Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian University of Bangladesh


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ——  Serial  13:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Canadian University of Bangladesh

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of pass of WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665  09:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  nearlyevil  665  09:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.  nearlyevil  665  09:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's legit a real university, and proof of existence has always been considered sufficient for articles on higher education institution (and secondary ones for that matter). Herostratus (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete It's a private university and as such is not inherently notable. Therefore it has to pass WP:NORG. The standard of which relies solely on the quality of the sourcing that we have available for the topic of the article. Which from what I can tell is extremely lacking due to everything being either primary, blog posts, or otherwise trivial coverage that lacks any kind of depth to it. I'm more then happy to change my vote if someone can come up with WP:THREE sources that pass the standards of WP:NORG though. It should be pretty easy for anyone who thinks the article should be kept to find the necessary sourcing if this really is a notable, mainstream university. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's news to me that universities aren't assumed to rate articles here. I mean, even high schools always have.


 * On the other hand, I dunno. Looking for sources... there's this in the Daily Asian Age which looks like an article but is actually an ad. There is this in The Conversation which looks like an article but is actually an ad. There is this at the Daily Observer which looks like an article but is actually an ad... I mean, this does look kind of sketchy. On the other hand, here is a full article at BDNews24.com, and here is a follow-up article. True, these articles are apparently about the university is corrupt, but nobody says the article has to praise the university. If it's notable for being corrupt, let's go with that. Here's a small article in the Daily Star, granted, about an unnotable little ceremony. This is just an announcement... huh, here is an entry at "nu-edu-bd.ne" which the url looks like its kind of trying to pretend to be associated with the National University, Bangladesh but apparently isn't. At any rate, it's clearly a press release.


 * There is a thing called the The Asian Age which is notable and legit, but the Daily Asian Age is different and I'm guessing they print press releases to look like articles, presumably for a fee. So, here is a full (short) interview in that paper with the Vice Chancellor of Canadian University of Bangladesh. I mean, it's softball questions that just give him a chance to say good things about the university ("What is the main strength of the university?" etc), so take that for what it's worth... Here is something at "eng.campuslive24.com" which I guess is legit, but it's just a routine bit about a single seminar... oh, The Independent has a (very short) article here and looks legit, and here is something from them, granted another routine announcement of a celebration. And there's some other stuff already in the article.


 * All these routine announcements aren't much by themselves, but taken together they show that there's some coverage of the university in the papers, enough to base an article on, particularly if we add a section about the (apparently notable) land transfer scandal (EDIT: which I have now done). Herostratus (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the improvements and comment by User:Herostratus.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:HEY is in play now I contend, as I about doubled the article size with a couple of refs to extensive articles in a legit major news source. Much better article now I think. And I'm confident the University would be pleased to see that our material is now more in-depth and covers more facets of their institution, heh. And the other refs I found above can be used to flesh out the top of the article a bit more if desired. Herostratus (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Is Wikipedia usually into covering scandals or gossip? Especially in cases where they don't go anywhere and both parties involved deny any wrong doing? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For institutions, I guess, if it's described at notable length in notable sources. For scandals. For gossip, not so much, but this isn't gossip. It's a serious allegation of malfeasance by a government agency. Everybody always denies wrongdoing, and anyway we reported their denial, and the reader can look at the sources if she wants more, and RAJUK didn't deny that it happened, just that it's nitpicking to worry about it, which of course they would say that. If all this concerned an individual we'd be a lot more circumspect per WP:BLP. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think it's OK to make unsubstituted, un-verified claims in an article about a company any more then it is to make them in biographical article. There still has to be more for something to be encyclopedic then "he said, she said." Notable sources or not. Since the notable sources are not getting the information from proven, reliable ones or from evidence due to their own research. Like we wouldn't put in an article about a company that they abuse their employees just because a few employees said so and it was printed somewhere in the absence of anything else to back it up. Like you say, at this point there is just an allegation of malfeasance. How is an allegation any different then gossip? It's still someone saying something about someone else and there being zero real world evidence to backup their claim. Sure, people can just read the sources if they want to know more, but that could go for anything and the point in articles is not to refer people to other websites to get relevant details about a topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, no, the sources are fine, it's just that with an individual we would ask "it it kind, or necessary, to include this?" We don't have to be as sensitive to non-living entities. So OK, we're not saying the allegations are true, we're just saying that've been made. By BDnews24 which looks to be legit major news source, and after investigation by a legit actual investigative reporter named Obaidur Masum, who seems to be a legit working reporter. And we're talking about an accusation made by a ministry, not some rando reporter. And it's notable for the reader for learning about the entity, I think.


 * So, by all means, if BDnews24 and/or Obaidur Masum are unreliable, show us. If the main facts in the article are not true or may not be true, show us. If the Bangladesh Ministry of Housing and Public Works did not accuse RAJUK of defying the High Court, show us. (I'm dubious that making up stuff like that out of thin air would not fit BDnews24's business model, but I'm willing to be educated.) Even it it did, maybe they article is cherry-picking facts, and show us.


 * We do have "Both the University and RAJUK denied malfeasance" at the end. By all means we could expand on that some (and you're welcome to do so): "Both the University and RAJUK denied malfeasance, because ______, and they also said ________ and _____." Looking at the source articles, let's see...




 * which doesn't really sound like much of a denial, just saying.






 * Which is the heart of the matter, I guess. It is particularly the heart of the matter we're talking about a not-for-profit secondary school, and/or if the Canadian University is a for-profit institution (but even if not, there's room for grift I am sure). The paper responded with:




 * Which seems reasonable to me.


 * I'm sure its a fine institution and by all means, it'd be great to add more info to the article about other things about the University -- notable scholars they have employed, notable works produced under their aegis, notable things students have done, interesting programs they run, their plans for the future, info about their size and so forth, and how they are structured as a corporation, etc etc. etc. I haven't found sources for that stuff right off, but there's probably a lot in Bengali. Herostratus (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't really care about the news reporter who wrote the article. Whatever their credentials are, it still doesn't negate the fact that the story is still purely based on hearsay. I'd be totally fine with it if there was something like a court case or at least a legal filing, but someone just saying a crime was committed in absence of either of those is not reliable and shouldn't be in the article.


 * "Someone said someone did something" in absence of anything solid is extremely run of the mill and non-encyclopedic. Otherwise almost every article for a celebrity would have a "accusations of sexual harassment" section. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid though. Just because it's a company and not a person doesn't negate that or make it OK for articles about companies to be tabloidish. Period.


 * Way more so in this case because disputes and problems over land deals/zoning are pretty routine events, happen all the time, and yet the article frames a pretty run of the mill land dispute as if it's a scandal, because that's how your wrote and are framing it. When it really isn't a scandal and from what I can tell the sources don't even refer to it as one. Only you have and likely only because such weasel words make the whole thing seem more notable then it actually is. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. I hear you. Guess we'll agree to disagree. This can be discussed at the article talk page, when and if the article is kept; or, you could go there now and advocate to get the material removed, or reduced, and if you are successful quickly enough that could affect the article's retention chances. I don't know as it's a good look to try to remove value from an article that's at AfD though.


 * And if you are successful, I'm still for keeping the article on the grounds that after all proof of existence has always been sufficient for keeping articles on secondary schools let alone universities, and that beyond proof of existence there's probably sufficient ref'd material to make a short and poor, but acceptable, article which can be improved over time as they gain coverage. Herostratus (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm good. I rather discuss things that adversely effect an AfD in the AfD. That might just be me though. That said, if I want to remove content from the article that goes against the guidelines, I can just remove the content. People don't need to "advocate" for changing an article to actually reflect how the sources portray an event or to remove weasel words. Anyway, at least you don't deny the fact that you intentionally used the word "scandal" to make the land dispute seem notable then it actually is. I guess it's on the "voters" if they think calling something that's otherwise extremely trivial a "scandal" is worth keeping the article over. IMO it's not.


 * Let alone do I think it's worth keeping the article now in lack of it being notable as a subject so it can be "improved" later when there's actually notable coverage on it. In the meantime, advocating for keeping a "poor" article just in case it can be improved in the future is a bad look if there ever was one. Articles are extremely easy to recreate in the future when there's actually good coverage. So there's zero need, let alone valid reason, to keep it now "just because." --Adamant1 (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Legitimate, government-approved, degree-awarding university. We keep these by long consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Kind of like all the other similar AfDs where you said the same exact thing and they still ended in the article being deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Which universities (rather than colleges) would those be? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Government registered, recognised, degree-awarding university. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Private colleges are not inherently notable. They are treated the same as any other type of private organization. Even if they are "recognized" by the government and award degrees. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2021 (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.