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 Keep (non admin close). Dusti^{talk to me} 17:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali Wikipedia[edit]

I'm nominating Bengali Wikipedia because it is simply not notable enough to be included- I see no references, only one internal link (to the site itself), which doesn't satisfy our CFI. Teh Rote (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If Samogitian Wikipedia and Quechua Wikipedia are notable, then Bengali Wikipedia certainly is. Furthermore, by my count there are articles on 42 other Wikipedias that have no references; do you intend to delete them all? It's not as though sources were that hard to find (WP:SOFIXIT), considering all the WP editions that 'do' have sources. (Unless you are opposed to Metawiki sources, or non-English ones.) Oh, and the same goes for Albanian Wikipedia, above. Anturiaethwr (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, see this discussion. I'm not sure whether it's relevant or not, but it could be. Anturiaethwr (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I'm sure it would be a trivial task to find sources for this in the native language. The hard would be to find a translator. The proper thing to do in this case would have been to tag it for citations for at least a few months before bringing it here to give opportunity for improvement. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The article has been without citations since its inception. I think that's long enough. Besides, if it is so easy to find sources for this, why hasn't it been done yet?
  • I quote from Wikipedia:Notability (web):
  • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. I don't see any.
  • The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. The only award I can make out from this article is the rank in the list of Wikipedias, and that doesn't classify as "independant".
  • The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Respected and independent? Maybe a yes, but 2/3 isn't good enough. Our policy is clear, there is simply no reason to keep this. Teh Rote (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. References in reliable sources almost certainly exist. I haven't added any because I don't read Bengali. Try searching for Wikipedia's name in Bengali on the site of any large Bengali-language newspaper and you should find several references. --Eastmain (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Many references exist in local media. In fact, a TV channel in Bangladesh is currently regular weekly features "From Bengali Wikipedia" as a 5 minute episode. Daily Jai Jai Din, Daily Prothom Alo, Daily Ittefaq have all run feature articles on Bengali Wikipedia. Following are some references:

• Bengali Wikipedia Crosses 10,000 articles, news item syndicated into Yahoo news in 2006.
• Mukto Bisshokosh, Daily Prothom Alo. Dec 2006
• Bangla Bhashar Itibritto Jante 5Ti website (5 websites dedicated to Bengali language]. Feb 2007
• Daily Prothom Alo, March 31, 2006
• "বাংলা ভাষা, বাংলা একাডেমী, উইকিপিডিয়া এবং আমাদের সন্তানেরা", Daily Jai Jai Din, Feb 21, 2008
• Prothom Alo Computer Protidin, Feb 21, 2008

These are the refs, non-trivial media mentions the nominator was looking for, and which I could come up off the top of my head. More can be provided if required. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Changing to strong keep per the introduction of sources. Notability seems well asserted at this point. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wikipedia or List of Wikipedias 70.55.84.42 (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2008 (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.