Bangladesh-China Renewable Energy Company (Pvt.) Limited: No indication of being notable.  References are routine descriptions of company works.  Fails WP:SIRS .  scope_creep Talk 08:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Bangladesh ,  and China .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment would a Merge to Power Division work?  The government department is responsible for this state-owned company.  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 17:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think a state-owned joint venture building solar panels would be notable, especially for an encyclopedia.  I have expanded the article with new sources.  If this does not meet the notability threshold, I vote for Merge to the Power Division as I think it deserves mention in the parent article with a redirect as an alternate to deletion.  P.S. I created this article.  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 18:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment We will take a look at the references shortly.  scope_creep Talk 19:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems like that's backwards.  How can you know whether to vote keep or delete before you've looked at the sources?  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 20:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Comment modified after I replied.  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 22:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Its been a long day.  scope_creep Talk 21:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This page should not be deleted from Wikipedia as it is a notable joint venture contributing to renewable energy development, with significant projects and government ownership, making it worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia.  I recommend keeping it : M.parvage ( talk ) 12:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This editor has done 2 Afd's including this one.  I doubt they have even read the WP:NCORP policy.  scope_creep Talk 15:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, probably wrong on this, I see.  scope_creep Talk 15:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearing your doubt that, this editor read the mentioned policy.  But this editor is very confused about your determination regarding Press Release .  M.parvage ( talk ) 14:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What press-release?  scope_creep Talk 16:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Lets take a look at the references: Ref 1 [52] "New company joins forces with China to produce 500 MW of renewable electricity" Press-release.  Fails WP:SIRS Ref 2 [53] Company site.  Fails WP:SIRS Ref 3 [54] Press-release.  Not independent.  Fails WP:SIRS Ref 4 [55] ] fails WP:ORGIND .  Interviews.  Not independent.  Fails WP:SIRS .  Ref 5 [56] Talks about Belt and Road.  No mention of the company specifically.  Ref 6 [57] No mention again as far as I can see.  Ref 7 [58] WP:PRIMARY .  Fails WP:SIRS .  Ref 8 [59] Fails WP:SIRS .  Not independent.  Ref 9 [60] Press-release.  Fails WP:SIRS .  It is not independent.  It is the same press-release as ref 1.  Ref 10 [61] Company site.  Not independent.  Fails WP:SIRS .  I'm not going to do any more.  This is a relatively new project and its reflected in the quality of the references.  Ref 11 is a market analysis profile which is potentially decent, if it was allied with other WP:SECONDARY source that satisfy WP:SIRS and are not just company or a press-release.  scope_creep Talk 15:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 14:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom and the analysis of sources.  Also per WP:MILL .  Nagol0929 ( talk ) 14:34, 16 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: delete