Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Bangladesh uprising


 * 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 and redirect to 2011 Bangladesh coup d'état attempt per discussion below. Nominator withdrew nomination. (non-admin closure) Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 12:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 Bangladesh uprising

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a single event, the only source is a BBC news article. Wikipedia is not news; this event needs more time than this to establish notability. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * the event is very notable because bangladesh has one of the worlds largest military (over 1m soldiers) and look for example at the 2011 2011 Democratic Republic of the Congo coup d'état attempt article Heonsi (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The size of the army has nothing do with notability – a fish in the Atlantic is not notable just because it lives in one of the world's largest oceans. As for the Congo uprising, that actually happened. There was an actual coup attempt in which several people were killed. This is just a single news story about some officers who wanted to start an uprising but never did. The end. Not notable. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 19:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep It's not an uprising, but a failed coup attempt. The article should be renamed and kept, fleshed out also, if the news holds up. Maybe premature writing it, but if the news holds up, the article should be kept. Pseudofusulina (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: The event is significant ... this is the first attempt by Islamic terrorists to infiltrate the military and incite them into a coup. (previous coups in Bangladesh were not religiously motivated). I'm saying weak keep since the event is very recent and we need more information as the event unfolds. --Ragib (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

*Comment i consider that the article name should stay, a coup is a form of rebellion/revolution. we dont have to use some OR standard of "insert year,insert country coup d'état attempt", and in any case this disscusion is also about the article "2012 Bangladesh uprising" if anyone wants some other title , create a diffrent article and discuss it there Heonsi (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC) This user is a sockpuppet of a banned user, any and all remarks from them should be discounted. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable event, easily meets WP:GNG. I've added a list of sources to the article's talkpage that will hopefully be used in expansion.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs a new title (as no 'uprising' took place), but this seems to be notable based on the available coverage. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep With the extra sources provided, it seems clear that this is a notable event in the history of Bangladesh. Needs a better title, though. First Light (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have references that it was an uprising? All the news sources describe it as an attempted coup d'état, not an uprising. As an alternative, you could source and write an article about an uprising in Bangladesh and use this name. Pseudofusulina (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * e/c A second article with a different title for the same subject would be a WP:CONTENTFORK. If you read how articles should be named (WP:Article titles), you'll see that first you try to find what reliable sources are calling the subject. Every single reliable source that I checked (BBC, Time, Huffpost, Telegraph) called it a "coup" attempt. Onle one of them ever used the word "uprising", and only a single time (the Time article, which also used the term "coup" 11 times). So the article title should be something like 2012 Bangladesh coup attempt. That's what it was, that's what reliable sources are calling it, that's how WP:Article titles determines it ("article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources"). This title is also by necessity descriptive, but "coup" needs to be in that description. First Light (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article is about a coup attempt. Pseudofusulina (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of all the options here, I think the proposed renaming is the best one. This event, whatever it is, certainly isn't an uprising, as nothing has actually taken place. To characterise it as a "coup attempt" is definitely more accurate. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 20:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * First, of all your opinion is already noted as "delete this article" so what you say subsquently is completly irrelavant , Secondly show some respect , it was i who created this article Heonsi (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because someone !voted to delete the article doesn't mean they can't give an opinion on the title of the article in case it is kept. Also, keep WP:OWN in mind - it doesn't matter who creates an article (said by someone who has created a few hundred). We are all equal editors. Wikipedia is a collaboration. First Light (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The coup attempt actually took place in December 2011, it was only recently reported. So the title should be 2011 Bangladesh coup attempt. First Light (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep If more info comes out on this then keep. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The user who created this article is a WP:SOCK of a banned user. As such, any edit made by them may be reverted on sight regardless of its quality. However, since other users have endeavored in good faith to improve this article it will not be speedy deleted and the AFD will determine it's fate without considering the quality of the banned users arguments here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would seem a bit pointless to delete it on a technicality. The article has improved since its creation (although still needs work) and def. took place. I've also moved it to the correct year and title, per the attempted coups in the 2010s category. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Withdraw. Since the banned author is now out of the picture, and I agree fully with the new title, I'm withdrawing this nomination. Regards Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 12:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.