Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladeshi Cyclists (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. There seems to be a basic disagreement over the quality of sources that won't be resolved by another relist so I'm closing this discussion as No Consensus, an option i don't like to select but I can see points being made on both sides of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Cyclists
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Nomination in 2013 (surprisingly) resulted in "keep," but I fail to see how this Facebook group meets WP:GNG. No reliable sources with sufficient depth of coverage; Daily Star articles appear to be editorials written by a member of the group; only trivial mentions in other potential reliable sources. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete the sources here don't demonstrate that this passes WP:GNG. Looks like it was kept in 2013 based on almost entirely SPAs voting keep, that AFD shouldn't be taken as a reason to keep this article, when it doesn't actually demonstrate notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Did you perform a source review of the sources presented in the last AfD discussion? Above you state, "the sources here", which comes across as basing notability upon sources presently in the article. However, per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. Also, I'm not an SPA, and I provided several sources in the last discussion. North America1000 12:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  05:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is clearly wrong to mischaracterize and dismiss this as a Facebook group, it's clearly much more. Jacona (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep It has been covered in the BBC and the Guardian. I fail to see how this isn't significant coverage. Plus, the group holds a Guinness record. Ironmatic1 (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Below are some sources I was able to presently find. Additional sources are present in my !vote at the previous AfD discussion, but some are now unfortunately dead links. Searching using the group's official name may be of further benefit to this discussion. North America1000 06:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The "Learning the Balancing Act" article is an editorial (from Bicycle Diaries) written by a member of the group. The Guardian source has questionable WP:DEPTH of coverage. The bdnews24 ref looks like a press release, and it covers a record they no longer hold). The remaining ref ("TeamBDC to cover...") passes, but that's it. [[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo itsJamie] Talk 02:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The "Learning the Balancing Act" article is an editorial (from Bicycle Diaries) written by a member of the group. The Guardian source has questionable WP:DEPTH of coverage. The bdnews24 ref looks like a press release, and it covers a record they no longer hold). The remaining ref ("TeamBDC to cover...") passes, but that's it. [[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo itsJamie] Talk 02:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The "Learning the Balancing Act" article is an editorial (from Bicycle Diaries) written by a member of the group. The Guardian source has questionable WP:DEPTH of coverage. The bdnews24 ref looks like a press release, and it covers a record they no longer hold). The remaining ref ("TeamBDC to cover...") passes, but that's it. [[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo itsJamie] Talk 02:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The "Learning the Balancing Act" article is an editorial (from Bicycle Diaries) written by a member of the group. The Guardian source has questionable WP:DEPTH of coverage. The bdnews24 ref looks like a press release, and it covers a record they no longer hold). The remaining ref ("TeamBDC to cover...") passes, but that's it. [[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo itsJamie] Talk 02:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The "Learning the Balancing Act" article is an editorial (from Bicycle Diaries) written by a member of the group. The Guardian source has questionable WP:DEPTH of coverage. The bdnews24 ref looks like a press release, and it covers a record they no longer hold). The remaining ref ("TeamBDC to cover...") passes, but that's it. [[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo itsJamie] Talk 02:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep This is approximately 19 paragraphs. This is 8 paragraphs. From the previous AfD we have this. FWIW, there are many reposts of some of the dailystar articles in this AfD and in the article including this one. There are lots of (IMO) less useful sources like this one which provides a description of the group. There's a lot more in Bengali or other languages, I've not bothered with that. I tried to go through the articles in the previous AfD, but most of them are now dead, and archiving is terrible and translation is difficult as much of it is in Bengali. In any case, with these, plus the articles provided by North America, it meets WP:GNG without bothering to look at the native languages. Jacona (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Lots of sources are reposts of each other, the "19 paragraphs" is mostly about the people, not the cycling club itself. Not enough significant coverage specifically about the club itself to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The people were members of the group, competing under the group name. That's like saying a discussion of the 9 members of SCOTUS and one of their decisions is not specifically about the SCOTUS. Jacona (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per a source review, including those provided by above, the topic meets WP:GNG. Of note is that my source searches have not included those in Bengali or other languages. More sources can possibly be found using the customized search links direclty below, depending upon what part of the world users are in. North America1000 12:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * – TeamBDC:


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.