Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BanglaWash


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

BanglaWash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Neologism or slang term with no references given. No Google hits on the term at all. No indication of notability. Much of the current article seems to be an account of a particular sports event, of little relevance to the term even if it were notable. DES (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My error, it was "Dholai" that got no Google hits, "BanglaWash" gets several. DES (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * this news story, this news story, this Urban Dictionary entry, and some youtube and face book mentions coem up early. Still seems of marginal notability a best, and would need major rewriting. DES (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Move to Wiktionary - marginal term that does not have major coverage but might be worth a dictionary entry. Green Giant (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, possible speedy delete . With the exception of the lead section, which seems to paraphrase Urban Dictionary, the remainder of the article is copied word-for-word from two ESPN articles. I have tagged the page for copyvio investigation. Cnilep (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The copyrighted material has been removed; thank you, Justlettersandnumbers. That satisfies my objection about the possible need for speedy deletion. What remains, however, is a definition of the WP:Neologism, so I still think deletion may be warranted. Cnilep (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * comment Although I nominated this, I am starting to think that the various ESPN, Dhaka Tribune, and Daily Times links (which were added after my nom) provide enough sources to perhaps write a marginal but valid article on the term, as they include examples of use. Obviously not by copy & paste, but by using them as proper sources. Or perhaps the article should be not on the term but on the sports events which the term was coined to describe. However, while the page is blanked for a copyvio investigation, no one can work on it, can they? DES (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors can work on the article while the copyright investigation is going on, and should feel free to do so. On the banner there is an inscription, "Otherwise, you may write a new article without copyright-infringing material." If you 'show' those instructions, you will see a link ("Follow this link to create...") which creates a subpage to the article's talk page. A new version can be written there. The copied material can be accessed at the two espncricinfo URLs or in the article history. Following the copyright investigation, the subpage draft may be moved to the article. Cnilep (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the copyvio (I think I got it all) and the notice. Also some references and links that did not mention the term at all, including EPSN and the BBC. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NOTDIC. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. About as unencyclopedic as it gets. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable neologism; copy to Wiktionary if you must. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Transclude to Wiktionary - The term has been used marginally in the media, deserves to be in the wiktionary at least.-- Zayeem  (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2013 (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.