Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Group


 * 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. I think this is a reasonable keep given the strength of sources demonstrated, the clear recent consensus, and the questionable status of the AfD given that the only non-Keep participation is made by a Sock (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Dragon Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only negative sources.... There is nothing like independent sources that meet WP:NOTABILITY for Dragon Group. When it comes to Notability (organizations and companies), the page fails WP:CORP. It looks too promotional in tone and style as well. The page should be deleted under the section WP:G11 and WP:A7. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  14:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  14:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * comment The nominator (a darned sockpuppet) spins a convoluted yarn. To unravel it, Dragon Sweater and Spinning Limited (DSSL) trades on the Dhaka and Chittagong Stock Exchanges, where it attracts regular attention by the national financial press, so there's a credible indication of importance, and WP:A7 doesn't apply.


 * "Only negative sources" is neither a reason for deletion nor an accurate description of the cited sources. Negative sources do exist, such as those that covered the Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission (BSEC) fining the company for violating several laws, the BSEC calling executives to testify about violations of securities rules,, and the BSEC restricting trading in the stock for several weeks. If the article is "too promotional in tone and style", that should be fixed by trimming, rewriting, and knitting the cited sources together with negative ones such as these, not by deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  03:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep- Textiles is the most significant industry in Bangladesh in terms of export and GDP. It would not be a stretch to assume a major textile group in Bangladesh could be notable. The sources provided by Worldbruce support that notion.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage in The Financial Express (Bangladesh) and New Age (Bangladesh)  Џ 03:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG on the strength of the sources linked here and in the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2019 (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.