Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chattagram mancha
- 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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 06:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Chattagram mancha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Leela Bratee 19:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3) and fails WP:N and WP:V. --Leela Bratee (talk • contributions • email) 20:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - One of the major dailies of Chittagong. The government portal of Chittagong District ranks it 3rd.--Zayeem (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Renamed Daily Bir Chattagram Mancha per WP:Title. Added fresh sources to address, WP:V ,or verification issues. Crtew (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - With new references added and points about rank in Chittagong and attacks on its journalists, the current Asia newspaper stub satisfies minimal WP:N and basic WP:V. The page List of newspapers in Bangladesh includes Chittagong in its description as it is an urban center and the newspaper fits there. The page is not an orphan. Crtew (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article is fine, with good references. Why delete? Clearly passes WP:N Faizan 17:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, good referencing and good amount of potential of additional other secondary source coverage here. — Cirt (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because improvements meet GNG and V. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2013 (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.