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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shabdaguchha[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable magazine. This article and the (auto)biography of its editor are promoted by several single purpose accounts. Notability is not established via reliable sources. Ragib (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, several references are provided from NyNews52.com. On checking the site, I just noticed that the site/magazine's editor is also the spouse of Shabdaguccha's publisher (who is listed as the advisor to editor of NyNews52.) [1] So, this is totally useless as a reference to establish the magazine's notability. --Ragib (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —œ ^™ 12:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sabdhaguchha is the first literary Web Magazine in Bengali Language. This Magazine has already been observed its 12+ years publications. I disagree with this User. Shabdaguchha has enough role in Bengali poetry and there are enough scope to develope this page as a standard one. There are several reliable sources other than NyNews52. This objection may be an intentional one or not impartial. so I need some other users who are not from Bangladesh or Bengali spoken.I believe these talks are bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auronee (talk • contribs) 23:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, what "bias" do you see to preclude Bengali speakers? In fact, Bengali speaking Wikipedians are more suitable to opine on the non-notability of the magazine. :) --Ragib (talk)!~

ROFL! if you have 12+ publication history(!) then sachalayatan and somweherein both have millions of readers and they are nourishing Bengali literature and they need to be in Wikipedia before Sabdhaguchha. Some of the bloggers shall also have their name in Wiki.

You need(!) non-Bengali or non-Bangladeshi to opine on a matter that is in the scope of Bengali people? Ironically I've noticed many experienced editors to seek (and prefer) opinion from Bengali people on suitable regards. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 05:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morever, Three or more reference is deleted by these users. It's really indicates something intentional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auronee (talk • contribs) 23:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You added a wikipedia article as a "reference". That is not. You added several yahoo group messages as well. Forum emails are not reference for anything. --Ragib (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alas! from when an Wikipedia article can be a reference? Wikipedia articles are best suited to be referred in see also section (if relevant). And Forum!? I think Auronee is not kidding with us. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 05:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A couple of mentions in the passing, and a number of self-references. Sorry, it doesn't meet WP:NOTE. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because:

– Very few knows about this claimed important Shabdaguchha and for Bengali Literature I did not find it to be a well-acclaimed work.

– Wikipedia accounts notability and notability of Sabdaguccha is not evident

– All related articles or mentioned text in Wikipedia are by few Single Purpose Editors

– All references are either Primary source or not reliable

no reason to keep this article in Wikipedia now. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 04:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and NafSadh. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 06:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per WP:N. This article seems to me an indirect self-promoting approach of the author himself. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 10:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm forced to agree with the above; the coverage simply isn't there to justify an article at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:55, 16 May 2011 (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.