Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BenGAYliz

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BenGAYliz

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

Unnotable dating site, no reliable sources found Zeus^u|c 15:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, and I cannot find any reliable sources either Nz101 - Talk :: Contribs 04:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable because it is the first such site, also reliable sources are provided. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic. Agyle (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am bengali and depend on the wikipedia for information and references. bengayliz is actually good resource for the Bangladeshi people. Deletion the page not be good idea i think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.47.123 (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2014

This isn't a question about whether it is good or useful, but whether independent sources like newspapers provide information about the site. Agyle (talk) 00:05, 5 June 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sources establish the subject's notability. DJAMP4444 (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:RELIABLESOURCES. DJAMP4444 (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability whatsoever, I think both editors above need to read WP:RELIABLESOURCES before !voting per it!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. While the website may be important to the community it serves, it has received virtually no attention in independent published sources; a caption in a photo in PinkPaper.com is all that can be cited, and that does not rise to the requirement of "multiple sources" with "significant coverage" described in Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Also, the photo caption seems to be wrong about the site launching in December 2008; there is a book that cites a 2007 BenGAYliz article (search for "bengayliz" in books.google.com), and blog posts and other non-reliable web sources refer to BenGAYliz before then. Agyle (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although it's a social networking site, it has always been a non profitable site and have been serving for the small minority community that is a community within a minority community it self (meaning Bangladesh being a prominently a Islamic country strictly abided by Bangladeshi penal code "section 377", making homosexuality illegal). Though it's based in UK, the website itself is a way of protesting for the legalisation of homosexuality in Bangladesh, and not only that but people do gain access to various source of information such as where to find relevant help with regards to sexual health, health centres, coping with homophobia and dealing with stress etc caused by dealing with sexuality, all of which can be of great helping sources regardless of sexual orientation. benGAYliz has been used as source of reference in many newspapers, Wordpress blogs, academic literature as well as many LGBT websites. So yes it is a note able source which can be verified if searched in Google by typing "bengayliz". LGBTIBANGLADESH 15:29, 7 June 2014 — LGBTIBANGLADESH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

‎

LGBTIBANGLADESH, this decision is going to hinge only on independent coverage in published sources like newspapers and academic literature; Wordpress blogs and community websites are generally not considered "reliable sources" on Wikipedia (see WP:RS), and the website's importance, purpose, and usefulness have no bearing on this question of notability (which again, depends on independent coverage of the topic). I searched fairly extensively for English-language sources using Google and came up with very little; if you can link any newspaper or academic articles with significant (or even modest) coverage about the website, in any language, please link them here, so that people can consider them. Agyle (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per Davey2010 1292simon (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG/NWEB. Happy to change my vote if more sources emerge. As Agyle said, those arguing that this is a valuable resource should keep in mind that reliable sources in any language can help to keep the article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (1)There are two references both kosher per wp:rs, (2) the site is notable because it is the first such site in the kingdom. (3) The caption isn't wrong the launch succeeded the site's creation by some years. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That they are reliable sources (i.e. meet WP:RS) doesn't mean the subject's presence in them constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources." It's the "significant coverage" in question here. One source just has it in a long list and the other mentions something important, but does so only briefly in a photo caption. I agree being the first such site is important, but we need to be more to go on. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with the fact that the coverage isn't significant, the site caters to a minority within a minority, it was taken cognisance of by an official programme. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer: Please consider more deeply than the ratio of keep and delete opinions. The two cited sources that mention the subject are extremely deficient, and the arguments in favor of keeping never address the lack of significant reliable source coverage. Agyle (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2014 (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.