Ananda Shipyard & Slipways Limited: Deletion recommended.  M.parvage ( talk ) 11:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  M.parvage ( talk ) 11:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The report is reasonable decent reference created by an group of academic.  That combined with the other two sources is more than than borderlines for an established company.  * Delete Of the three references, 2 fail WP:NCORP , specifically WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:SIRS .  The other one is a 404.  No indication of being notable.  scope_creep Talk 16:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on three of the sources provided by Worldbruce below, the first two and the magazine.  None are great but in my opinion are sufficient for the purpose of establishing notabaility.  Delete I agree with above, none of the references meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 21:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC) HighKing ++ 11:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment would these, Ananda Shipyard exports largest ship by Bangladesh, signalling industry revival (2022) , Ship-builder eating away Meghna 2019 , মেঘনায় ভাসলো আনন্দ শিপইয়ার্ডের তৈরি জাহাজ ‘রাঙ্গাবালি’ 2018 , Ananda Shipyard looks to rent out two ships to foreign clients 2014 , Ananda to export its eighth ship, 2008 be considered significant coverage?  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 12:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified.  Those reference appear to be based entirely on announcements/PR so they fail the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 16:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Take the article, Ship-builder eating away Meghna, it is highly critical of the company.  What would make you say that it is based on announcements/PR?  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 16:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being highly critical doesn't mean it meets the criteria for establishing notability.  The article relies on information and quotes provided by the company and their executives for some details but in general, there is next to zero in-depth information *about* the company (as required per CORPDEPTH).  Most of the article is critical of the activity along the foreshore and the lack of proper enforecement.  In my view this reference falls short of NCORP criteria.  HighKing ++ 17:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Any search for sources is complicated by the facts that the company has changed its name, is sometimes refereed to by an initialism, the name is not always transliterated the same way, and discussion of it is most likely to be found in the Bengali language.  The nominator has been accused of having a close connection to parent company Ananda Group.  There's plenty of news out there that is critical (such as an Anti-Corruption Commission investigation).  Participants should consider the possibility that the company may not want a Wikipedia article about them that they can't control.  -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 15:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "The nominator has been accused of having a close connection to parent company Ananda Group."  As User:WordBounce blamed that with a wrong evedence; it must go beyond Wikipedia:Respect privacy PARVAGE talk!  04:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having a close connection : This was accused by User:WordBounce .  However, I was previously stated that Shaif Zahir was my first article, and I was simply trying to improve it.  Through my research, I discovered Ananta Group, then I found the founder of Ananta Group, Humayun Zahir, and a project of Ananta Group.  As a result, I included  those information to UCB and Madani Avenue .  Hope you understand.  I would appreciate it if you would not mention this accusation again.  Especially there is no connection with this topic.  PARVAGE talk!  06:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is the second-largest private shipbuilder out of hundreds in the country.  It has built ships for the Navy, for the Coast Guard, and for export.  Common sense tells us they are likely to be notable.   In addition to the article "Ship-builder eating away Meghna" that Vinegarymass911 has put forward, other evidence of notability is: Abedin, A S M Arshadul (2007).  "Warship Building in Bangladesh, Problems and Prospects: Analysis and Recommendations" .  NDC Journal .  6 (1): 91–111.  ISSN 1683-8475 .  (when the company was called Ananda Builders)  Iqbal, K. Shahriar; Zakaria, N. M. Golam; Hossain, Kh.  Akhter (December 2010).  "Identifying and Analysing Underlying Problems of Shipbuilding Industries in Bangladesh" .  Journal of Mechanical Engineering .  41 (2): 147–158.  Zakaria, N. M. G. (October–December 2012).  "Moving Forward with Export Oriented Shipbuilding Industries in Bangladesh".  Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C .  93 (4): 373–382.  doi : 10.1007/s40032-012-0034-0 .  "Shipbuilding in Bangladesh" .  CPA News .  Vol.  3, no. 1.  April 2018.  pp. 6–12.  (Transliterates the company name without the final "a" and refers to it by its initialism, ASSL)  Rahman, Sajjadur (29 July 2013).  "Islami Bank stung by shipbuilder" .  The Daily Star .  "ACC grills 7 bankers over Ananda Shipyard loan scam" .  Prothom Alo .  22 December 2014.  Keep based on the sources detailed in my preceding comment.  If the community can't be convinced that it should be a stand-alone article, then at a minimum the topic should be merged to Shipbuilding in Bangladesh .  -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 16:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: While I note Highking has changed their ! vote, relisting to consider sources presented by Worldbruce on 16 June.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Per Daniel's relisting rationale.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to draft to provide opportunity for expansion and addition of sources.  Right now I can't even tell from the article how old this company is.  BD2412 T 03:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For what it's worth, the company is 40 years old.  One can find in Abedin's 2007 article (and other places) that it was founded in 1983.  That information was also in the Wikipedia article until it was gutted of verifiable information, with inadequate explanation, by a 9-edit wonder just eight edits before it was nominated for deletion.  The article certainly needs work, but Articles for Deletion is not cleanup , and the place in which the article is most likely to be improved is mainspace.  -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 06:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - plenty of stuff if you look for it.  As Worldbruce noted above, there are financial scandal(s) not mentioned in the article.  [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] Worldbruce also initiated this investigation: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 198#Sharif Zahir Many thanks to @ Worldbruce -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Users may mess Ananda Group with Ananta Group PARVAGE talk! 04:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for clarifying this! Just to add to the confusion, it looks like there are two very different companies named Ananda Group: [74] , [75] -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By the way, all the links in my comment above are to articles definitely about this shipbuilding company and not a similarly named entity.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One Ananda group is from Bangladesh and another one is Indian.  But you rightly said that articles definitely about this shipbuilding company, a subsid of Bangladeshi Ananda group.  PARVAGE talk!  05:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have expanded the article using mainly sources found in this discussion.  The article had at some point been cut back to a stub and needed to be rebuilt, and I've tried to do that.   It could use an infobox but I've done what I can.  Commenting editors identified a number of articles that substantially discuss the shipyard, including the ones on scandal reporting from @ Worldbruce like this [76] , the TBSNews article [77] and the NDC Journal article [78] .  I've also included some cites provided by @ Vinegarymass911 .   The article about the Meghna river is also substantial coverage, and although I recognize that questions were raised above about its independence there's plenty of independent reporting in the article as well.  My main goal was to raise this beyond a draftify candidate, since it should have been beyond peradventure that this company met notability requirements.   Not everything made the cut.  If the tagged editors want to have a look perhaps they can find a place for other cites they identified.  Comment added by user:Oblivy at 9:52, 26 June 2023‎  Sig added by scope_creep Talk 10:39, 26 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: keep