Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postal orders of Bangladesh

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 due to lack of secondary sourcing and tainted origin. No prejudice against any editor in good standing creating an appropriately-sourced article on the subject. RL0919 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Postal orders of Bangladesh[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Created by a sockpuppet of a banned user in violation of their ban. WP:G5 was declined on the grounds that "other editors have worked on this article". Said work has consisted of category maintenance, link disambiguation/removal, capitalization fixes, and the deletion of one "word to watch". (As vital as such gnoming is, I would call it "no substantial edits by others".) The article has never cited a source (the external link doesn't mention Bangladesh or Pakistan), and I haven't found a reliable source to support any of the content. Worldbruce (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quick bit of research convinces me that everything stated in this article is misleading, or has zero informational content, or is a just plain trivial application to postal orders of things that are true in general. Getting rid of this and starting again (if possible) seems to me to be the correct course of action. Uncle G (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: unfortunately very little has been written and available online of postal orders in general. Some offline specialist books are available but hard to find. Describing this as misleading seems disingenuous as everything does seem true but is unsourced at the moment even if created by a sockpuppet. ww2censor (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2021 (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.