Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Eastern News Agency

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete and salt, and establish a semi-protected redirect from Eastern News Agency (Bangladesh) to Media of Bangladesh as suggested by Voceditenore. The target article will need to be carefully watched, and it remains to be seen whether semi-protection will be adequate for the redirect. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Eastern News Agency


There is a point beyond which a draft cannot go without the contributing editors actually listening to the reviews and taking correct action. This is a WP:COI piece, something we can cope with at WP:AFC, but the editors do not seem to be able to take advice. WP:ICANTHEARYOU is relevant here. There is a point blank refusal or inability (or both) to understand that we absolutely need correct referencing. Instead of working towards achieving that combat has broken out, something that is unproductive for all parties

I do not see that this piece will move forward without the radical step of an early deletion discussion. The contributors speak often about whether Wikipedia wants the article and do not understand that Wikipedia neither wants nor does not want it, but simply wants articles that pass WP:N and WP:V. If they make it pass then it will be accepted. If they do not then it will not. Since there is no sign of their working to achieve it we may as well delete it now rather than letting it fester as an oft rejected draft Fiddle   Faddle  20:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep in the possibly forlorn hope that the creators of the Draft, or even other interested people, may come to approach this in a more constructive light than they have so far. This piece from Bangladesh's Daily Star which they cite as a source, although written in typically flowery South Asian prose, appears to be both non-primary and reliable, and certainly makes considerable claims as to the past importance of the organization. Some of their other sources like this one are more along the lines of "Margaret Thatcher once worked in a greengrocer's shop therefore that shop is notable", and hopefully they will learn that such sources are less useful and the Daily Star type sources are more useful. We are at risk of contributing to systemic bias here, probably not by our own fault... Arthur goes shopping (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note There is no systemic bias here. I am perplexed at and discouraged by this suggestion. I have no interest in this organisation nor those who edit it and am neither for or against it nor them. My interest is solely in article quality. Editors need to show WP:COMPETENCE and to listen and take advice. I have offered them advice and discovered that theyare not only unwilling and/or incapable of taking it, but that they persist in arguing that they know best. If they want draft to be turned into an article all they have to do is to do the work. Fiddle   Faddle  05:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Daily Star is, according to Wikipedia, "the largest circulating daily English-language newspaper in Bangladesh", and a national newspaper of record. If the New York Times published an article quoting the President of the United States as crediting an organization with playing a major role in the American War of Independence, would we be meeting WP:IDHT editing about that organization by taking the highly unusual step of MFD'ing the Draft about the organization because we had become frustrated by the failure of the editors concerned to follow our advice? There is plenty of WP:IDHT editing about the Sons of Liberty, one such organization, but no we would not ever consider MfD'ing a Draft about such an organization. Is the behavior related to the Draft really so disruptive that we are forced to delete it to try to suppress the behavior? How many times has it been resubmitted without improvement? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not make sweeping statements that allege some sort of strange motivation to my nomination. Sometimes one must take an unusual step to catalyse, perhaps to force, editors to listen and to understand. I have little doubt that the organisation is notable (0.9 probability). The editor(s) concerned are likely to be from the organisation (by their statements) which only matters insofar as this will be 'cured' if it is ever good enough to migrate to the main namespace. What concerns me is that, unless and until these editors (this editor) listens to and takes advice, this will never happen. Far better to use a short, sharp shock to force them (him/her) to pay attention now.
 * Even though I believe it is likely to be notable I am not about to do the work to show it. Others may wish to. I am arguing, simply, that this draft, in this state, with this grade of referencing, with this tag team of editors has reached the end of the road, and that end is a dead end. Fiddle   Faddle  07:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not making any allegations about motivation. Indeed systemic bias is most common where we do not intend it. In this case, where an editor or editors from a very different culture do not collaborate in the way that we would expect them to or like them to. I do not think that "forcing" them to adapt to our expectations is the most appropriate response. More caught with honey than with vinegar. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have replied on your talk page. We are diverging wildly from the matter under discussion. Fiddle   Faddle  07:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep [procedural: I have copied the following from the deletion discussion talk page, formatted it, and interpreted it as an opinion to keep this draft Fiddle   Faddle ]
 * Notification to Timtrent
 * It is very unfortunate that you have nominated our draft for deletion. The reason which you mentioned are very biased and not inclusive in perspective to Bangladesh and its proposition. The Article is edited several times with exclusion of whatever necessary references. The latest references used from National Encyclopedia and also from the State Head Condolence message published from the largest Newspaper of Bangladesh which relates the contribution of ENA significantly and wide coverage. It your own discretion power that you have used and applied set conditions to Wikipedia. We strongly condemned and also notify there are many articles which are baseless on Wikiipedia but still on publication. Our issue was only copy right issue, no other matter. In various moments a new amateur volunteers came up and used their discretion power to select and reject on baseless ground. Our narration includes all independent lawful points regarding reference and relevancy of the article. Volunteers are not authority to direct authors which angle or what condition they should write articles . It is the author to decide notable article for readers attention without harming global community. Anyway we assume Wikipedia does not require us and that is why such amateur volunteers coming up every time since 35 days raising unwanted issues which are not relevant information and biased off course. Our all notification and references information are reliable , traceable and on records documents. Wikipedia declines President Prime Ministers of Bangladesh recognition , National encyclopedia of Bangladesh recognition and National News paper coverage recognition and take it into account as not reliable source. What is the credibility of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.102.32.106 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 12 June 2015‎


 * Delete The advice given to them has been clear, they clearly just aren't listening, and are pushing on in their un-Wikipedia way- this article will never be accepted unless they add reliable sources and remove all the marketing puff. Since they seem unwilling to do that, the only solution is to stop wasting everyone's time, and delete it. Personally I think it's borderline G11. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply to Joseph2302 I saw and declined your speedy deletion nomination on the draft. Despite my being in broad agreement with your rationale I wish us to try hard by using this current discussion to educate this editor or set of editors. I have left a note on your talk page about it. Fiddle   Faddle  11:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * When editor(s) use WP:ICANTHEARYOU this much, I really think the article is beyond saving. It isn't neytral tone, and most importantly needs reliable sources to show why it's notable. Unless they show effort to fix these problems, this submission will never pass. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree with all that you say except the mechanism in this case. I believe the slower, more ponderous mechanism is better in this case. In most other cases CSD is better. Fiddle   Faddle  11:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete As mostly WP:PROMO, and what remains is WP:TRIVIA. Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  11:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, unfortunately. There was an ENA active in Bangladesh from the 1970s to the 1990s that some sources now describe as "defunct" or "closed down in the early 1990s". There is an ENA that sources describe as "New York-based" and that "maintains a presence only in the United States". The former likely is notable (though the sources don't suffice to clearly establish that), but I cannot tell whether the latter is some offshoot or merely shares the name. The author, who said in the IRC help channel that he's ENA's Chief Editor, claimed the fact that is was closed down in the 1990s had "no relevancy"; we argued quite a bit until he added that basic fact to the draft. I take that as an indication that his conflict of interest - which he did not recognize - is far too strong to write neutrally about ENA. If better references are found we could possibly have an article on the Bangladeshi organization, but I do not expect this draft will ever become that article. Huon (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, in its current form as it is really a promotion piece; reads like a CV. TNT. Kierzek (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per above and also, with my OTRS hat on, as there are some inconsistancies in the permission statement, so this may well be a copyvio (but I'll have to investigate further) Mdann52 (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that this was produced by a drawer full of socks. See Sockpuppet investigations/Enanews. Fiddle   Faddle  06:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Create Eastern News Agency (Bangladesh) as a redirect to Media of Bangladesh After reading this MfD, I created that section and have included a few lines there about the ENA, along with mention of several other Bangladesh news agencies, two of which are very notable and have their own articles. In a way, the ENA is notable because it was the first privately owned news agency in East Pakistan (and after the war, in Bangladesh) where it remained the only private one for several years and was widely quoted. It may be possible in the future to find enough sources for a stand-alone article. Given the time during which it was operating, I suspect that if they exist, they're all in print and not online. However, given the recalcitrant promotionalism and socking by the editors involved in the draft, delete the draft. It might also be a good idea to semi-protect the redirect for a while. Voceditenore (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, I think part of the concern here, as Huon intimated, is the rather strong possibility that this news agency is not the same organisation as the historical one that you mentioned. Rather, that it is an organisation that has been recently established, and is capitalising on the name recognition of ENA. Essentially, that it's masquerading as the historical organisation. These concerns were reinforced when the user(s) continually evaded and became quite belligerent when a few pointed questions regarding this possibility were politely raised on IRC, and that several of the links of their news coverage were simply redirects to their Facebook page and Twitter account, or redirects to coverage of current events by other news agencies. There appeared to be little, if any, actual content from this Eastern News Agency. This is purely speculation, but from what I saw, I would guess that this venture hasn't really gotten off the ground, and this might be an attempt to promote it by linking the two organisations on Wikipedia, and attempting to show a continuity that doesn't truly exist.
 * The historical (and likely defunct) agency, though, is certainly notable. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Quinto Simmaco, about the dubious status of the entity/website currently using the name. That's why I wrote in Media of Bangladesh that the ENA became defunct in the 1990s and did not mention any successors. And, it's why I think the current draft should be deleted. But Media of Bangladesh should have a section on the country's news agencies, and the original, documented ENA should have a mention in that section (which it now does) It's not necessary to create a redirect to point there, but I thought it might be a way of short-circuiting the endless circles with the current draft which is getting nowhere fast and shows no signs of getting there in the future. Voceditenore (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think your solution is definitely the way to go. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, per User:Huon, et al, and my prior comment. I helped this user (and/or their apparent meatpuppets) on IRC, as did several of the other helpers in the channel, on multiple occasions. All of the concerns that prompted this MfD were raised with said users, and the user(s) refused to address them, as User:Joseph2302 pointed out. The current article is likely an attempt of a newly-founded organisation, operating under the same name, to establish a falsified continuity with the historic organisation. However, the historic news agency has a strong inherent claim to notability. In the course of helping them, however, we discovered (at least via a cursory search) that notability might not be able to be established, due to the dearth of reliable sources. This is largely due to the fact that the organisation was active decades ago (and didn't then garner much international attention). And also due to the current state of many south Asian news sources, which by and large (with some notable exceptions) do not have enough of a reputation for fact checking to be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia.
 * It is entirely possible that there exists enough reliable sources, with significant enough coverage of the subject, that we could establish notability. But this would certainly take some effort on the part of the community. In the meantime, I think Voceditenore's solution is our best best for inclusion, while avoiding the inevitable disruption and unverified claims that the "drawer full of socks" would unleash on a start-class stub. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment As nominator I consider 's suggestion to be workable, but only if the redirect is correctly protected. After the sock drawer's IP address block is purged by time we will have the same issue again (0.9 probability). With the caveat that protection must be part of the deal I support that outcome. Fiddle   Faddle  22:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I would support this proposal if, and only if, the redirect is also protected. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The draft needs to be deleted regardless. It's a question of where and how far the salt needs to sprinkled. If these people prove to be persistent in asserting a highly dubious connection between the ENA of 1969–1990 and their company for advertising purposes, and from what Tim says that seems highly likely, then the draft should probably be salted after deletion. I'm not sure how long admins would be willing to semi-protect the redirect, though and I doubt they would permanently semi-protect it, let alone fully protect it, although it has been done before. Yes, the sock farm could eventually come back, get confirmed, and try to turn the redirect into an article directly, in which case it would then have to go to AfD where after much blah blah the decision would be delete and redirect. So you pays your money and you takes your chance. Voceditenore (talk) 09:50, 16 June 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.