Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badhan (blood donor organization)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Badhan (blood donor organization)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

None of the sources are independent so this fails GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 07:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or Rename to "Blood donation in Bangladesh". This is an extremely important topic, but there is a lot more information available than belongs under the banner of this organization's name. The claim that the page violates GNG is false, as the Daily Star article (the paper's main page is here) that is a major source is not affiliated with the organization. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The star article is written by someone who is described as (The writer is enrolled in the BBA program of Accounting & Information Systems, University of Dhaka) Personally that's not independant enough for a major paper and, in any event, you need 2 reliable sources to meet N. Spartaz Humbug! 03:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, there is no statement that this student is affiliated in any way with Badhan, they are writing material about Dhaka University, in English, for a major newspaper. Their interest should be assumed to be that of a journalist unless there is evidence to the contrary. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that some latitude needs to be given for a country where English is not the primary language. Notability could be huge in Bengali-language sources, but most of us would be unable to read it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but if you wanted to ask WikiProject Bangladesh to look out for some sources, I suspect that it would be reasonable to relist this to give them more time to find them. Spartaz Humbug! 18:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, I am forbidden to ask a wikiproject for input because that would fall under the heading of "canvassing". In any case, it is a rather new project and doesn't seem to have a history of people discussing particular pages. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sminthopsis84, a neutrally worded notice on a relevant Wikiproject (i.e. a project which specifically covers the topic) is considered a reasonable request for knowledgeable input on a discussion. It is not canvassing. You may wish to see WP:CANVAS for how to make an appropriate message. — Cactus Writer (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I hadn't found that page. I think that somewhere deep in the tangle of wikipedia policies is a link to canvassing that would be much improved by linking to that page instead, but I can't find it now. Something to keep in the back of the mind. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —  Cactus Writer (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —  Cactus Writer (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: for reasons given above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Trevj (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relist comment I've notifited the two WikiProjects listed on the article talk page. This isn't classed as canvassing, as long as it's worded neutrally. It's even recommended as part of the nomination process. -- Trevj (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that may help. The Bangladesh project officially posts discussion on a separate noticeboard page, but participants might not have seen this matter posted there. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete While I agree with Sminthopsis84 that "Blood donation in Bangladesh" would be a notable article, this specific article fails WP:ORG. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So do you have an objection to renaming the article? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just renaming the article wouldn't make sense – you'd also have to completely rewrite it, so the end result would be... a different article. If you want to write an article on blood donation in Bangladesh, go ahead, but there's no reason to turn this article into that one. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I would love to see an article called "blood donation in Bangladesh" created from some of the sources here but this particular organization does not meet notability criteria.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   16:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in the hope of salvaging something before the original text became unavailable for building on, I've set up a trial version at that name, to see if it is acceptable. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2012 (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.