Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bamyan Media


 * 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. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Bamyan Media

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

not yet notable. As the article itself says, "early-stage social entrepreneur"  DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  04:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article basically self claims non-notability, per nom. All references are either blogs, routine, or trivial.  NN.  Delete. Fieari (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and I wish the PROD had been kept because I believe it was kept as a safety measure in case it was removed, then the AfD was still open. All in all, the nomination here is exact in that none of this is both establishing a convincing substantial and then a non-PR article. SwisterTwister   talk  17:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Once an article goes to AfD, the Proposed Deletion process becomes invalid and the PROD template must be removed. Safiel (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the reasons given above. Safiel (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PROMO; a vanity page only with no indications of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The contributor of the article asked me to reconsider, reminding me that there are sources. I consider the NYT source perhaps sufficient to contribute to the notability of the promoter, but not of this project. I consider overall the inclusion of details about the individual projects so inappropriate to an encyclopedia as to constitute promotionalism" both promotional intent and promotional writing. (in fact, I consider their inclusion in the NYT story also as promotionalism--there is no source whatsoever, even the most eminent newspapers, that is free from the temptation to write promotional material or advertorials. We have to judge the reliability of a source in context by actually considering what it says and how it is written.). Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Clear promotionalism is an equally good reason.    DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * CommentThank you for your close reading of this article. We have deleted some of the details about some of the individual projects mentioned above as "promotional" and removed several adjectives (such as "notable") to change the tone of the writing. However, since I'm new to Wikipedia I would appreciate some further guidance on specifically what points or what sentences are viewed as promotional. For example, should we not mention audience numbers, the amount of cash in prizes? Should we not mention who won these competitions and what they won for? These are facts that might interest someone curious about the mechanism of this development strategy, but maybe they make the article too promotional. Is the article too long on the whole? If we simply shortened it, would it be viewed as less promotional? I added the section on the White House conference on Global Development, which occurred after the original article was written. I though this might bolster the "notability" of Bamyan Media, but it seems to me that demonstrating "notability" does risk appearing overly promotional. Is this a contradiction in Wikipedia editorial policies that most current organizations face? You will also see that I've added an academic research reference pertaining to this project. I believe one of the reviewers mentioned academic research as a far more qualified "source" than the media. In short, we have done our best to make this article an objective description of the work that Bamyan Media does. It does seem logical that an organization that is receiving significant financial support from the US State Department in the interest of promoting its “soft diplomacy” objectives, is worthy of mention in Wikipedia. That way taxpayers can see how their money is being spent, potential collaborators and government employees can read about an organization they may be working with. The fact that Bamyan Media is trying to solve a real world problem, is not and should not be viewed as “promotional” of and in itself. That is simply a fact of the organization's mission. One last point: I see that there is no category page in Wikipedia for "international development" which seems a bit odd. This whole area of activity is somewhat underdeveloped in Wikipedia, which may partially explain reviewers' lack of familiarity with these types of organizations. In fact there are hundreds of them, they perform an important role in US diplomacy, and their descriptions do by definition invoke a type of do gooder language. Lilifrancklyn (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilifrancklyn (talk • contribs) 14:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We're an encyclopedia, not a guide to charities. The basic characteristics of promotionalism is that it provides the readers with what the organization would like to tell them, and is typically addressed to prospective customers/investors/donors/students/applicants/ etc. In contrast, an encyclopedia article is addressed to the general reader who may have heard of the organization, and wants to know what it is and something about what it does. The reader knows that if it wants   individual stories about individual recipients, it will find them in the web pages and booklets meant to actuate prospective donors.  That's what the organization;s web pages and promotional material are for. A useful rule of thumb is if tit reads like an organization's web site, it isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia takes a neutral point of view. We provide objective information. We don't advocate in the encyclopedia for causes, however worthy.
 * As for what you should do, there's a simple answer: you should not write the article about your own organization. If you are doing important work, someone with no connection with the organization will do it. Experience has shown that connected editors are almost always unable to write objective nonpromotional articles about their own organizations. If you want to write about yourself, do it elsewhere.  DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 25 September 2016 (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.