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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bainu (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

There is a lack of more references,I can't find any more reports about this website.Maybe this content is not notable，and I found that the software can still be downloaded and used normally, which is inconsistent with the description in the entry. It is possible that the reference is fake news. Babaibiaobin (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or speedy keep per CSK#3: There is plenty of media coverage, with the best being an article from The Paper that documents and analyzes the website's development and growth,[1] as well as an academic article "Linguistic purism as resistance to colonization" by Gegentuul Baioud in the peer-reviewed journal Journal of Sociolinguistics.[2] The blockade of the website was also widely reported by media outlets, such as The Times,[3] Voice of America,[4] The Economist,[5] Deutsche Welle,[6] The Sydney Morning Herald,[7] etc, all of which are reliable sources. Even pro-Beijing newspapers like Oriental Daily News and HK01 reported on the incident,[8][9] as did Human Rights Watch.[10][11] The nom provided no proof or sources that suggested otherwise aside from asserting they are able to assess the site, which is original research. Even if there are indeed discrepancies among the sources, this has nothing to do with notability and does not constitute a valid reason to file for an article's deletion. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 09:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the excellent research done and arguments provided by Prince of Erebor. And It is possible that the reference is fake news: ...VOA is listed as reliable on WP:RSP, so that argument shouldn't be considered at all. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 14:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Prince of Erebor. Madeleine (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Thank you for your detailed research, Prince of Erebor (talk · contribs). The sources you found show that Bainu passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2025 (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.