations is Shuvro. Please don't consider it for deletion, it is a very important part of Bangla literature. Please let this article stay, I understand that i am not good at writing an article but it has been drastically improved by Toughpigs and the article will be improved in the near future by hundreds and thousands of fans of Shuvro.
- Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suborno Sabbir (talk • contribs) 04:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - passes WP:GNG per sources shown above. One of the most popular fictional characters of Bengali literature. --Zayeem (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I realized that there's been a misunderstanding about one of the sources I've used in the article. The paper that is listed in the Perennial sources list as unreliable is the Daily Star (UK). The paper that I used as a source in this article is The Daily Star (Bangladesh). These are unrelated newspapers that happen to have the same name. I've left a message on the nominator's page, explaining the situation and asking if it's okay to put the Bangladesh Daily Star material back in the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2020 (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.