Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladeshi Cyclists

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. postdlf (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi Cyclists[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Unremarkable organization and misinterpretation of reference source. Such as declaring blogs and newsblogs as international news to prove the organization's notability. Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Depth_of_coverage and Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Independence_of_sources Rahat | Message 16:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is evidence that the group has been written up in various articles in the national press, and that it passes WP:GNG. It may be that some of the claims made about the organisation are exaggerated, I am not in a position to say, but these are matters for normal editing if so. It is not a requirement that all references should be independent of the subject. --AJHingston (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic requires language specific changes but it should be part of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokito.bd (talk • contribs) 11:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC) — Alokito.bd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - This topic passes Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Also, WP:NEWSBLOGs (e.g. [5]) are acceptable as news sources in Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic requires language specific changes but it should be part of Wikipedia. Blog references as well as the media coverage links provided in the article are acceptable drabiralam^(talk) 06:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC) — drabiralam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - The topic requires language specific changes but it should be part of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The sorcerer (talk • contribs) 10:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC) — The sorcerer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - The topic requires language specific changes but the topic definitely deserves to be a part of Wikipedia considering the number of times it has been on the national and international media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridwanq (talk • contribs) 11:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC) — Ridwanq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reference about the Guardian has been removed from the National and International Media section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridwanq (talk • contribs) 11:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC) — Ridwanq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Dear Ridwanq, Providing a link of a Blog you can't tell that news of your organization has been published in international news media like The Guardian. - Rahat | Message 17:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references present in the article are sufficient to demonstrate that WP:ORG is met. (Came here from COIN.) SmartSE (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These links fall under valid news media coverage and comply with WP:ORG. BBC Bangla[6], Daily Prothom Alo[7],[8], [9], Daily Ittefaq - [10], Bangla News 24[11][12],ATN News Young Night[13],[14],Somoy Television[15],[16],[17],The New Age [18], The Daily Star[19], Daily Prime[20], Kaler Kontho[21], The New Age [22][23][24], Independent Television[25], Financial Express[26], Channel 24 News[27], Daily Samakal[28], The Daily Star[29], signed by Drabiralam (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The one article I found Bangladeshi Cyclists With Message For World Peace is from 2004 and is not about "the group initiated by Mozammel Haque with his few friends on May, 2011" as "Bangladeshi Cyclists". This article, cited above, refers to "BDCyclists", so I think we may have an article name issue. This recent version of the article seems to use the source information in a promotional way or in a way to promote the groups activities. The editors of the article should review WP:NOTPROMOTION. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:15, 17 October 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.