This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I am challenging the PROD rationale, it is a notable secondary newspaper of Bangladesh. We have an essay WP:INDAFD. It is mainly written for Indian articles, but, applicable here too. Also note, the article was created by a sock, which might be a reason to delete. But, PROD contested. You may wish to take it to AFD. --Tito☸Dutta 22:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC) @Jackmcbarn:Tito☸Dutta 22:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Though it might be notable, as it stands now, it doesn't appear notable. If that can be fixed, the article can be kept. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
@Jackmcbarn:, you should not nominate an article for deletion (specially when your concern is "notability") only on the basis of condition of the current version. Consider following WP:BEFORE. I don't think I am going to make much change in the article. I'll try to show it passes #1, #2, #4 of Newspaper notability requirements. And that is more an AFD argument. But, if you take it to AFD, actually I have to repeat my arguments there. --Tito☸Dutta 23:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
If you think you can make it meet those criteria, go ahead and remove the PROD and do so. I'll check back in a few days to see if it still merits deletion, and if so, I'll AfD it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
@Jackmcbarn: yes, you are right, actually I should have removed the template. But, I generally prefer removing templates myself and allow others to discuss. . --Tito☸Dutta 23:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
. --Tito☸Dutta 23:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)