Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bhutan

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Bhutan. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Bhutan|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Bhutan. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.

Purge page cache

watch

Bhutan

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zhitpa

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

Not finding any coverage in reliable sources to even verify this cheese. Does not meet WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bhutan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't found any reliable sources, but I've found at least one mention of "Brokpa Zhitpa" [1] which suggests this isn't a hoax. Without a speaker of Dzongkha (the language of Bhutan) to look for sources in that language, I doubt any will be found; Google translate is of no help here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's is a decent source for 'hitpa' cheese from Bhutan. Go figure where the 'z' came from. 80.219.255.14 (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not verifiable. I've looked again and found nothing that mentions this in the context of Ema datshi. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:51, 14 February 2018 (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.

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 merge to Bangladesh–Portugal relations and Bangladesh–Bhutan relations, respectively. bd2412 T 03:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Ambassador to Portugal

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

fails WP:GNG. just a list of non notable ambassadors. also nominating:

Bangladeshi Ambassador to Bhutan LibStar (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bhutan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

vote deferred for now - This is a very important and profound AFD. There are many articles in the mold of "Country X Ambassador to Country Y". While people may write "other crap exists", we should try to be uniform, not arbitrary, and delete some but not others. Another issue is that there may be few or no reliable sources about the list of ambassadors to a certain country. If there are none, then we are almost doing original research by cherry picking information from various sources to make up an article. This is different from "List of US Presidents" where there are reliable sources with lists. There is probably no "List of US Presidents who hated spinach" even though you might be able to find an article that President X hated spinach and another article that mentions President Y doesn't like spinach. AGrandeFan (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Cherry picking information from various sources to make up an article" is called research and is how you are supposed to write an article. WP:Synthesis is about combining facts to come to a new conclusion not in the original source material. If you believed a person was born on Mars instead of Earth, you would pick various statements to support your new conclusion. --RAN (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Bangladesh and India are the only countries in the world to have ambassadors stationed in Bhutan.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- keep Bangladeshi Ambassador to Bhutan as the article is sourced and notable because Bangladesh and India are the only countries to have resident ambassadors in Bhutan and the close ties between Bangladesh and Bhutan. Two of the ambassadors have their own pages and a red link does not mean the individual is not notable it just means an article has not been created. Neutral on the Bangladeshi Ambassador to Portugal article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Not enough trusted sources to ensure article notability at the moment. But relations between the two countries are notably important in South Asia, and thus should be listed but improvement on sourcing is adviced. Tart (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough trusted sources to ensure article notability at the moment. is a reason for deletion. the notability of relations is covered in another article. LibStar (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

improvement on sourcing please demonstrate where these sources are. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 03:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The optimal solution here is to keep this content at Foreign relations of Bangladesh until such point that there's so much well-sourced content that it's ready to be spun-out. A standalone article should not exist until it must. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chris troutman: Sorry, I'm confused. If the optimal solution would be to keep the content at Foreign relations of Bangladesh (and I'm leaning more or less towards agreement with you on that), why is your recommendation delete rather than merge? --Worldbruce (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Worldbruce: I've been screwed in the past where I !voted merge, some !voted delete, but the largest single group !voted keep. The closer determined keep was consensus because they didn't see merge and delete as essentially the same conclusion (that a standalone article should not exist). There are already misguided keep !votes present here, so pushing for deletion is a clearer position than merge. Also, if the split was between keep and merge, the closer could determine keep and ask for a merge discussion, which also wastes time. Finally, you don't need permission to copy material from here and paste it somewhere else so long as you properly attribute. I only !vote merge if the consensus is clearly trending for merge because otherwise it's too risky as a matter of game theory. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Bangladesh per Worldbruce. I would note to closing admin that, game theory aside, Chris troutman's vote could be counted as an additional merge. Ifnord (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bangladesh–Portugal relations may be a better merge/redirect target than Foreign relations of Bangladesh for Bangladeshi Ambassador to Portugal, but either would be fine. Keeping a stand-alone page for this is not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the main article to Bangladesh–Portugal relations. It's clearly part of that topic and the list is not large enough to make the article bloated. I'm less sure about the other one given the geographic proximity of the countries. Hut 8.5 22:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bangladesh–Portugal relations#Official representatives. Not enough meat to justify its own article, but fits in nicely with B-P relations. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both and Merge to Bangladesh-Portugal/Bhutan relations per Power and Troutman. Both are good examples of WP:LISTCRUFT, and serve no encyclopedic purpose separated from their main articles. Bangladeshi Ambassador to Portugal in particular falls under the Creation Guide portion of WP:CSC. If either of these lists can be expanded to the point that they dominate the article, then it may be time to spin them off, but in their current state they are not nearly large or well sourced enough to merit their own article. Ham tech person 00:22, 3 November 2017 (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.

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. Renames should be discussed on the talkpage ..not at an AFD so am closing as Keep, I have no objections if anyone wants to move the article however renaming isn't something that's dealt with here and should be discussed on the tp first (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi Ambassador to Bhutan

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

as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladeshi Ambassador to Germany. Just a directory and better handled as categories LibStar (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bhutan-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of ambassadors of Bangladesh to Bhutan. WP:NOTDIR does not apply here for we have articles like List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Spain. I agree that this requires cleanup, but not deletion for WP:NOTDIR states " (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries)", I presume ambassadors fit in as well. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of ambassadors of Bangladesh to Bhutan. Bhutan has only two embassy one of India and another of Bangladesh. Which makes the relation unique and notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Metaphysics (Aristotle). Refering to Category:Lists of ambassadors a productive view would see the List of Ambassador of a sending government to a hosting government as a stub of an Ambassador of a sending government to a hosting government. 08:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Regesta (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:03, 23 October 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.

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 delete. KTC (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neten Dorji

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

The subject of this article does not appear to be the subject of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. This article was last considered for deletion in June 2005, where there was no consensus. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate evidence of such coverage, but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should significant coverage be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bhutan-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG, which requires multiple sources. I am not sure the one source here is enough about Dorji to pass GNG, but we would need another source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing at all minimally close for basic notability, certainly nothing else convincing beyond that. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ the one source does seem to indicate he is unique and notable for Bhutan. Lemme dig around for a bit and see if he has any album credits or if I can improve this article in some other manner.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could not find anything. Withdrawing my weak keep.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 02:19, 11 June 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.

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 delete. The article is found to be unneeded as the event covered has been canceled. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball at the 2016 South Asian Games

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

The event has been cancelled, so no need for this article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Heartbreaking to say, but there's no need for the article now. Ayoopdog (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bhutan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Maybe redirect instead? Or paradoxically, as it's been cancelled, there should be enough coverage to meet the notability threshold of having lots of reports of why it was called off! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the circumstances of cancellation are already discussed in the parent article 2016 South Asian Games. No need of redirecting the page as IMHO the title would be untimately misleading for the readers. Cavarrone 21:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overtaken by events. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a pity... -- Hybris1984 (talk) 16:04, 19 February 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.