Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-imperialism solidarity day

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. More references have been found since the creation of this AfD. It is simply wasting time by leaving it up, as it's been relisted twice. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-imperialism solidarity day[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not prove notability. ~~No indication this is a real event,~~ googling brings up very little results, with the only result under the news option being an article from the "dailyobserverbd". Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment Nomination seems to contradict itself, saying "No indication this is a real event" and yet citing a news story, in one of Bangladesh's dozen or so English-language newspapers, that covers the observance of "the 44th Anti-Imperialism Solidarity day". Examples of coverage in other years and newspapers are: [1][2][3]. There seems little doubt that the event is "real" as opposed to something from fiction, fake news, or a hoax. Whether it should be covered in a stand alone article, or is no more notable than "National Frozen Yogurt Day" is another question. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for the contradiction, that was my mistake. It's a real event but notability is not obvious. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tentative keep given that this article in brand new, and the three sources suggest that it might be a significant day. I recommend we put the tag "no sources". Give those who created a chance to improve it and add the above or any other better sources, and editors a chance to decide whether the above sources are significant or not. Then revisit in 3-6 months to see if it is worth saving. I have seen some articles with no sources that are, in fact, very significant. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a new nearly unsourced article making grand claims about a 44-year-old holiday. Kudos to User:Worldbruce for finding 3 more sources, it's more than I could do. (It may be that the holiday has gone under different names) However, all we have is a article lacking sources that reads like an WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:PROMO for a recurring (not clear that it's been held every year) political demonstration. No evidence of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep I also believe that this article may be notable. However, I sincerely doubt that it will ever be sourced by anyone. I wish that Wikipedia would set a time limit on unsourced articles (maybe a year) that would automatically bring it up for deletion if nothing is done. The current system only allows crappy articles to stay posted forever. Rogermx (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Sources added and improved.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Change Tentative Keep to Keep - Great job on rehabbing this article and the sources. Glad to be proven wrong by some good editors. Rogermx (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2017 (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.