Deletion of Dhaka Paranormal Society (2nd nomination)

Comment: The two references given show significant coverage by the media agencies Dhaka Tribune(http://www.dhakatribune.com/tmag/2013/oct/28/darkened-room) and The Independent (Bangladesh)(http://www.theindependentbd.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=165153:club-review&catid=177:young-a-independent&Itemid=215). Looks notable to me per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: Taking a look at the article I only see two references - one from Dhaka Tribune, the other from The Independent. While these may be major news agencies, the publisher of a reference does not give the source inherent depth of coverage, which is one of the things we look for in citations and sources. See  – the Dhaka Tribune's interview falls over the criterion for ''quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources'', while the Independent's club review falls under ''routine restaurant reviews'' (they're both routines reviews). A web search would indicate a lack of verifiable, independent, reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGDEPTH)

Comment: The topic does not pass  because it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. It is highly questionable that the ''Dhaka Tribune'' is a reliable source. I am familiar with Dhaka and Bangladesh (having lived in the country), and the publications there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I am satisfied with the Dhaka Tribune article alone as a source meeting . It could be better integrated into the article to help the article more definitively satisfy , but I feel that notability is already established
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: Simply non-notable. The group has not got sufficient coverage in the media, etc. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)