National Council of Churches in Bangladesh : Many directory listings confirm the current two sentences.  Searches also found brief listings of what denominations were part of the organization.  [76] [77] Searches did not find significant coverage that provides in-depth description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the organization - coverage that would make it possible to write a reasonably complete article about its history, activities, finances, leadership, etc., instead of the current very brief, incomplete stub.  So it does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH , and should not be the subject of a stand alone article.  If it is felt significant enough to be worth a mention in Christianity in Bangladesh , I would have no objection to a merge to that target.  Worldbruce ( talk ) 14:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Christianity ,  and Bangladesh .  Worldbruce ( talk ) 14:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- This is presumably an umbrella body for a number of Christian denominations in Bangladesh.  As such it should be notable. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 15:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Peterkingiron : Notability is not inherited , so an organization is not notable just for having notable members (being an "umbrella") or for being a member of another organization that is notable. Can you share evidence of notability based on coverage in sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT ? -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 16:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There's more than a page describing its history here [78] , there's another good chunk here [79] , there are a number of directories such as this one [80] that provide additional time-specific data.  This encyclopedia article [81] describes its relationship with the All Pakistan Christian Council, of which it was a constituent part and then a successor.  -- Jahaza ( talk ) 03:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If anyone is looking for potential sources this seems to be known colloquially as the "Bangladesh National Council of Churches" as well as the two official names given in the article.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 20:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Out of the four sources provided by Jahaza above, the first three are publications from World Council of Churches , which the subject belongs to; and the last one only has a trivial mention of the subject.  I did not find any coverage more than just trivial mentions as well.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 23:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Tutwakhamoe.  Although I appreciate the effort to find sources, they all fail WP:SIGCOV .  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete The newly given sources are not independent of the subject.  Adler3 ( talk ) 03:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Contrary to Tutwakhamoe's argument above, I don't agree that World Council of Churches publications are an inappropriate source for demonstrating notability of its member bodies.  That seems to me to be an overly stringent reading of the requirement for sources that are "independent of the subject".  I'm also mindful of the problem with deleting things as "non-notable" when they come from non-English speaking developing countries – quite probably sources to demonstrate notability exist (maybe in a library in Bangladesh?) but nobody here is going to find them – and deleting will just worsen some of Wikipedia's systematic biases.  SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 06:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to Human Rights Watch they are also called the "Jatiya Church Parishad of Bangladesh".  Searching for them under that name finds a chapter in an academic monograph which contains a 3 page long discussion of their important contribution to public debate over reform of Bangladeshi personal law.  Looks like WP:SIGCOV to me.  SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 06:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Christianity in Bangladesh .  The provided sources could be used to create a section on the legal reform in Bangladesh backed by this group, but are nowhere near meeting WP:ORGCRITE for the group itself.  In addition to searching for the article title and variations, I also tried searching for "Jatiya Church Parishad" and was unable to find anything on Google Scholar, Books, the general internet, and my university library.  signed, Rosguill talk 23:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : To mind systemic bias , I would suggest searching for sources not just in English.  2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 03:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I tried searching for ""জাতীয় চার্চ পরিষদ", their name as given on their website sans "Bangladesh", which turned up news sources briefly mentioning NCC's involvement or endorsement with various topics (e.g. [82] ), but nothing that would be useful for writing a Wikipedia article.  signed, Rosguill talk 03:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on your word, I vote merge as above.  2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 03:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FWIW, I think that there probably are sources out there somewhere (read: in a library, in Bangladeshi, and not well-indexed), but with what we've got, the best information we can provide to a reader is a few sentences at the Christianity in Bangladesh (or alternatively, , Freedom of religion in Bangladesh ) about the reform bill they supported that we can verify at this time.  signed, Rosguill talk 04:08, 1 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge