Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taratari shipyard


 * 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) — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  03:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Taratari shipyard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Alleged to be a csd article, however its been here a while and there is enough information that alternative measures could be entertained here. We'll let the community decide this one. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The only source cited in the article that might be independent is the profile in Lepetitjournal.com. Everything else is clearly the organization and its partners talking about the organization. An argument could be made that the existing article is fundamentally promotional and WP:TNT is necessary. However, some of the organization's projects have been noted in these independent, reliable sources:
 * Someone willing to start over could craft an acceptable article with a combination of these and small bits of the non-independent sources. Worldbruce (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone willing to start over could craft an acceptable article with a combination of these and small bits of the non-independent sources. Worldbruce (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone willing to start over could craft an acceptable article with a combination of these and small bits of the non-independent sources. Worldbruce (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone willing to start over could craft an acceptable article with a combination of these and small bits of the non-independent sources. Worldbruce (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone willing to start over could craft an acceptable article with a combination of these and small bits of the non-independent sources. Worldbruce (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone willing to start over could craft an acceptable article with a combination of these and small bits of the non-independent sources. Worldbruce (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone willing to start over could craft an acceptable article with a combination of these and small bits of the non-independent sources. Worldbruce (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Article in bad shape but looks notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  07:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs some major work done to it, but the sources don't lie. It's a notable place. The Undead Never Die (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2015 (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.