Deletion of Muhammad Abdul Haque (2nd nomination)

Comment: the idea that "not inherently notable" is the same as "inherently non-notable" is probably my biggest pet peeve surrounding the interpretation of Wikipedia's notability guidelines generally and  specifically.  Per , ''any'' subject that has received non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources is notable.  This person has
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:N)

Comment: Again, per , "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. '''A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.'''" I do not see how a few small articles on the politics of Sylhet count as "in depth", "significant press coverage". Note that, the same articles are not focusing on Haque as a politician, rather are commentaries on the politics of Sylhet (involving multiple other local politicians). A cursory look at any Bangladeshi newspaper any day shows thousands of other equally non-notable local politicans being mentioned ... do they also deserve a Wikipedia bio? Mere mention or a few paragraphs on a news article does not mean "significant press coverage
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per Arman. The subject has not held any public office. There are thousands of petty local politicians in Bangladesh, and like the rest of them, the subject fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)