Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhaka Paranormal Society (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   delete. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Dhaka Paranormal Society
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )



Non-notable paranormal society lacking ghits and gnews of substance. References are a trivial "club" review and a primary reference. Lacks secondary references. Fails WP:N. red dog six (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The two references given show significant coverage by the media agencies Dhaka Tribune and The Independent (Bangladesh). Looks notable to me per WP:ORG. -- Zayeem  (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The Independent story Dhaka Tribune story notes that it was written "in the spirit of Halloween...". Not quite the serious in depth coverage WP:ORG requires. And the Dhaka Tribune Independent seems to be some sort of "club review" listing rather than actual news coverage. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the article from The Independent seems indepth coverage to me, I'm not sure if anything written in the occasion of Halloween has anything to do with the notability. While, The Dhaka Tribune article seems even more significant where the group was interviewed by the media agency.-- Zayeem  (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I am satisfied with the Dhaka Tribune article alone as a source meeting WP:RS. It could be better integrated into the article to help the article more definitively satisfy WP:N, but I feel that notability is already established.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   15:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - a single reference is trivial coverage. red dog six  (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Good luck to this group realizing their expressed goal of getting their own TV show, but I can't find legitimate examples of serious, in depth coverage by multiple, independent sources to justify a stand alone article at this time. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm also satisfied with the references given. Dhaka Tribune and The Independent are big news companies in Dhaka. It says "in the spirit of Halloween" but just because the article was published on Halloween does not mean that it is not of the serious type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.234.193.242 (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC) — 180.234.193.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - a single reference is trivial coverage. red dog six  (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Two sources are rarely enough to Keep an article. GNG says "multiple" but that doesn't mean "two", it means enough to prove notability which is a factor of how strong the sources are, in quality and quantity of coverage. The first source is brief and reads like a Press Release with no critical investigation ("Head on over to their Facebook page"). The second source is an interview which is a PRIMARY source. While it does contain some editorial content, not much considering we are only dealing with two sources in total. The group is about 15 months old, it's out of this world there are two sources already - very good work. But it needs a lot more to pass Wikipedia notability guidelines. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I am very satisfied with the authenticity of this article. After searching online I have found that Dhaka Paranormal Society is the very first paranormal investigating team coming out of Bangladesh. Also the Dhaka Tribune article states that the founder Rafee Tamjid studied about the paranormal in Hawaii, and after doing a quick facebook check I have also found out that the University Mr. Tamjid attended does really offer an adult education class about paranormal activities. Regarding the two sources, for those of you who don't know much about Bangladesh need to know that there are mainly three big and popular English newspapers in Bangladesh. Those being The Daily Star, The Dhaka Tribune, and The Independent. Dhaka Paranormal Society have been given coverage by both The Dhaka Tribune and The Independent, that is two out of the big three. As Green Cardamom said earlier the group is only 15 months old, thus having two sources is amazing work, and that too the sources being from two of the big three English Newspapers. Therefore, I can say without any doubt that Dhaka Paranormal Society meets the standards to be on Wikipedia alone just on that fact. It is also the very first paranormal investigative group coming out of Bangladesh. PS. Reddogsix, you always vote to get pages deleted from wikipedia. I don't know why you tend to do that, I have yet to see you support a page to stay on wikipedia. I would request you to change your mind after the information I have given above. Thank you. FYI- I'm a Bangladeshi citizen working in journalism and media. Thus my understanding of Bangladesh media is quite high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockymavia9999 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)  — Rockymavia9999 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment- You have provided nothing in your comment that supports your "keep" opinion. Rather than offer conjecture, I suggest you show how this article meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion and cite the Wikipedia guideline that supports your conclusion.  Once again, there is nothing but trivial coverage of this organization - hardly enough to support inclusion.  You question why I support the elimination of articles, the answer has no bearing on whether or not this article survives this AfD.  Perhaps a you should ask the question, why is it close to 100% the vast majority of the articles I propose for deletion are deleted.  Care to take a guess?  red dog six  (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You actually have about 78% of the past 255 AfDs according to the stats (includes "no consensus results").. which is above normal. Admins typically won't get involved unless it falls below 40 to 50 percent. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification.  red dog six  (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment- Reddogsix, I have clearly stated how the sources provided meet the wikipedia criteria for inclusion. There are numerous other pages on Wikipedia that only give facebook, youtube, and blogs as references, whereas this article provides two of the big three English newspapers in Bangladesh as sources. Also you need to stop flattering yourself. You report at least 40 pages a day for deletion and your acceptance rate is nowhere near 100 percent. It is around maybe 40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockymavia9999 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stick to a rules-based discussion, review WP:CIVIL. Such personal attacks usually backfire and result in unintended consequences to the goal you seek. BTW out of curiosity I checked the AfD stats tool and the claim of 40 a day, and 40% acceptance, are both wildly inaccurate - not that it matters - if you want to report a problem take it to WP:ANI. --Green Cardamom (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment- Reddogsix, I will report you for vandalism of a wikipedia page if you go ahead and change the references to links. You have no right to do that. You have already done it twice, and I have fixed it twice. Deleting both the references and changing them to links will automatically delete this page. If you think that two valuable newspaper articles don't count as references, then you need to find the correct definition of references. Also then you should go ahead and delete every wikipedia article, as all articles give newspaper articles are references. Just because you want this page deleted, does not mean you will vandalize this page and spread wrong propaganda. I will report you if this happens once more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockymavia9999 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I have answered your comment on your talk page. I suggest we continue this discussion there rather than muck up the AfD with unrelated comments.  red dog six  (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment No we will continue this discussion here because everyone needs to see what you are doing. If you thought these references are links then you should have stated that on the very first day. Once you realized that your arguments were not being supported on this page, you went ahead and changed the references to links just to make an unfair move.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockymavia9999 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The two references do indeed show significant media coverage. This group is just starting out as it is new, but the references are certainly strong enough for approval of a Wikipedia page. Some more references would be nice, but for a group that is based in Bangladesh, the Dhaka Tribune and The Independent are very strong references . Reddogsix- I have read your edits, I don't like controversy, but I have to say this...what made you say that these newspaper articles aren't references but links? We are online, every single reference is a website link, and you stating that newspaper articles aren't references is pure insanity. All through highschool, college, med school, and now through post grad I and all of my classmates have used newspaper articles as references. You edit makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saif808 (talk • contribs) — Saif808 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - The two sources contained within the article are not sufficient to confer notability. The Dhaka Tribune source is good quality but is a local publication and does not provide evidence of significance beyond the regional level. The Independent source may be from a more convincing publishing body but it appears it was published in a sub-publication or magazine. Multiple quality sources are required to confer notability and for this subject they simply don't exist. The DPS may become notable in the future, but it is not at present. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 18:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete We don't normally keep local societies, and this one is o dubious importance even among them. &#39;DGG (at NYPL)&#39; (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I will still vote to keep this page. A few user's voting for a delete have commented that this is a local society. That is not the case. Dhaka Paranormal Socitey is based out of Dhaka (capital of Bangladesh) but they investigate all over Bangladesh. Calling DPS a local society is like calling TAPS a local paranormal society. Rockymavia9999 (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC) — Rockymavia9999 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete The topic does not pass WP:GNG because it has not received significant coverage in reliable source s . It is highly questionable that the Dhaka Tribune is a reliable source. I am familiar with Dhaka and Bangladesh (having lived in the country), and the publications there. -   t  u coxn \ talk 00:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment @Tocuxn....you say you have lived in Bangladesh. How long was your stay? If you had lived in Bangladesh for a considerable amount of time, then you would know that the Dhaka Tribune is the second largest English daily newspaper currently in Bangladesh. The Dhaka Tribune wikipedia page is unfortunately not updated. I know facebook likes does not count as votes but currently Dhaka Tribune has over 107k likes on its page. It launched last April and has already gained a lot of popularity. Thus calling the Dhaka Tribune an unreliable source makes no sense. Next time please refrain from giving false information that is your own opinion. I am a Bangladeshi citizen and have been working in the journalism field in Bangladesh over 10 years. I didn't want to state this before but currently I am working for the Daily Star, which is the largest English Daily in Dhaka. Visiting a country and living there and working in the journalism field is very different. So please give facts, don't state your opinion.Rockymavia9999 (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC) — Rockymavia9999 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - Lets be clear the Dhaka Tribune link is a primary reference. The issue is the article lacks secondary references.  The secondary coverage for the organization is trivial - only 11 Google hits. I would suggest concentrating on finding and adding more secondary references.  Adding more secondary references will help insure the article's success in the AfD.   red dog six  (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I stand by my "delete" position and my statement that the interview in the Dhaka Tribune is an unreliable source for proving notability in a Wikipedia article. It is an interview and therefore a primary source (see identifying and using primary and secondary sources). When I lived in Bangladesh, the publication was not in circulation: it only recently began publishing in April 2013, less than one year ago. Considering its short publication time, it has not yet built a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The number of "likes" it has on its facebook page is not a good measure of how reliable it is as a publication. Returning to the interview article in question, it is not a third-party source, one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered; in fact, it is an interview of three of the members listed in the wikipedia article, and as such, it is entirely dependent on the subject being covered. Reliable third-party sources are what Wikipedia articles should be based on: "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." @Rockymavia9999, In the future, I (and other editors) would appreciate not receiving insults that insinuate the provision of false information, or lying. At Wikipedia, what you did is called not assuming good faith. You also did this when you questioned the amount of time that I lived in Bangladesh. I choose not to divulge the amount of time I lived there this as it is personal identifying information. -   t  u coxn \ talk 22:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment- @Tucoxn Here you are again stating that Dhaka Tribune is not a reliable source just because it is a new publication. Just because of a short publication time, you cannot say that the source is not reliable. Show me sources or articles that prove your justification that Dhaka Tribune is not reliable. You will not find a single one. In fact, Dhaka Tribune is the most unbiased and accurate newspaper in Dhaka. What you stated is completely your own opinion. If you give me proof then I will support your opinion until then it is just that, YOUR OPINION. If you feel insulted, then please don't state your opinion. Give me one article that disrepute's Dhaka Tribune and I will publicly apologize to you myself. Also the period you lived in Bangladesh does matter. As I stated I have been a journalist in Dhaka for 10 years. I'm sure my knowledge of the Dhaka print media is much higher then yours.Rockymavia9999 (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC) — Rockymavia9999 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - Once more in hopes this finally gets through to everyone - the Dhaka Tribune link is a primary reference. The issue is the article lacks secondary references to support notability.  The secondary coverage for the organization is trivial - only 11 Google hits. Again, I would suggest concentrating on finding and adding more secondary references.  Adding more secondary references will help insure the article's success in the AfD.  red dog six  (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete – Taking a look at the article I only see two references - one from Dhaka Tribune, the other from The Independent. While these may be major news agencies, the publisher of a reference does not give the source inherent depth of coverage, which is one of the things we look for in citations and sources. See WP:ORGDEPTH – the Dhaka Tribune's interview falls over the criterion for quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, while the Independent's club review falls under routine restaurant reviews (they're both routines reviews). A web search would indicate a lack of verifiable, independent, reliable sources.  TheAustinMan (Talk·Works) 22:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete- Simply non-notable. The group has not got sufficient coverage in the media, etc. Fails WP:N. Fai  zan  13:59, 26 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.