The Business Standard: M.parvage ( talk ) 11:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems to be cited a lot, but I found no sigcov.  Carpimaps talk to me!  11:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For a periodical, being widely cited is a valid criteria for being likely notable per both WP:NNEWSPAPER Criteria#4 and WP:NMEDIA .  Resonant Dis tor tion 10:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Following up on comment by Carpimaps ( talk · contribs ) - a quick check on Google Books & Scholar does indicate evidence of this publication being widely cited - which fulfils both WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:NMEDIA .   Article however does need improvement and better sourcing.  Resonant Dis tor tion 09:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:NMEDIA based on how widely cited the newspaper is.  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 11:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to WP:NNEWSPAPER , even if a periodical is notable, it may not be appropriate to have a Wikipedia article about it if there are no reliable, independent sources that can be used to verify the information about the periodical.  See WP:V Thanks.  M.parvage ( talk ) 06:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The entire article is promotional.  Please see my assessment.  Source assessment table: prepared by User:m.parvage Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  Source 1 Company Website website; see WP:IIS ?  ?  ✘ No Source 2 Research on Covid 19 But not the topic Not at all, except for some references ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  M.parvage ( talk ) 06:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source 2 assessment is stated as " Not at all, except for some references "?   That is the most egregious interpretation of a source I have seen.  Source 2 is clearly independent and clearly an in-depth analysis of the The Business Standard' s reporting during Covid.   There is also no evidence of a WP:Before given by the nominator.  The subject is widely cited as per the ! votes - a quick google verifies this.  Resonant Dis tor tion 07:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per ResonantDistortion.  (I would have endorsed a merge to List of newspapers in Bangladesh , but for some unfortunate reason that list appears to be restricted to bluelinks, so is not a viable merge target.)  I am grateful for M.parvage's source assessment, but I would have to join ResonantDistortion in disagreeing with the assessment of Source 2, which indeed seems to be quite in-depth and appears to be reliable and independent.  There isn't as much to work with here as one would like (perhaps there are more sources in Bengali?), but this does appear to probably meet at least WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals .  (That's one of two dueling essays on the subject; I think a close reading of NNEWSPAPER will show that that essay's standard is not met, if it matters.)  At any rate, in my opinion, newspapers belong in a similar bucket to populated places, in that they represent a kind of encyclopedic background knowledge that warrants tipping the scales toward inclusion even when the sources available are (as they seem to be here) a bit sparse, because even a sparse article provides important value to readers and editors.  (I am fond of the term "ecosystem services" for the added value that such articles provide in the overall web of coverage.)  In addition, subject to the limitations of WP:V , I think it is also worth tipping the scales against cavalier deletions that aggravate Wikipedia's problems with systemic bias.  All that said, there are two things that give me pause: (1) it seems difficult, at scale, to confidently separate citations for The Business Standard from citations for the Business Standard , and (2) this newspaper is not mentioned in List of newspapers in Bangladesh , which seems peculiar but may be due to the newspaper's fairly recent founding (possibly 2018?).  -- Visviva ( talk ) 05:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've expanded the article with another academic source that contains significant analysis of the newspaper. [26] I also agree with all the points that ResonantDistortion, Vinegarymass911, and Visviva have already made here in favor of keeping. -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 14:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, article could use more expansion and continued development though.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 02:14, 27 June 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: keep