Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media and Development Communication

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 Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media and Development Communication

Media and Development Communication (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Only a couple of Bangladeshi private universities of dubious academic credibility offer the course, and only a couple of books written by non-notable Bangladeshi authors are available on the subject. Not good enough for a Wikipedia entry. Aditya Kabir 16:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep: How do you know that couple of Universities in Bangladesh, offer the course? And How do you know it's only written by Bnagladeshi authors? It's not the topic of some authors. It's related to Mass media and Mass communication as well as other media related topic. --NAHID 10:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Attacking me does not increase any value of the article entry. Anything written on any media related subject doesn't increase its value either. Aditya Kabir 15:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No refs of substance - no evidence of notability NBeale 07:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 01:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs more info, but it notable enough and it salvageable. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, NN, fails WP:ATT. A directed Google search (minus Wiki mirrors and the single university in Bangladesh offering this as a major) shows exactly 39 hits. Despite Nahid's assertion, it is not up to us to prove that the article isn't notable or to provide sources. It's up to the creator and interested editors to prove that it is. RGTraynor 15:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Even reputable academic institutions make up vogue department or major names, and only few of them become standard. This is not yet one of them.DGG 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yeah ... I bet it looks a lot cooler on the letterhead to be a "Professor of Media and Development Communication Sciences" than a mere journalism professor. RGTraynor 01:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ha ha ha ha! That was a good one. Aditya Kabir 12:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Three references (from UK, US, and Bangladesh); fair number google hits. Not a super important article, but it meets the criteria for inclusion. A fine stub. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Would you try searching for my name with Google? "Aditya Kabir" (quote included) returns 1,010 finds, as opposed to 109 finds for "Media and Development Communication". And, I am cited on Websites from US, UK, Australia, India and Bangladesh (not including the hits returned from Wikipedia, Uncyclopedia or mirror sites), and that excludes the sites in vernacular scripts (i.e. Bengali and Hindi scripts). So, what would you suggest? May be I am notable enough have my own Wikipedia stub. Or, may be you shall rethink that an academic discipline worth an encyclopedic entry would have more presence in this world. The subject is question is hardly a discipline, but a rather fancy name for a journalism or media course. Not worth the entry. Aditya Kabir 07:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
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.