Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Scholarships Non-profit Organization


 * 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.  Hut 8.5  20:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

International Scholarships Non-profit Organization

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No independent, reliable, secondary sources. Tagged for notability since created in March. Of the cited sources: Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Factiva, HighBeam, JSTOR, LexisNexis, ProQuest, and eight national newspapers found no independent, reliable, secondary sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Worldbruce (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Byapon doesn't mention the org.
 * Maasranga Television is a primary source, the founder talking about himself. According to, the WP:SPA creator, "the nature of the show is that people coming to it speak alone and they are not questioned during recording." Just because that's the customary format of the show doesn't transform the monologue into an independent secondary source.
 * Bangladeshism.com does not have the characteristics of a reliable source. It describes itself as "not any Newspaper or Magazine rather its a Public Digest to share experience and views and to promote Patriotism in the heart of the people." According to, it "has more reliability than Byapon does as Bangladeshism works with Bangladesh Govt. and is a sister concern to NahidRains Production which is also working with Bangladesh Govt. while Byapon is a private company journal platform." Working with the government is not evidence of a repuation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * The remaining sources (official website, Facebook, LinkedIn) are not independent.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

If Donald Trump's tweets can have articles on wikipedia, then so can this organization from Bangladesh. Other nonprofits in Bangladesh like Sandhani have their articles on wikipedia with no references other than their own websites. So I'd request that with keen eyes, please check every details and compare with other existing articles on wikipedia and then give the decision of whether this article should be deleted or not.
 * Delete per, WP:V, and WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete!!! because if this organization's article with references like Maasranga Television gets deleted then I would ask the Wikipedia community that why pages like Dhaka Tribune & Bangla Tribune aren't deleted. These articles have no references, keeping directing to each other's websites written about themselves. Above all; International Scholarships Non-Profit Organization are currently Bangladesh's largest online scholarship portal having 50,000 monthly web visits for which you may check their portal at www.isnpo.org/blog/, which is notable enough and at least more notable than Bangla Tribune and Dhaka Tribune. And if a verified authentic organization or association's publication does not count as a reliable source then I have nothing more to say about it. Bangladeshism with more than 1 Million Facebook likes and NahidRains with a verified facebook badge is not reliable according to you. Well for your kind information facebook badges are not sold that someone could just buy and put it on their page to make themselves look authentic.

My opinion Do not delete Teri maki (talk) 8:43 PM, 13 August 2017 (UTC+6) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.88.140.85 (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, Per nom, per above. It is obvious. -- nafSadh did say 17:01, 14 August 2017 (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.