Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bangladesh

Sohagpur SK Pilot Model High School

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NORG (WP:NSCHOOL)... Could not find any reliable source with significant coverage either. The first source cited is obviously paid reporting, and the second one is just a passing mention. — Raihanur (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. — Raihanur (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

2026 Pallabi child rape and murder case

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

WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS.. The event is just too fresh to determine if it has long-lasting significance.. Likely fails WP:NEVENT as well.. — Raihanur (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Bangladesh. — Raihanur (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

MSC Ultras

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

Not notable and fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NORG. I'm not accusing a COI, but the creator has a long history of editing only pages about this club. I know this might be irrelevant to the AfD, but I'm just saying. — Raihanur (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Football, and Bangladesh. — Raihanur (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Why delete this page?

It contributes to important ongoing information of Bangladesh Domestic Football.

And sources added from various top tier newspapers of Bangladesh like Prothom Alo, Daily Star. Just because I edit only this club post that doesn't mean it not valuable. How many editors regularly edit in Wikipedia from Bangladesh, and how many of them contribute in domestic football! Such an absurd reason to delete this page.

Similar kind of Page called 'Bashundhara Kings Ultras' are also present in Wikipedia. Why delete this one? Ramis Wasi (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It has also gotten significant media coverage throughout the sports community and media of Bangladesh!

If anyone follows football in Bangladesh they'll definitely agree to this! Ramis Wasi (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Mohammed Nurul Absar

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

only some minor mentions and few routine coverage as the coxda chairman. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Rht bd (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Military-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Md. Nazrul Islam (government official)

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

Just a govt. employee doing their day to day work, nothing significant. Fails WP:GNG. Rht bd (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
keep he was not a mere government employee. He is an former senior secretary of a government ministry. His work is important and sources explain his life. Mehedi Abedin 07:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
@Mehedi AbedinReferences cited in the article are just routine coverage of his appointment. No in depth significant coverage. Rht bd (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
They are not all routine coverage. Mehedi Abedin 10:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

2026-2029 Bangladesh local elections

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

WP:TOOSOON. Elections have not yet been called. There is no fixed date and no candidates have been officially declared. The article can be recreated once the exact dates are announced and more information is available. QEnigma 论 18:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Events, Politics, Asia, and Bangladesh. QEnigma 论 18:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete This needs to be limited to one year, having one article cover what remains an undetermined election cycle is worse at this point than none at all. Nathannah • 📮 22:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom and @Nathannah Ahammed Saad (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete: per nom and wp:TOOSOON. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 18:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Kanglu

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article is about a slang/ethnic slur, but the cited sources do not provide significant independent secondary coverage of the term. Most citations are passing mentions, datasets, broad sources about misinformation or prejudice, or sources about unrelated cultural topics such as orange-dyed beards. The ACL/Mendeley sources only show that the word appears in a toxic-language dataset; that verifies existence but does not establish encyclopedic notability. The Tribune/MSN-type sources are passing/commentary-style mentions, and the Tariq Rahman source appears to concern “Kangladesh”, not the article’s main term.

The article also relies heavily on WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, combining weak and unrelated sources to construct a broader political and social history of the term. The beard-image claim is particularly problematic because the cited beard sources do not appear to discuss the slur itself. This is better suited, if anywhere, as a brief mention in a broader article or Wiktionary, not as a standalone encyclopedia article. Delete. ~ মুকতাদির (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. ~ মুকতাদির (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Ethnic groups, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep. The deletion rationale focuses on sourcing quality, but the proper question under WP:GNG is whether the term has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. If those sources discuss the slur/term itself, that is enough for notability even if some other citations are only passing mentions. The subject is Kanglu and variant spellings or related forms such as Kangladeshi or Kangladesh in reliable sources do not undermine notability if those sources provide significant coverage of the same term. Any unsupported synthesis can be removed per WP:OR, but that affects article content, not the underlying notability of the topic.

Jacklincoln47 (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete – The keep !vote states the correct abstract test, but the cited sources do not actually meet that test. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources; it is not enough that a term appears in datasets, examples, index entries, or passing news/commentary mentions.

Source-by-source, the article still fails. The ACL paper is not about the term “Kanglu”; it is a hate-speech detection paper where the word appears in one sample tweet/table as “Kanglu (derogatory term for Bangladeshi)”. That verifies usage, but it is not significant coverage of the term as a topic. The Mendeley/ToxLex_bn citation is likewise a dataset/wordlist, not secondary analysis. The Oxford Handbook citation appears to be only an index entry for “kangladeshi”, not a substantive discussion of “Kanglu”. The Al-Zaman thesis is about religious misinformation in Bangladesh and uses “Kanglu” in a quoted social-media example; again, that is an example, not significant coverage of the term.

The Tribune article is the strongest citation, but it is still essentially commentary about the “destitute Bangladesh” stereotype, not enough by itself to establish standalone notability. The MSN/Zee citation appears to be a passing political-news mention. The Tariq Rahman source supports “Kangladesh”, not “Kanglu”, in a 1971-war context. The Millennium Post source also mentions “Kangladesh” among other slurs, not “Kanglu” as a standalone subject. The AFP/Observer/Straits Times beard articles do not mention the slur at all; they discuss henna/orange-dyed beards as a cultural/fashion practice, so using them to support claims about “Kanglu” imagery is clear WP:SYNTH.

The argument that “variants” can count is only valid if reliable sources directly treat those variants as the same subject. Here, the article itself is connecting “Kanglu”, “Kangladeshi”, and “Kangladesh” by editorial inference. After removing the dataset-only evidence, passing mentions, unrelated beard sources, and variant-term synthesis, there are not multiple independent reliable secondary sources giving direct, detailed coverage of the topic. At most, this belongs as a brief entry in List of ethnic slurs or Wiktionary, not as a standalone article. Delete. ~ মুকতাদির (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jacklincoln47, I suspect this page as cross wiki spam (why? I'm interested by this user behavior from bengali wiki). You mentioned explicitly glossed in this article but sources failed. Mentioning a word in a database does not prove its notability itself. So Delete ~ মুকতাদির (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jacklincoln47, And more interestingly the user who created this page at first (bn:ব্যবহারকারী:Jībanmṛta) in bengali was a Sockpuppet. ~ মুকতাদির (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete: per nom. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 18:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

M. Azizul Islam

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

This article depends on self published, self written and minor coverage. Fails WP:PROF. Rht bd (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Social science, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Rht bd (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete - almost all the sources are primary sources on a university website. All other sources are brief mentions. Not notable, no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:PROF as per nomination.

-- HungryHighway🛣️ 14:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Belgium, Scotland, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep – subject appears to satisfy WP:PROF#C3 through election as a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences and WP:PROF#C5 through appointment as Chair in Accountancy at the University of Aberdeen. ~2026-29748-92 (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC) — 2026-29748-92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Speedy keep, WP:SK3, totally erroneous nomination statement that gives only a WP:VAGUEWAVE to WP:PROF while considering only information that pertains to an unrelated notability criterion (depth of independent coverage is relevant for WP:GNG but not WP:PROF). The same failure to consider the relevant notability criteria applies equally to HungryHighway's opinion. As well as the criteria #C3 and #C5 mentioned above (for which I find the case for #C3 especially to be completely convincing), he appears to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 through heavily cited publications . —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: per nom. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 03:48, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Next Bangladeshi general election

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

2026 election just finished, no current situations to bring forward the election, no details specific to the election are available yet; WP:TOOSOON for now. Vestrian24Bio 10:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. Vestrian24Bio 10:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

There is always a page made for upcoming general election and when election date is declared the page is moved to the ([Year] Bangladeshi general election). It doesn't count as WP:TOOSOON. A$ianeditorz (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep as per Asianeditorz, such pages exist a lot in Wikipedia and those doesn’t count to WP:TOOSOON. Ahammed Saad (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Vestrian24Bio 13:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I think WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fundamentally violates the idea for the existence of other Next ... general election articles. I think we should not cherrypick articles for countries like Bangladesh or Nepal to nominate for deletion. A broader consensus should be brought on this topic. Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep-Other stuff sometimes exists according to consensus or policies and guidelines, sometimes in violation of them. Just saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not really an argument for deletion. The consensus seems to favor keeping such articles. See Next Australian federal election, Next United Kingdom general election, Next Indian general election, Next Sri Lankan parliamentary election, Next Pakistani general election, Next Nepalese general election, Next German federal election. Interestingly, the nominator has nominated another such article concerning Nepal. I find the argument in favor of deletion to be rather weak.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Vinegarymass911 and Ahammed Saad: Not cherry-picked based on the country but the timing, all of other elections listed above are within 2030. Unlike Bangladesh and Nepal which are still 5 years away (in 2031), thus WP:TOOSOON for now. Vestrian24Bio 17:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

How do you know it's 5 years away? Both are parliamentary democracies, election can occur even within a month if the parliament dissolves now, it's not like the United States presidential elections. It's same for Britain & Australia as well. Ahammed Saad (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing right now to warrant a dissolve for these countries right now so, WP:CRYSTAL. Vestrian24Bio 11:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

But you first said about elections in Bangladesh and Nepal which are still 5 years away (in 2031), thus WP:CRYSTAL actually applies on your statement too. I mainly stated that "5 years" is a misleading term for parliamentary democracies. In parliamentary systems, general elections take place whenever the parliament is dissolved. So further predictions that election will occur 5 years later or tomorrow is misleading. These arguments are vague for this AfD. I apologize for my statement violating WP:CRYSTAL. Ahammed Saad (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Swapan K. Gayen

AfDs for this article:

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

Don’t see much here to establish notability as per WPːACADEMIC. Also most sources are primary and not independent of the subject Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, Physics, Bangladesh, United States of America, New Jersey, New York, and North America. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep per previous two AfDs consensus here and here. Notability is not temporary. --SatnaamIN (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I guess that what we look for in terms of citations has changed, but he is below what is generally a pass of WP:NPROF#C1 at AfC or AfD in physics in 2026; an h-factor of 32 with 3.6K citation is low for the high citation areas he works in. I confess that I am surprised by the prior AfD statements that he passed WP:NPROF#C1 back in 2020, particularly as his citations must have been lower. I would say that his citations are at about the level of an associate professor in an R1 US Physics Department. He is quite competitive at the full professor level for the R2 University he belongs to. Note that I see no mention of a Chair anywhere, plus there would need to be strong justification for a chair at an R2 University to qualify for C5. To complete the case, being a member of a society is not a qualification for C3, I saw no awards in his CV that might contribute to C2 or SIGCOV.Ldm1954 (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping of @Russ Woodroofe, Kj cheetham, and David Eppstein:Ldm1954 (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

h-index says "after 20 years a "successful scientist" would have an h-index of 20". He has been for more than 20 years and now a full-time professor, SatnaamIN (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

We have pages on notable scientists, which is very different. (And Hirsch's numbers quoted in that page are way off in 2026.) Ldm1954 (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment Flyingphoenixchips, please do not make short AfD justifications such as this. A proper case with policy based justification for the relevant notability criteria (here NPROF) is needed, as well as a WP:Before.Ldm1954 (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: User:Ldm1954 what you just did here? And where is your signatures? --SatnaamIN (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Your vote was lost in an edit confluct, as were my signatures. I restored everything. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I find his Google Scholar profile respectable for a middle-rank scientist, but in no way enough to make him notable. In general I agree with Ldm1954's analysis. Athel cb (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: [[[WP:NPROF#C1]] syas "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. See also notes to Criterion 2, some of which apply to Criterion 1 as well." --SatnaamIN (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment. The 2nd nomination closed as a keep partly because it was far too close to the first nomination. The 1st nomination did not end in a resounding consensus. I !voted keep at the earlier nominations, but I do think we're expecting somewhat higher citation counts now than we did in 2020; Ldm1954 is also surely is better at evaluating track records in physics than I am. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep. Seven publications with triple-digit citation counts is still enough to push me to the positive side of borderline for WP:PROF#C1. I don't think NYAS membership counts for #C3, though, and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Well yes, I agree that the specific forsterite laser papers are quite foundational to Cr:forsterite as a tunable near-IR solid-state laser medium... but out of the seven you quoted, three are not standard research papers. one is a US patent, another is a trade-magazine feature in Optics and Photonics News, and the other an Annals NYAS proceedings piece with discussion. Of the remaining four, are the chromium-doped forsterite lasing papers I mentioned which are also from the same group in 1988-89, so they in a way reflect one collaborative result rather than sustained independent impact which to me does not really seem to count towards C1. Gayen is not first author on any of the high-citation works and plus this field of his especially it being applied physics is already a high citation one, so this is to be expected. Also at this point Gayen appears as a middle-author research associate early in his career, this specific citation trace to one collaborative project of his, rather than to a solely independent body of work. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment. :Hey apologies @Ldm1954. I was using my phone so couldn’t quite summarise based on Wikipedia:BEFORE in length, but thanks for summing it all up beautifully. Just adding on, physics is generally a high citation field so his metrics (h-index 32, 3,670 total cites) are respectable but to be expected. C1 typically requires evidence of clear impact above the field average in general. So far there is No major awards, named chair, or distinguished professorship, so C2 and C5 are definitely not met. He is described as a "member" of APS, OSA, and NYAS rather than a Fellow, so C3 does not apply (ordinary membership fyi anre open application). Serving as department chair at CCNY does not satisfy C6, either as generally this is for university-level leadership (president, provost, etc.). Full professor status alone is not sufficient under Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and the sourcing is also extremely thin… a faculty profile, a thesis record, and a Google Scholar page, none of which are independent secondary coverage for WP:GNG. There is not much available online either. As I see it this is just another case of Wikipedia:Too soon well yes he is on the trajectory but not notable yet… As of now it will make sense to delete and recreate it if he passes the guidelines. I’m just surprised the other AfDs passed without more scrutiny. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Physics is not homogeneous enough to say that it is a high citation field without being more specific. To get a better feel for his research impact I tried a Google Scholar search for forsterite (a repeating and specific keyword in Gayen's publications) and found most of the top citation counts to be in the low triple digits, comparable with Gayen's top publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  David Eppstein, he works in experimental solid state physics/materials science which are both high citation fields. For instance, look at the last two of his research areas in GS ( the first two are too narrow), nanoscience and nonlinear optics. Forsterite is a compound of not that major interest; perhaps try olivine, rutile as two more common compounds, and perovskite as one of the most important. However, in general compounds are much too narrow topics. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
  N.B., more common is the chemical formula, e,g. see TiO2 where there are a good number of papers with citations in the thousands. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thakurgaon Medical College

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

This article is WP:PROMOTIONAL and does not meet WP:GNG. Besides WP:MILL, this is no different from the dozens of Indian-college articles that were deleted in previous AfDs. _signed,Kvinnen (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

But it is not about Indian College. It is an Article about Government established Medical College of Bangladesh. And I don't think Government medical college need a promotion. Because In Bangladesh, Ministry of Health of Bangladesh supervise all the Govt. Funded medical colleges. And the seat are limited, so students need to complete in unified medical college entrance exam. So it is not fall under WP: Promotion category. Please look after the news articles before submitting a article into speedy deletion process. Stud.asif (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Here some National News paper that proves its significant importance.

Stud.asif (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Medicine, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment: WP:TOOSOON ig. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 09:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep: A government medical college obviously does not need a promotion. — Raihanur (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Bangabandhu Innovation Grant

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

The article lacks GNG. The sources consist solely of press releases and self-citations. Alfacnno (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. As the nominator explained, the article is solely based on self published sources.Rht bd (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:07, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Redirect-to List of things named after Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as an alternate to deletion.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Redirect: It's a good target article.Greatder (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Per nom. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 09:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete, no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge selectively to List of things named after Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete as it fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, also it should not be redirected as association to a signficant personality does not guarantee notability. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Fails wp:GNG. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 11:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Rakkhosh (2026 film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination since this was deleted less than a month ago and then recreated. G4 declined but I cannot see the old version to determine if it is substantially different or not. Pinging @RangersRus, Music.laboratory, SaTnamZIN, Poplicolascribere, Kelob2678, Raihanur, BengalMC, and Greatder: CNMall41 (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. CNMall41 (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment: There is one review by Prothom Alo. Have check for second if there is any. --SatnaamIN (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I saw that. However, that review was available during the last deletion discussion as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

This one is better formatted than the previous one, but some portions have incorrect grammar like " it was distribution by Galaxy Media in United States" which I am going to fix later on. So far, meets WP:GNG, checking more to see any problem. BengalMC (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

So far, meets WP:GNG, can you explain how? Specifically, which sources since the last AfD have come out to show GNG? --CNMall41 (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

i referred, "So far, meets WP:GNG" because I was looking at the top section back then, but when I checked the bottom, I changed my mind as a lot of the sources which @RangersRus pointed out in the previous AFD was still there, though I still haven't checked the newer sources BengalMC (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I was not asking in a shitty manner. I was hoping to see sourcing you may have seen that I didn't. Appreciate the clarification. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks like 90% of the reception section is made up of FANCRUFT from the same publication. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Many sources are showing RED by CiteHighlighter. SatnaamIN (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I noticed a significant issue in the reception section: there are multiple inconsistencies, exemplified by the following excerpt from Masum Apu’s review in Prothom Alo:

“That change is even more evident in Rakkhosh. It is not an easy task to hold these two opposite entities together, cruelty on one side and love on the other. But Siam has done it. Where he is not only ready to die for his lover, but also to kill. It can be said that Siam is competing with himself. A competition to surpass the previous Siam! It can be said that Siam is now competing with himself. But there is another reason behind saying this. To get that hint, you have to wait till the end of the film. Just as when you say ‘Rakkhosh’, ‘Rakkhosh’ comes, similarly there is another layer in this story, which will be revealed at the end. However, I will not go further into that topic so as not to spoil the viewing pleasure of the audience. Another important thing is that Siam’s performance has managed to hide the weakness and absurdity of the story of this film to a great extent. His contribution in retaining the audience is the most. It can be said that it is Siam’s film, not the demon director’s.”

The phrase “not the demon director’s” suggests that whoever edited the reception section may have copied the entire source directly and used Google Translate, resulting in awkward translations and questionable phrasing. These inconsistencies highlight a lack of careful editing and suggest the need for a more accurate and nuanced translation. BengalMC (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep because the previous deleted page was created before the release on the theaters! and there was no any reviews at that time! but now this page is more eligible for kept. Moreover, it is meets WP:GNG and WP:NFIC: important in the career of a notable (film) person (Siam Ahmed), and that's enough to keep a page. Aqsis Bey (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
While you note the existence of reviews post-release, the article remains dominated by promotional fluff and passing mentions. Under WP:GNG, Wikipedia requires significant coverage, not just a high volume of routine news hits or brief ratings. The current state of the article relies on WP:BOMBARD, using the same weak references repeatedly to create a 'veneer' of notability. If the film is truly notable, the article should be built on those few high-quality reviews and reliable sources rather than being padded with promotional content. As it stands, it hasn't overcome the issues that led to its previous deletion. ~~ BengalMC (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hoping you can share a policy-based reason for the keep vote. It actually was released a month prior to the close of the previous AfD. There is also no guideline that states a film is notable once it is released or that it is notable if its important to an actor's career. It is about sourcing which falls short here. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I'm the admin who declined to speedy delete the new article under WP:G4 b/c the new article is not substantially identical to the deleted version. I was requested to share the previously deleted article. Here it is. Also, please note that while I didn't believe the article met the speedy delete guidelines per G4, that doesn't mean I'm saying the new article meets notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. For the record, I was not questioning your G4 decision. The reason for the draft view was for something related to editor behavior. Thanks for restoring to draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

It's all good and I didn't take it that way. SouthernNights (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment. The reception has bunch of fancraft that are not actual critic review at all. Even the only one seen as a review is written where the writer did not follow balancing personal, emotional responses with objective analysis of technical elements like acting, cinematography and editing. The writer says I noticed on Facebook that many people were drawing comparisons—likening it to Tamil cinema, or to the movie *Animal*. It was with this very mindset—and primarily in the hope of being entertained—that I, too, stepped into the theater . This is not how a film critic would convince himself to go watch a film. The writer is at the theatre writing about his observation of audience's reaction and impression. Writer says Even with many highly talked-about films, I have occasionally observed a waning of audience attention in the theater. But here, I witnessed the exact opposite—a profound silence filled the hall, with everyone completely engrossed in the screen. No one was distracted by mobile phones or popcorn; every single pair of eyes remained fixed on the screen. If this is considered a critic review, I will say it is very poor. The film needs minimum of 2 critical reviews and this article does not meet that limit to pass notability. Everything else under reception is not reviews at all. Just a fancraft by creator using the premier, announcement and interview sources and selling it off as review. RangersRus (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Agree with RangerRus that it's a lot of premier, announcement and interview trenchcoating as reviews. The review may not be a well thought film critic, but it's fine for a notability. But, one review isn't good enough to pass notability.Greatder (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Moyurakkhi

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

Fails WP:FILM. Sources are just film release press coverage. No independent significant reliable sources available other than these routine coverage. Rht bd (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep per meet WP:GNG. Aqsis Bey (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: per nom. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 21:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Dark World (2024 film)

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

No significant reliable sources provided. Dependent on tabloid or initial film release news/press releases which do not demonstrate notability. Fails WP:FILM Rht bd (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete: per nom. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 04:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep per meet WP:GNG. Aqsis Bey (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles