Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bangladesh

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timtrent (talk | contribs) at 21:43, 18 September 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alockdia.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Bangladesh. 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:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Bangladesh|~~~~}} 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 Bangladesh. 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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Bangladesh

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. asilvering (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alockdia

Alockdia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:GNG and geographic criteria 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is an uncited source, because a location is given. Where did that come from? Nobody wrote this article using that single news article as the source; my first guess would be that the actual source is GNS or one of its mirrors, but one cannot be sure, and in any case, GNS's reliability is (pardon the pun) all over the map. Likewise, we don't know what GMaps sources are either, and it is hardly problem-free. We don't even know that GMaps isn't copying our names and coordinates into itself, given that they've done so in the past. Look, it's fine by me if you want to rewrite the article with actual named sources, but I'm getting rather tired of coming across these mass-produced stubs which apparently are supposed to be expanded by AfD since nobody else is doing anything for them except the mechanical editors making trivial updates. As it is, the project would be better served if these articles weren't allowed to exist without actual sourcing, because we find too many geostubs which turn out to be fictions of one sort or another. Mangoe (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The cited source claims this is a village in Kalidah union, Feni Sadar upazila, Feni district, Chittagong division, but the 2011 census volume 3 urban area report only lists an "Alokdia" as an "other urban area" in Chuadanga city, Chuadanga Sadar upazila, Chuadanga district, Khulna division. Meanwhile the volume 2 union statistics report has an Alokdia Union in Dhaka division and another in Gazipur division. The Feni district census report only mentions a different Alokdia in Chhagalnaiya Upazila. @Worldbruce where did you find the village-level statistics?
Never mind, the Feni community report page finally loaded. Even so, I think the lack of any reasonable sources about this place besides a trivial mention in a newspaper and trivial census details in a district report ought to suggest any presumption of notability from NGEO can be rebutted for now. It's not even mentioned on the Kalidah union website; the "list of villages" on the landing page has no link and other attempts to get there failed (see image).
OPPS WE DON'T GET THE CONTENT
If a list of villages in Feni Sadar is ever created we can revisit it then. JoelleJay (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2024 (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. Participants provided sources suggesting the subject meets GNG and those sources were not disputed during the discussion. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nipun Roy Chowdhury

Nipun Roy Chowdhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No inherent notability. Subject fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. BEFORE wasn't helpful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Nom is correct that she does not meet WP:NPOL, but as Soman has demonstrated, frequent coverage of her "fiery speeches and run ins with the police" over the past six years does meet WP:GNG, even if the present state of the article doesn't reflect that. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2024 (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. Several of the arguments here, on both sides, lack basis in P&G. In the end, biased content can be cleaned up, but the fundamental issue of failing WP:LASTING has not been adequately refuted. Owen× ☎ 12:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Bangladesh-India border clash

2005 Bangladesh-India border clash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The description of events is one-sided, lacking verification from multiple credible sources. Additionally, there are significant discrepancies in the reported details and conflicting accounts that make it unreliable. The article's content does not meet the standards for inclusion and accuracy expected in a balanced historical record. Nxcrypto Message 16:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. Nxcrypto Message 16:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks any lasting coverage. Lorstaking (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is a notable clash. If you would like to delete this, Please also delete some pages About clashes between India and Pakistan. I Will attempt to add more sources, I kind of forgot about this page, that I created. I should have added more sources earlier. User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Article most of the current citations are Bangladesh-based like Dhaka report, The Daily Observer Bangladesh,  bdnews24. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies in the reported dates of the clash—some sources mention April 16[21], others April 17[22], and some April 18[23]. These discrepancies undermine the article’s reliability. The incident story have various contradiaction as compared to Indian news site with Bangladesh based news site. Additionally, minor conflicts like these, which lack significant international coverage, often do not meet the notability criteria required for inclusion on Wikipedia. The comparison to India-Pakistan conflicts is not relevant here, as the notability and coverage of each conflict should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Nxcrypto Message 09:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m a NZer, so totally outside the local political discussions here, but reading the three sources you cite, they all seem to say that the battle took place on Saturday 16, 2005 (all reference it occurring on Saturday). The different dates (16, 17, 18) were the dates the three stories were published in their respective newspapers, and do not show a confusion about the date on which the shootings themselves occurred. This seems fairly well covered in several different newspapers to me, with similar details in each. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Absurdum4242 Welcome to Wikipedia! It seems you're in a hurry since you've just created your account. I believe that gaining experience takes time. Nxcrypto Message 11:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. As far as I can tell, the only way to get the experience is to actually do the work to get it, which is what I’m trying to do here. If we are all working in good faith (which I assume we are), statements of fact such as “the articles are confused about dates” should be reasonably easily proven or disproven simply by reading the articles in question, and without a deep knowledge of Wikipedia policies (which I am never the less trying to gain). Then it’s just a matter of clearly articulating what we think - which I hope I have done, in service of moving towards consensus. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This happens regularly and is nothing surprising. WP:GNG has to be satisfied. Even right now, Bangladesh is saying that Indian BSF is killing Bangladeshis.[24] The above argument against the deletion that "delete some pages About clashes between India and Pakistan" is baseless. Azuredivay (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The suggestion that different source articles are confused about the dates / give different dates seems to be based on a confusion between the dates the articles were published, and the dates the events themselves were said to have occurred. The sources seem both independent and robust, are numerous, include both local and international news publications (including BBC and Al Jazera), and give details which are consistent between the different articles. The wiki page itself could use some editing for clarity / grammar / neutrality etc, but this does not warrant deletion, it should be edited instead (and I’ll have a go at that tomorrow if I have time).
Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is by User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (please sign your comments). What are you trying to say here? It sounds like you are making accusations about someone or maybe just about the way AFDs work on Wikipedia. You are not assuming good faith of our discussion closers. Please refrain from casting aspersions. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please do not challenge every editor who has a different opinion from your own. It's called bludgeoning a discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah and it is true, A lot of them have not done it in Good Faith. Liz. Ok sure, I will not challenge every editor. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
  • Delete Absurdum4242 is correct that NXcrypto's original rationale for deletion is flawed. Being one-sided or containing discrepancies is not a good reason to delete.
What Absurdum4242 and Tanbiruzzaman don't address, however, is that although there are multiple, independent, reliable sources, except for the India Today retrospective from a couple of weeks after the fact, and the one sentence in The Daily Observer, all are primary source news accounts of the April (Dawn, Australian Broadcasting Corp, bdnews24, Al Jazeera 2) or August (VOA, Al Jazeera 1, BBC) clashes. WP:GNG says notable topics are those that have received "significant attention ... over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia."
Lorstaking and Captain AmericanBurger1775 are correct that there is no coverage that shows a lasting effect. The event was nearly 20 years ago. If historians believed it was significant, they would have written something about it by now, and they haven't. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this article should not be kept. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Well Not Really, How would you know that they think it is significant or not? Also, you cannot just say that they would have written something about it by now, That is a person's choice if they want to write about it or not regardless of it being significant, My argument might have some issues, If so, Please reply. Also, What do you define as significant coverage and lasting effect? I am not asking for the community's answer, I am asking for your answer. As what do you think is significant coverage and lasting effects. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion is still active. Remember, your arguments should be grounded in policy and your assessment about whether or not the sources in the article, that have been bought into the discussion or that you have found, are sufficient to provide SIGCOV and establish GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 20 September 2024 (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 redirect‎ to Mirpur Upazila. asilvering (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amla Sadarpur Secondary School

Amla Sadarpur Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Well-established but ultimately non-notable school. None of the sources cited contribute anything towards notability, and a BEFORE search finds nothing more than the usual social media accounts, directory listings, etc. (If someone can find non-English sources that satisfy the WP:GNG standard, please do.) Declined at AfC but published by the author regardless, so here we are. Clearly fails WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to Add Citations - Hmm, I will try to see if there is anything that can be done. I will try to look for citations that makes proof that the school is notable. Many more might participate, if this page is seen by more, If there are not any citations or proof of notability, there is possibly a reason for deletion. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If any citations that give clear proof that school has notability, English or Non-English. Keep might be a option. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, did you find any citations? Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Mirpur Upazila where the school is located. The cited sources are not independent (ashs.edu.bd, board), are directory listings (Amla Union, Bangladesh Technical Education Board), or are passing mentions (Desh Tottoh, Samakal, and Bangla Vision News). Searches online and offline, in English and Bengali, of independent reliable sources, returned nothing better. The deepest coverage was a single sentence about the school in a 1976 gazetteer, which doesn't amount to significant coverage. Doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL, so should not be a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2024 (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 redirect‎ to List of people who died in the July massacre. Consensus is against retention, but this is a viable ATD Star Mississippi 13:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaykh Ashabul Yamin

Shaykh Ashabul Yamin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly, the case of WP:BLP1E involves sources that are based on a single event, his death. If significant sources from before his death can be found, then the article can be kept. GrabUp - Talk 06:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even less of a consensus now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:02, 22 September 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bangladesh&oldid=1246426090"