Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhutan Media Foundation




 * 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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete, and no indication that further discussion will yield any different of a result. I note that many, though not all, of the "keep" !votes presented little or no policy-based rationale for keeping the article. This close is without prejudice to renomination for deletion after a reasonable period for reflection on the discussion. BD2412 T 00:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Bhutan Media Foundation

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References do not satisfy WP:ORGCRIT and a WP:BEFORE was unable to locate any that do. CNMall41 (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

...:Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep I am disappointed that rather than start a discussion on the Talk page of this article, in the spirit of collegial collaboration, that less than an hour after moving this article to the mainspace, you have chosen to leap straight in and seek deletion. I refer here to WP:BEFORE (that you reference), specifically point AC2 "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." Nevertheless, here we are. I would respectfully ask that you revisit the page, to which I have added more information and references, and ask that you remove the AfD. References include three newspapers, the government's website and a scholarly chapter from an edited collection about Asia, which is entirely devoted to the history and importance of BMF. Thankyou Doctor 17 (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Other than the book chapter which could be used to make a case, can you point out the others that meet WP:ORGCRIT? The current page is referenced to the organization itself along with other sources that merely mention them (single mention in each of the 3 Kuensel Online sources) and the rest fail ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Organizations,  and Asia.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  04:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The book chapter and other sources are sufficient to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. Jfire (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep the state of the article now is very different from the first hour of its existence, the improvements since then show adequate coverage. JarrahTree 05:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Source assessment is below. If anyone is able to point out the ones that meet WP:ORGCRIT I will gladly withdraw the nomination. Since this is an organization, it must meet WP:NCORP. The main issue here is not the number of references, but the fact most are failing WP:CORPDEPTH.


 * 1.	Civil Society Organizations Authority, this is a listing verifying the organization’s existence. Nothing in-depth.
 * 2.	Bhutan Media Foundation, this is the organization’s own website so not independent.
 * 3.	The Changing Role of Asia, this is the book reference described above. If we can verify this isn’t self-published, I think it would meet WP:ORGCRIT.
 * 4.	No link so unable to review.
 * 5.	TheBhutanese, this is about the state of affairs in Bhutan and talks about the organization implementing a plan. However, it mentions them in context with the plan and does not talk about the organization in detail so fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * 6.	Bhutan Media Foundation, also the organization website so not independent.
 * 7.	The Bhutanese, same reference as #5 above.
 * 8.	Kuensel, discusses a guide it created but does not talk about the organization in-depth.
 * 9.	bbs.bt, unsure of the reliability of the source. However, this is a routine announcement of them releasing a guide. Nothing in-depth about the organization.
 * 10.	TheBhutanese, routine announcement of it launching its website and app. Again, nothing in-depth about the organization.
 * 11.	Kuensel, Mentions the foundation one time as a source for information. Passing mention and nothing in-depth.
 * 12.	Business Bhutan, Also fails CORPDEPTH. This quotes a statistic they put together about social media.
 * 13.	 bbs.bt, same assessment as the reference above. Quotes their social media statistic but nothing in-depth about he organization.
 * 14.	Kuensel, a single mention about them starting the Thimphu Press Club. The rest of the information in the reference is about the club.
 * 15.	Kuensel, same publisher as reference #14 and same assessment as it was published on the same day and talks about the Thimphu Press Club, not in-depth about BMF.


 * Out of the 15 references listed above, only one likely meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - Thank you CNMall41 for your detailed response and reasonableness in offering to withdraw your AfD according to multiple sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT..


 * "A company… is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject…Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" Notability (organizations and companies).
 * The following refs meet the criteria:


 * 3. The Changing Role of Asia, is a chapter in a scholarly book, published in English by Poland’s largest academic publishing house, Adam Marszalek.


 * 5. & 7. This article is about the state of media in Bhutan and in that context discusses BMF’s role as central to media development.


 * 8. The entire article is about BMF's work, the guideline for reporting on women and children that they created for the media in Bhutan.


 * 9. BBS.bt is the national broadcaster, the Bhutanese version of BBC, which meets reliability criteria. Coverage of its activities by the national broadcaster is not “a routine announcement”, its a news event. The entire article is about BMF's work, the toolkit it produced to counter misinformation, a global media problem.


 * 10. & 12. These are two independent newspapers covering the news event of the release of BMF's 61-page social media report, funded by the Asia Foundation. It is a significant misrepresentation to describe these news stories as "quotes a statistic they put together about social media".


 * 14. & 15. These two articles, in the national newspaper, cover BMF launching Thimphu Press Club, clearly a significant event, attended by the Prime Minister and European MPs. The Press Club is a BMF initiative and is further example of their activities.


 * Please note, the reference numbers you provide no longer match the article as another editor has added further references since you posted, but I have responded to your numbering.


 * I hope you will revisit the site and reconsider your recommendation. Respectfully, Doctor 17 (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, none of these would pass WP:ORGCRIT except maybe the book excerpt. For example, as you stated about 5 & 7 (which are the same reference), it talks about the state of media in Bhutan. It says the BMF released a study with a strategic plan. What does it say "about" the agency (what does it do, when was it founded, etc.)? You say #8 is entirely about BMF's work. That is not true. It talks about a guideline release by BMF, NOT about BMF. For WP:SIRS, the references must address "the subject of the article directly and in depth." These references do not. They mention a study and guideline released by the organization, not the organization itself. I think that is where the disconnect is coming in here. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think CNMall41 that you are applying the "significant coverage" aspect of WP:ORGCRIT incorrectly. Under your application, each reference would need to amount to a profile of the organisation. This is not the definition as per WP:ORGCRIT. Rather, it states that "significant" means more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Clearly these are credible, independent sources (a range of newspapers, the national broadcaster, an academic publisher), providing coverage of their activities. They go beyond the profile you seem to favour, to demonstrate both the activities of the organisation as well as the extensive media coverage such activities receive.
 * I also dont understand your intransigence in recognising the credibility of the sources. Again you state "maybe the book excerpt". Please note it is written by a media scholar, in a book published by an academic publisher, and covers all of those things about the foundation that you seek - its history, what it does etc. There can be no doubt about its veracity.
 * I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of this guideline, how it came to be. The wiki community propose this extra caution under WP:ORGCRIT to stop Wikipedia being used for advertising and self-promotion, particularly among commercial organisations. The BMF is clearly not such an organisation and this is clearly not advertising or self-promotion.
 * I ask again, respectfully, that you remove this AfD. Doctor 17 (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * After years of working on company Wikipedia pages and participating in similar AfDs, I am familiar with how ORGCRIT, SIRS, and the interpretations of both. It is not my intransigence, but my familiarity with how it has been applied by editors over the years. We will just agree to disagree at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep --Impro (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Specific comments on the available sourcing, and the analysis of it, would be very helpful. Stating "Keep" (or "Delete", or anything else) with no reasoning why is, frankly, not. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep --Phuentsho (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 03:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Unlike many of you, I'm not an expert in WP:ORGCRIT, but the article does seem to meet WP:NGO criteria 1 and 2. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Copyvio is borderline. Some re-wording would probably be a plus if the consensus is to keep the article. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not borderline, that's a copyvio. I'll go and remove the section. JMWt (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Good to know. Still learning the terrain here and not always certain where the redlines are drawn (or the mines are buried). I also tend towards improvement/inclusion of good faith contributions (unless something is truly rubbish – which clearly this ain't). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. In addition to the book chapter mentioned above, The Kathmandu Post put this out (syndicated by HT Media): . This should meet ORGIND and CORPDEPTH, to demonstrate CORP. &mdash;siro&chi;o 04:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. On November 7, User:Actualcpscm closed this AfD, believing it was an uncontentious decision to keep.  User:CNMall41 requested he revert that decision, which he agreed to. In the interests of transparency and completeness, I add here a link to that discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Actualcpscm#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bhutan_Media_Foundation. Doctor 17 (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2023 (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.