Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dehorokkhi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Courcelles 00:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dehorokkhi[edit]
- Dehorokkhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
the description is too much poor, no plot has been included, references and links are either too weak or not enough to give proper information Md31sabbir (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 28. Snotbot t • c » 14:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 14:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and close per improvements made by User:Zayeem. Thank you. To the nominator, when we have tags that may be used to bring attention to content issues of improvable articles, we do not use AFD to force cleanup. As an aside, I am worried about this nominator's attention toward improvable Bangladesh-related topics. Stub articles are fine. Content issues make a poor deletion rationale. Notability need not be world-wide. Notable even if only to Bangldesh through Bangladeshi sources is perfectly fine. Even if a sources are non-English, that does not mean they are unsuitable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:47, 6 May 2013 (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.