Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rokeya Lita

Source: 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  11:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rokeya Lita

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

Failed

(talk) 14:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 14:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 14:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep Sure looks like
WP:BASIC is met to me, e.g., by the Independent reference and [1]. --joe deckertalk 14:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: Online news portal is not highly reliable source, even they have no printed version. Alongside subject does not passed basic criteria.
(talk) 19:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Independent references are present. I think that the article can be kept. Zombalu (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sock !vote above has been struck.
Lepricavark (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:19, 7 February 2017 (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.