Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolutionary Students Unity of Bangladesh (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Students Unity of Bangladesh

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

No notion of notability. First cited source do not refer to this organization; second source is dead. The organization do not seem to have any significant activity within Bangladeshi politics or student politics whatsoever. Information in this article can not be verified. Related Bengali article also do not cite any source and there are discrepancies between information presented in Bengali and English article. – nafSadh did say 03:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I explained reasons for keep in past AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolutionary Students Unity of Bangladesh, where I listed a number of instances the organization appears in mainstream Bangladeshi media. As for the first reference (which doesn't really back up the claim of the article), it does mention the Bangla name of the organization. Some new news links on the organization from 2014: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], --Soman (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are too many references, article should be kept. Previous AfD was withdrawn by the nominator. Nomian (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has plenty of sources, and WP:GNG has been met. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since we're keeping the other ones. Cramyourspam (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2014 (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.