Shafiqul Islam Masud (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have discussed this with the AfD closer User:Tone, see User_talk:Tone#Articles_for_deletion/Shafiqul_Islam_Masud_(2nd_nomination). I had the article open on my browser to consider, then realised the AfD had been closed. I don't think that the nom's claim of non-notability was done on the right criteria. This man's claim to notability is not in being an unelected politican, but in being a party leader imprisoned under the country's Special Power Act for 3 years. He was arrested with others, but as the source headlines in the article indicate, as party leader he was the only one named. The sources given in the first AfD, including the Wall Street Journal [1], and The Guardian [2] and the arguments there (including WP:POLOUTCOMES 'Political figures not elected to public office': "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success") resulted in a Keep, and the sources had not been included in the article. The nom for this 2nd AfD claimed that he was non-notable as an "unelected candidate", but in fact he has not stood for election until this year, when he is currently a candidate in an election to be held on 30 December 2018. (He was also arrested again this year [3], which is also not yet in the article.) While the article could have been improved, I believe that there are arguments and evidence not considered in this AfD, and I am rather suspicious of the nom's motives when the election is so close. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the new arguments, I support relisting, possibly speedy, to generate further discussion. --Tone 17:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You closed the AFD, so you can go ahead and do that at your discretion. There's no need to send it through DRV first, especially for one that you just closed yesterday. —Cryptic 18:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a relist here (now) would be fine. Sources listed above aren't great, but worth discussing. Hobit (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. I agree with Cryptic, if you believe your own close should be revisited, just go ahead, back out your close, and relist it. Quick, simple, no fuss. There's really no need for a heavyweight process like DRV in this case. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Relisted, as suggested. My approach is usually to avoid reverting myself in such cases but since I got a clear go-ahead, I fixed it. --Tone 21:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]