Deletion of Rokeya Lita (2nd nomination)

Comment: You say "One threat because of a book someone wrote doesn’t make anyone notable"; "only one (reference number 3) can be considered as a review of her book .... Rest are small news of her threat". Where is the policy that receiving threats of rape (in this case because of the theme of her books) does not make someone notable? I made no claim at all that she meets . The BBC reference that you refer to says, in translation, "there is a growing mentality of threatening it .... The authors say that, because of this, their concerns are increasing." Then you say, "you can't say that makes all of them notable as all of them receive threats!" If there is significant, reliable, independent coverage of each of those authors being threatened because of what they write, then yes, they could all be notable. At the very least, threats to authors in Bangladesh would be a notable topic. The fact that it happens to many authors does not make it non-notable! Checking to see what else Wikipedia has on this topic, I see that there is a List of journalists killed in Bangladesh, "about journalists killed in Bangladesh while reporting or on account of their journalism." I also find that another novelist, Taslima Nasrin, has lived in exile from Bangladesh and West Bengal after receiving death threats because of a novel published in 1993. That novel "attracted wide attention because of its controversial subject matter". Clearly, threats to writers in Bangladesh are not trivial. To return to your list above, I see that you state that references 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 are reliable Bangladeshi news sources; they are independent of each other and of her; and they report news about her books and/or about the threats to her. (That is not including the reliable news sources which published interviews with her.) How is that not "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Well, Like I said in Bangla Wikipedia this article fails  and  for a number of reasons and also per Tanvir. One can argue that there are lot of sources to establish notability. But did they really cover in depth about the subject independently? No. Most of those sources are self interviews, news about the release of her book and some trivial coverage. BBC Bangla is a notable source but it's not independent of the subject. She worked for the organization and still writes on behalf of the organization
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Failed , , . As it said in previous AFD, and explain by User:Wikitanvir. All website are not reliable at all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:ANYBIO||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Failed , , . As it said in previous AFD, online news portals in Bangladesh are not a highly reliable source and do not prove notability every time for any BLP. Even subject has no individual identification by any of Authority control identifier. Also, the language of this BLP isn't encyclopedic. Creator has no other contributions except the subject seems trying to  |promote personal biography herself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:ANYBIO||WP:AUTHOR||WP:PROMO)

Comment: I have edited the article so that it is shorter, has a neutral point of view and is more encyclopaedic in tone, and also to show the reason for notability in the introduction. (The quality of the article is not a reason to delete it.) It does not matter who the first author of the article was - it has been revised by several editors since then. The subject of the article meets  because she has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The AfD nominator appears not to fully understand the  criteria. No, the subject of the article has not received coverage as a journalist or reporter - she received coverage for the themes of her first two novels and the threats made against her because of them. Primary sources are ''not'' required - ''secondary'' sources are required, and have been provided. It is irrelevant whether the coverage is in digital sources or print sources - most print and broadcast news media also have an online presence these days. Nor does it matter what the first online search results are - what matters is the existence of coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, and this has been demonstrated. I have added another today, from 2018, which indicates that her notability deriving from publication of these novels is ongoing. If other authors of works released at the annual book fair are also controversial, they may also be notable if there is also significant coverage of them - whether there are Wikipedia articles about them yet or not is irrelevant to establishing the notability of the subject of this article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:BASIC)