Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh National Cadet Corps

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. Article's been sourced and expanded since nomination and Consensus is keep and that they meet MILUN & GNG. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh National Cadet Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced promo. Doubt about notability as I can find few independent sources (with regards: in western script) The Banner talk 12:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- The organization under the Defence ministry, which received its own department in the ministry in 2015 is notable. It is notable per WP:MILUNIT. National armed forces or branches thereof. Examples include Canadian Forces, People's Liberation Army Navy, Fleet Air Arm, Royal Marines, Special Republican Guard and United States Army.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Reviewing historical versions of the article, I can understand why it was nominated. Since then, however, it has been vastly improved. An examination of the sources it now cites plainly shows that it meets WP:GNG. Examples of somewhat similar notable organizations would be National Cadet Corps (India) and ROTC. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. How anyone would think that a national cadet organisation established by statute was not notable is frankly beyond me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should read the nomination: "Unsourced promo." And when you look through the history, you will see repeated cases of adding the promo, what often came close to copyvio. The Banner talk 16:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It also says "Doubt about notability...". Is it a notable topic? Clearly it is. If it's badly written or somebody has added promotional material that's irrelevant to its notability. Rubbish is added to many articles - that doesn't mean we delete them. We just delete the rubbish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that is now exactly the way how many articles get spammy: "it is notable so we don't delete it". To make it worse: cleaning up is also just rarely done. The Banner talk 19:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.