Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bdmorning.com

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 delete. Sam Walton (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bdmorning.com[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP with only primary sources. I prodded it for having an unclear Alexa rank and "almost 3.7M likes on their Facebook page" as its only assertions of significance; the creator's response was to just delete those claims. McGeddon (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam. Peridon (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per WP:G11. Highly promotional. --Non-Dropframe _talk 12:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is hilariously self-promoting. Should be deleted. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete:Article should have speedily deleted under the criteria of G11 as it is promotional. Ayub407^talk 16:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have said it needed to be "fundamentally" rewritten, it's only a few peacock sentences that would have to be cut. --McGeddon (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of have to disagree. If you removed all of the promotional and unverified content, you'd probably lose more than half the prose. --Non-Dropframe _talk 16:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You think? It's worth knowing if I made the wrong call here, for future reference. The only puff lines I can see were "able to won the hearts and believe of the people of Bangladesh", "huge response from the people of Bangladesh" and "very impressive for a news paper which is only 8 months old", which could easily just be blanked (and I cut the third one after raising the AfD). There are some bold claims which perhaps aren't true ("country's leading English language [...] website"), but that's more or less the tone we'd use if it were true and sourced. --McGeddon (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go so far as to say you're wrong -- our disagreement is a very small one. Like I said, between the promotional material and the unsourced (probably untrue) material, there just isn't much to salvage which is why I went with speedy rather than just merely deletion. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This article is backed by primary source only, with no proof of credibility and obviously promotional. --nafSadh did say 14:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is truly terrible, but before a deletion happened, I'd like to see a non-Western person vouch for the notability or non-notability of the topic, since article style/content is not the sole determinant for deletion. Not being Bangladeshi, I don't feel equipped to say.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality or origin of editors shall not matter in Wikipedia, but FYI I'm from Bangladesh and I don't think this is a notable topic. --nafSadh did say 16:46, 7 October 2015 (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.