Daily Desh Rupantor: 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 12:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Bangladesh .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At a very quick first glance, the sources in the article appear to be news coverage.  Why do you believe they should not count, DreamRimmer ?  {{u| Sdkb }} talk 15:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Absurd Nominating this article for deletion is highly inappropriate.  DreamRimmer You seem unable to recognize this newspaper.  Desh Rupantor is a top leading newspaper establishment in Bangladesh.  This article carries many strong independent sources.  I will clarify by showing more references as proof.  See this article 1 from BBC Bangla .  See this 2 from The Daily Star (Bangladesh) .  See this 3 from Government of Bangladesh.  See also 4 from Prothom Alo .  GNG has been fulfilling since long ago.  Notability for company exists from the start.  Ontor22 ( talk ) 22:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This newspaper does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.  Most of the provided sources focus on Amit Habib, who has served as the chief editor of this newspaper.  Amit Habib was previously the editor of Kaler Kantho .  Ref 1: This source solely pertains to Amit Habib Ref 2: No significant coverage Ref 3: No significant coverage Ref 4: This is a press release Ref 5: Mostly consists of quotes (invalid URL) Ref 6: Amit Habib is the main subject; no SIGCOV for Daily Desh Rupantor Ref 7: No significant coverage Ref 8: No significant coverage How does being listed on a government website meet the criteria for notability?  Registration is required for every newspaper in each country, and the list of registered newspapers is made public on the website.  Being listed on a government website might indicate the newspaper's legal status, but it does not satisfy GNG.  Overall, all references fail to meet GNG.  Hope this helps @ Sdkb 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 02:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ontor22 , You're welcome to share your opinion and highlight the importance of the subject here, but please refrain from criticizing me.  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 02:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  17:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BEFORE were not performed at the time of induction of AFD.  I have added more sources now which creates an infrastructure.  There are also independent sources including primary and secondary.  All sources are top level news sources, linked to their articles to clarify.  The article should be reviewed before any comment or action is taken under Afd.  Not the opinions of others.  Everything is clear by filling WP:NCORP , WP:N .  Ontor22 ( talk ) 12:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ontor22 ,  Even after WP:BEFORE , nothing was found to establish the notability of this topic, and please avoid making judgments based solely on your own opinion.  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 16:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is unfortunate if the notability and sources of the article of your eyes are not caught.  If so, you should bring more news company's articles under Afd because they are showing less notability than it.  Not my opinion, To consider said to do as per WP:AFDEQ Ontor22 ( talk ) 05:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This article has been expanded and improved sources have been added since AFD was added.  Ontor22 ( talk ) 04:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The review of the references by DreamRimmer shows that the paper is basically mentioned along with references about the editor.  Fails WP:GNG .  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 06:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if an editor can review sources added by Ontor22 and whether or not they can establish notability.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete because it fails WP:GNG , Wikipedia:Notability (media) , and Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) .  There is only one article about it of any depth.  [17] Sadly the information in it comes from Desh Rupantor , without any independent analysis, interpretation, or evaluation.  The other coverage generally falls into four categories: (1) first anniversary party, (2) photographer who got into a scuffle during the ordinary course of business, (3) death (by stroke) of editor, (4) routine legal proceeding against newspaper that was dismissed as baseless.  In each case multiple media outlets published essentially the same story, making it appear that there are more distinct sources than there actually are.  In each article the depth of information about the newspaper is trivial.  There is no suitable redirect target - no article about parent company Rupayan Group , and List of newspapers in Bangladesh is explicitly restricted to notable newspapers.  Deletion is not a disparagement of the newspaper's quality or editor Ontor22's hard work.  It is a legitimate newspaper.  It is only a few years old, and in time it may become notable.  However, unsourced exaggeration in the article and this discussion like "most read newspaper" and "top leading newspaper" is unhelpful.  -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 05:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Added new references and removed word "most read" newspaper in BD. Ontor22 ( talk ) 14:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Worldbruce's analysis. -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 22:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ref added after Worldbruce's analysis.  This wasn't an accurate analysis at all.  It feels like canvassing when some specific editors presentation of same arguments on almost AFD over and over again.  Ontor22 ( talk ) 04:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even though you added 3 more refs, i don't think it passes WP:GNG .  Worldbruce's analysis still valid.  আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 17:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Dreamrimmer and Worldbruce's analysis.  Fails GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 04:16, 1 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete