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. There is no evidence of any lasting influence, hence this does not meet WP:EVENT. Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HSC Examination 2014 Question Leak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The article should be deleted according to notability for events, as this type of incident have occurred in Bangladesh many times and it's lasting effect is yet a matter of doubt. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events. Tanweer^talk 23:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. as the notability of current controversy is very high and meets WP:GNG. Also the author of the article has only given summary of the incident that could be added to the encyclopedia as happened before in various controversies. The article seems to be attacked by various editors for its contents by looking at previous deletion nomination history, but wikipedia is not censored as per WP:NOTCENSORED and it may emerge highly notable and require to follow WP:RAPID. -Abhilashkrishn (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Abhilashkrishn ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not an expert on Bangladesh's education system, but a merge to Higher Secondary School Certificate (if that's the right article) might be a solution, and allow that article to be expanded. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article Higher Secondary School Certificate is entirely different from this article. - Abhilashkrishn (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "entirely different" from this article?--Zayeem ^(talk) 09:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENTS. I can show tens of sources on a rumored relationship of a celeb, but that won't validate a wikipedia article like Rumored relationship of X.--Zayeem ^(talk) 21:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a highly notable event and not a rumor. Government of Bangladesh has already formed a committee to probe this event. Also this article entirely meets WP:GNG. Wikipedia cannot be work for the interest of a specific people and it is not censored as per WP:NOTCENSORED. - Abhilashkrishn (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. Notability of an event cannot be judged only through WP:GNG, news agencies tend to cover some insignificant news for their sensationalism (as I've given an example in my last post). WP:NEVENT requires an event to have a national impact and lasting effect, both of which are absent for this topic.--Zayeem ^(talk) 09:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This event has national impact and covered by leading newspaper agencies. As stated in my earlier comment, Government of Bangladesh has formed a committee to probe this event. If it is a mere rumor, the government would not probe this case. Also, the event state is highly changing and may require to put ((currentevent)) tag for informing the readers about its changing nature. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 09:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question is only of Dhaka Education Board which is one of 8 regional education boards in Bangladesh. Where is the national impact? --Zayeem ^(talk) 10:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As you delivered in the wiki link, Dhaka Education Board is responsible for all public schools in Dhaka, which is capital of Bangladesh. Also Dhaka Education Board used to conduct largest exams in Bangladesh. Majority of students in Bangladesh are learning under the Dhaka Education Board, this undoubtedly clinches the significance of this article. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 13:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka Education Board used to conduct largest exams in Bangladesh. Majority of students in Bangladesh are learning under the Dhaka Education Board - any source for this claim? Even if it's true, it is still a regional education board, so doesn't have any national impact.--Zayeem ^(talk) 16:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Source? Yes, although sorting out the number of students in individual boards in Bangladesh is very cumbersome activity from PDF file provided in Board website, one independent source has done that work on 2012.^[1] In spite of that, a small googling of the number of admission to Dhaka Educational Board and number of scholarships to board will authenticate my earlier statement.

Even if it's true, it is still a regional education board, so doesn't have any national impact. - Matters related to Dhaka Educational Board do come under national impact even though this board is one of the prominent boards in Bangladesh. The notability of this event is not only due to the fact that this event affected majority of students in Bangladesh, but also central government itself seriously involved in this case. If you are still under the impression that; this article does not have any significance and should be deleted, you might want to check the other articles in wikipedia like University_of_Illinois_clout_scandal , University_of_Bristol_admissions_controversy and Kanawha_County_textbook_controversy that did not have national level impact but still considers notable under WP:GNG. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 10:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wordpress is not a reliable source. The articles you are showing appear to have lasting effect which is not present in this case.--Zayeem ^(talk) 10:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. But I have not used it to cite the article. As the demographical distribution of students in various boards only can be calculated through the PDF files listed in the board website, there is no other way to get the numbers. But you could always refer the board website for the details. Can you show the lasting effects on that articles and ineffectiveness of this article? You have to first remember that this is a current event and it's changing nature cannot be predicted now. - abhilashkrishn ^talk 11:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are talking from your own research which is of no value, please provide some reliable sources to support your claim.--Zayeem ^(talk) 12:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not claiming anything. My entire point was the significance of this article and doesn't have to prove the number of students studying in Dhaka board and the source itself is offline. Offline sources need not be available online and you could always refer HSC result of 2013. Anyway, our discussion point is not that. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 12:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Real incident, has sources. OccultZone (Talk) 13:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Comment: It looks like there are two AfDs currently open for the page, so we need to find out which one would be the best to keep and close the other. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For reference: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HSC_Examination_2014_Question_Leak -- RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm adding the information from the other AfD, which I have procedurally closed since this AfD appears to be the most active and visible of the two. The closing admin should look over the following text (which I have put into a collapsed shell) and take this into consideration when closing this AfD.

I will alert the participants of the other AfD that any further discussion should take place on this page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. (changed positon) Keep. Real incident? Yes. Significant coverage? Yes. Credible independent source? Yes. Referenced? Yes. Nothing wrong with notability.

"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." (WP:NOTNEWS)

"News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article." (WP:EVENT)

Bear in mind that this, though a crime, a news sensation, a tragedy and an outrage, is still common in Bangladesh. (see this and [this for instance) Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Aditya. No indication of WP:LASTING significance. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:IINFO -- RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Aditya. To me this is one event and as BDD noted, no indication of WP:LASTING. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 07:51, 5 June 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.