Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banglastan (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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Banglastan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * The previous AfD Articles for deletion/Banglastan in late February 2015 was undecided.
 * At 09:05, 28 September 2015‎ User:Mahfuzur rahman shourov speedy-delete-tagged it for, , , , (very short article, no content, subject invented by article creator, patent nonsense, pure vandalism)., and also "factual accuracy disputed" and "neutrality disputed".
 * At 04:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC) User:Someguy1221 queried this speedy deletion in my user talk page.
 * Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

it is a propaganda article with no RS. the links in citations are of non-notable dubious sources, first glance at url will show. translating the contents of links into english is too much for my hand, leave it to admins with bengali fluency
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, as my previous argument, Strong Delete misrepresentation of source, the idea of it heard from a facebook user thats all and another politician said it to hurt the opposition without any source. So the notion of this idea is imaginative unless it is proven. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. My observation is, this is a strong case of WP:neologism. The term Banglastan has not reportedly been used by prominent Islamist groups. However, some online and social media material can be found where critics attribute or impose use of this term to Islamists. The article is created and maintained by an editor, who has history of generating controversies and pushing POV and neologism. I wouldn't say this word doesn't exist, but at this point, this term doesn't warrant an entry. -- nafSadh did say 22:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. The sources which have been used as reference are misrepresented in most of the cases. The topic does not worth an article, some of the information are vague. Tanweer  talk  22:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Banglastan! definitely a Fighting word-used by some Radical group and Politician for blame game and hate speech. The article here intentionally created, as if it were a separatist movement in Bangladesh! What comes next? Article like Hindu Republic of India! just because of facebook propaganda like these HINDU-REPUBLIC-OF-INDIAHindu Republic of India _/\_—Samudrakula (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete For a concept to have its own Wikipedia article, that concept must be the subject of at least two published sources which are cited. I can only check the English language sources here but those only give passing mentions of the term. There can be Wikipedia articles about the protests behind this concept but I do not see evidence in the English language sources that this term should have its own article. Much of the content presented here does not match the sources being cited.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This article has been created for propaganda. Most of the sources are grossly misrepresented; the remaining are unreliable. Often newspapers publish news on non-sense matters but that doesn't make it suitable for Wikipedia. A propaganda term like 'Banglastan', which is published on a facebook page, can not be the subject of an Wikipedia article. Strong Delete. --Ali Haidar Khan Tonmoy (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see this article as a hoax or a vandalism attempt. However, the term Banglastan is not that notable for an article. Simply fails GNG. There are factual errors too. Faizan (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is nothing but an intentional attempt of incitation based on misrepresented and disputed unreliable sources which can be led to a clutter. The links of the newspaper article doesn't prove that it is a strong based factual concept, and these reports are nothing but some volatile thought, based on some social media propaganda to lead to unwanted sectarianism. These type of article should not be kept on wikipedia. Strong Delete. Sharif uddin (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I would like to ask for Speedy Delete for the article. Lots of unreliable sources, someone's personal opinion are given to establish the notability of the subject! And Basher Kella is just an unofficial facebook page. Looks like the creator of the article has no idea about it. It's any statement can't be the subject of an Wikipedia article. Happiest persoN (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, This post is a propaganda. Someone wrote something in Facebook does not mean that it becomes notable. The concept of "Banglastan" is not any wide spread idea. The sources used here also don't establish the matter. These contents were picked up from some websites and then added in Wikipedia. The key term was used once in some websites and even some websites don't mentioned it. Few of the website page don't exist. Also those who used the term in the websites are all secondary person, not primary source, besides it is something they (persons who stated the term) believe. There is no clue that these guys got the information from the alleged party. There is an website link which refers a Facebook page, but as I stated earlier, it does not make it notable. So this page should be deleted. Intakhab ctg (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree with others. It is just a propaganda. These type of article should not be kept on wikipedia. Strong Delete. Altaf  ( talk )  21:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, This is just a propaganada. Its not a widely known term. It shouldn't be on wikipedia. fer dous  ''' TM 03:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. It means two things - (a) a journalistic rhetoric used sporadically, and (b) one post in a defunct facebook page. Neither clears WP:N. Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Somebody can snow this closed any time now... Carrite (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2015 (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.