Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bikroy.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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Pyrusca (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bikroy.com

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

Not that notable in alot of ways. Pyrusca (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be well sourced. What's necessary is attention to promotional bias--I removed a trove of such edits, and will request page protection if they're restored. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The third most recognized internet site (and a top-20 website by traffic) in a country of 160 million people not-notable? I don't think so. The article satisfies WP:GNG, citing multiple, reliable, independent sources containing significant coverage: [1], [2], and [3]. A quick search returns plenty more: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11], for example. Time would be better spent improving the article rather than trying to delete it. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Per Worldbruce. Clean up, Yes must be cleaned up. Not notable? no it is easily notable per sources.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lots of third party news coverage can be found on Google news search. Specially in Bengali. - Mar11 (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Pyrusca: Sometimes the nominator can save everyone time by reconsidering a nomination that was made without a thorough enough WP:BEFORE. Withdrawing it would make a speedy keep possible. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, sometimes, someone else can do it as well. Pyrusca (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2016 (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.