The Financial Express (Bangladesh): M.parvage ( talk ) 04:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The second largest English language daily in Bangladesh.   Widely cited, and has been discussed in scholarly literature.   Four additional sources have been added, and the article expanded somewhat.   Nominating editor has been warned about the need for WP:BEFORE searches before proposing deletion.  Oblivy ( talk ) 09:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment : @ Vinegarymass911 helpfully pointed to Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) , in the context of a deletion discussion for Bangladesh's largest daily newspaper here , also brought by @ M.parvage .  As an English-language newspaper with a focus on business and economics, Financial Express articles are widely cited by English-language academics both in Bangladesh and abroad.  That would satisfy condition #4 ("regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works").  I suggest the below source assessment table should be approached with skepticism (for example the suggestion that the Daily Star, which directly competes with the Financial Express, is not independent).  But that's just my view.  Oblivy ( talk ) 02:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I do an assessment of this article.  And I would like to remind Oblivy that, we should show respect to contributors.  You can acknowledge, not warn.  Source assessment table: prepared by User:m.parvage Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  Source 1 competitor's website; see WP:IIS Article is about Tipaimukh dam ✘ No Source 2 Own website ✘ No Source 3 see WP:IIS and expamples recognized newspaper not more than a event ✘ No Source 4 not directly and not even in detail, doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV ✘ No Source 5 Just a summary and news style but not pointing the subject in detail, doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV ✘ No Source 6 satisfied WP:NIS doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV ✘ No Source 7 a fictional and promotional content not more than a content maker not at all ✘ No Source 8 Own Website, WP:IIS about an editor ✘ 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 ) 10:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Seems to be based on non-RS based on the table, so not meeting notability.  I can't find anything extra, nor do I know what counts as reliable media in Bangladesh.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per @ Oblivy comment.  Widely cited newspaper.  ~ Moheen (keep talking) 07:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:NMEDIA - widely cited - a quick check on Google books confirms evidence on this.   Thoroughness of the nominators WP:before and thoroughness of the source assessment table - both could be much better.   For example source 5 is sigcov in a RS.  Resonant Dis tor tion 08:16, 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 M.parvage ( talk ) 07:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:NMEDIA per Resonant and Oblivy.  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 11:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: There seems to be a basic disagreement on the accuracy of the source table.   Much of the Keep arguments rest on the fact that this is the second largest English language daily in Bangladesh, if that's the case, then it should be easy to find supporting sources.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Expanded the article in my limited time.  Finding sources is more difficult due to the various newspapers of the same/similar name worldwide.  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 13:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – I have absolutely no idea why WP:NPERIODICAL and WP:NMEDIA are being so widely cited here, let alone why their contents are being wikilawyered over.  Unlike e.g. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC which document English Wikipedia notability guidelines, WP:NPERIODICAL and WP:NMEDIA are just WP:ESSAYs .  Perhaps pending a future WP:RFC on either of these becoming an official guideline(?), it stands that an entire deletion discussion shouldn't hinge on them.  Right now I'm seeing an absence of substantial coverage from reliable, independent sources needed to construct a substantial, reliable article.  TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NPERIODICAL and WP:NMEDIA are only essays.  They are, however, prominent and longstanding ones.  Their existence is an acknowledgement that in this subject area the GNG doesn't necessarily capture what is notable.  Different inclusion metrics are needed, even if the community has never been able to agree on exactly what they should be other than on a case by case basis.  Common sense tells us that the largest business newspaper in a country of 170 million people is likely to be noteworthy.  Wikipedia will be better for our readers and our editors if we give them at least basic information about a source widely cited by academics.  -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 17:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The article is fully sourced, and there are sources establishing its notability.  There is good reason to question the source analysis table above: Source 3 is a 300-word editorial from the company's main competitor entirely about the article subject, yet it is said to be neither independent nor significant coverage of the company Articles 4 and 5 are by scholars who selected the paper as a subject for scholarly analysis yet they are said to lack significant coverage.  I've just added another paper [58] which is even more in-depth.  With respect, saying that people advocating for consideration of WP:NPERIODICAL is Wikilawyering seems to get things backwards.  WP:NCORP says in the hatnote that the policy should be applied using common sense and that occasional exceptions may apply.  The many scholarly articles citing FE coverage as support for economic events having occurred shows its notability in a real-world sense even if the policy wouldn't strictly deem those sufficiently WP:SIRS .  In any event, as the foregoing paragraph shows, there is WP:SIRS coverage and in conjunction with the many independent sources that cite the paper's output there seems to be little reason to consider it non-notable.  Comment There's quite a bit of nonsense in the nominator's assessment of the sources.  For example, competitor The Daily Star (sources 1, 3, 6) is independent.  The Financial Express (sources 2 and 8), although not independent, is a reliable source for what it is cited for: the paper's language, publication frequency, place of publication, date publication commenced, and owner.  Also note that Oblivy and Vinegarymass911 subsequently improved the article, more than doubling the number of sources cited.  -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 16:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I disagree with the nominator's assessment of the two academic journal articles cited (sources 4 and 5).  They contain background information about the newspaper as well as analysis and comparison with other major Bangladeshi newspapers in terms of, respectively,  use of news agency content and news type in several dimensions.  That is significant coverage , and those sources count towards fulfilling WP:GNG .  A third academic journal article contains additional independent, reliable, and in-depth coverage, making it even clearer that the topic meets GNG.  [59] -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 17:28, 26 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