Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bdlive24.com

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. Michig (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bdlive24.com

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

No sign of significance. More like Advertisement of the site. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changing to delete, per Rahat, for lack of RS. Keep – for now. The site itself looks slick and well produced, which would seem to indicate a significant number of users. I was struck by the claim that it has reporters in the field, which might indicate that it would qualify under WP:NMEDIA as a national news site. A couple of claims were recently tagged for verification, but the article itself has never been tagged for sources or notability. So I would recommend tagging it for those things and leaving it for a year of so. If it hasn't been improved by that time it can be relisted at AfD. The sources for notability might be in languages other than English. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 15:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 21:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No any source that can prove its significance. Created to promote the subject with unverifiable info and non-independent sores. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 14:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – You have the advantage over me that you can read it. Did you look for reliable sources and fail to find any? In that case I would happy to change my !vote. Especially the "positive acclamation from the critics" claims need to be verified. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have searched for reliable sources but failed. You can also try. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment – OK, thanks. I did try in English and didn't find any, so I'm changing my !vote to delete. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2015 (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.