Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh Pratidin

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. This is a different article that the version that was nominated for deletion so I'm going to weigh the opinions of editors who evaluated the expanded article more heavily and close this discussion as a Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Pratidin

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Bangladesh Pratidin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage WP:SIG; Doesn't meet WP:GNG; Considerd WP:BEFORE M.parvage (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I considered WP:BEFORE; But I encourage contributors to do a search on it before giving an opinion. I also did a source analysis.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:m.parvage
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Source 1 No Own website; see WP:IIS ? No doesn't matter ✘ No
Source 2 No Own website ? No self promotion ✘ No
Source 3 No Not at all Yes No content is just about a refernece ✘ No
Source 4 No promotional content Yes No No significant coverage, WP:SIGCOV; Just a PR content ✘ No
Source 5 No No No not pointing the subject in detail, doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV ✘ No
Source 6 No About an employee not the organization ? No ✘ No
Source 7 No No mention ? No No mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

M.parvage (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Table above shows that WP:GNG has not been met. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the source table, there is nothing showing notability, or even using RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The largest circulated newspaper by print sales is the type of article we should have in an encyclopedia. It has been the best-selling newspaper in Bangladesh, a country of over 160 million people, for the last ten years; if that does not suggest notability, then I do not what does. The article is in bad shape, but it can be improved. The Daily Star is a rival publication and the article on Bangladesh Pratidin mentions it is the most circulated newspaper based on the government database while the Daily Star's sister concern, Prothom Alo, comes second; this cannot be considered promotional.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Best selling is not a notable thing.please read WP:IIS and see the examples also. Thanks M.parvage (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals), Bangladesh Pratidin is a newspaper of record in Bangladesh.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NPERIODICAL,
1. The periodical has made significant impact in its field or other area: But it is not.
2. The periodical has received a notable award or honor at a national or international level: but it is not
3. The periodical is or was the proceedings of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association: Unfortunately it is not
4. The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works: But it is not
None of it's source represent those. M.parvage (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has been expanded since its nomination, with sources quadrupled.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extensive article expansion and many sources added by @Vinegarymass911 - WP:Hey does apply. Note here that the significant expansion has shown the veritable lack of WP:before undertaken by the nominator. Also see WP:NMEDIA#2 have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history: a fair interpretation of significant history is being the most popular print newspaper in a major nation over a sustained period (and this is verified by WP:RS in the article). ResonantDistortion 12:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was expanded and now it is enough to keep. Mehedi Abedin 20:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article is now enough to keep.≈ Farhan  «Talk» 09:48, 20 June 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bangladesh_Pratidin&oldid=1161449253"