Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choruipatra Rakkhagar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Choruipatra Rakkhagar[edit]
- Choruipatra Rakkhagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non Notable "library" of small magazines. Little or no coverage. WormTT 12:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Two major problems. The only source cited in the article is the subject of the article itself (the latest published edition). Image supplied in the article is stated to be an advertisement for the subject of the article. Existence of publications and advertisement for publications are not sufficient to independently establish notability; possible spam. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant delete. I suspect there may well be some offline sources on this subject but I cannot search for them (and I don't have the language skills). However, we have to judge the article as it stands, and lacking those sources it doesn't meet notability requirements. bobrayner (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant delete for me too. This has no way of meeting our notability criteria, as it stands now. It looks like a specialty library covering a niche area in bengali literature and these things dont get the mainstream newspaper coverage they rightly deserve.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2011 (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.