Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater 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  No consensus. Concerns about describing the subject in a more neutral tone are a continuing concern in any political article. Mandsford 23:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Greater Bangladesh

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable fringe theory concocted out of synthesis of material that relies heavily on unreliable sources. Looks like a coatrack to push a non-neutral point of view Aditya (talk • contribs) 09:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Question I don't quite see what that alleged POV/agenda would be -- what is it? Please explain. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an article related to Category:Irredentism - the article reports the existence of a concept, not reported as a fact, related to irredentism. There is no POV agenda in the wording or subject discussed. Shiva   (Visnu)  13:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep There may be some possible justification for not putting this article on T:DYK, but there is no doubt in my mind that this article is legitimate and should remain on Wikipedia. These are my points:


 * 1) The coinage/usage of the term is clear from the sources, which include a report from the then-Governor of Assam to the then-President of India. In the same report, the Governor reportedly uses quotes prominent political leaders Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The term is again used in the sources provided. Terms are usually coined from exact such sources as government reports, publications, etc. The article reports that the term exists and has been used.
 * 2) The article is written in accordance with WP:NPOV. There is clear usage of the words "claims", "alleged", "some Indian politicians and scholars" on numerous occasions. Nowhere is it reported as a fact. The only points that emerge as facts is the concern and reactions in India over the illegal immigration issue - this is true enough, that there have notable reactions. That reports the reactions from people who believe, but that is not presented as proof of the existence of this claim. The Bangladesh point of view has been simple - they deny such a concept exists and deny illegal immigration in India of any kind.
 * 3) Reliable sources: there was apparently a discussion questioning the legitimacy of books published by [Gyan Publishing] - while several editors expressed their concern, there was no consensus whatsoever to declare this source as inherently unreliable. This company has existed since 1984, long before the conception of Wikipedia. The report from the Governor of Assam is a reliable source - not as evidence of the legitimacy of "Greater Bangladesh", but as proof that such a concept/theory exists. It has been said by the detractors of this article that the Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam is a fringe terrorist group - they have participated in terrorist attacks in India already, and I don't think they need to do a 9/11-style attack before becoming notable. The northeast has been a hot-bed of separatism in the recent past, and I don't find reporting any terrorist group that has carried out attacks as non-notable. In the statement of Ragib, it has been asserted that the authors of books talking about Greater Bangladesh are not "well-known political theorist", and also a number of political analysts are not "reputed" in Bangladesh - I replied that a number of reliable political analysts, respected in academic circles, can fall in this category. How can you arbitrarily disqualify the authors (as well as publishers) of the books used as sources? In regards to Google hits - it may substantiate the existence of a topic, but certainly does not serve as evidence denying its existence. In the same segment, Aditya Kabir quotes part of the data in one of the sources, which identifies the term and that this concept exists as a feared irredentism, not recognized as existing by official sources. I offer this part of the quote that illustrates just what this article is saying:

At the same time, there were many in India who assumed that the state of Bangladesh itself was pursuing an evil territorial design; seeking Lebensraum for its teeming population and ultimately usurping Indian territory in order to establish a Greater Bangladesh. - Willem van Schendel, The Bengal borderland: beyond state and nation in South Asia - this same source on page 234 says here that the Bangladeshi response was complete denial of the whole issue of illegal immigration, which the author condemns using terms like "callous" and that the Bangladeshi reponse "annihilated" the victims, found it "inconvenient to acknowledge" the citizenship of fellow Bangladeshis. If I were trying to push an anti-Bangladesh POV, I would have written a whole para importing using this author's passage, inculcating his personal/scholarly POV. The pages 233-234 written by Wllem van Schendel describes both the Indian and Bangladeshi POVs, pointing out the flaws in their POVs. I am not attempting any critique of any POV, but using van Schendel's work as evidence that the concept exists.

That is precisely what I am trying to report - the existence of such a concept and its reactions. I am not offering evidence that their claims are legitimate. The article describes some Indian politicians and scholars and a report from the Assam governor to the Indian president as proponents of that such a scheme exists.

The context of the sources may be complicated, but the article is not attempting any complicated assertions about the legitimacy of the concept - it simply reports that it exists and describes what it is.

Finally, I find that another article, Greater Nepal underwent an attempt at deletion - Articles for deletion/Greater Nepal, which failed for precisely the same reasons that apply in this article. There are other articles like Greater Armenia, Greater Serbia, Jinnahpur, which are all in the same classification. A look into the Category:Irredentism (which I guess I should add to the article) will provide many related examples. Each of those articles may be written in varying degrees of quality, but do they deserve deletion? No.

This article can be improved, no doubt about that. Any recommendations for improvement will be adopted. But in my mind, there are no grounds whatsoever to brand it as a WP:HOAX, WP:COAT and have it deleted. Shiva  (Visnu)  13:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - a prior discussion can be found at this link, where the doubts about this article first emerged. Shiva  (Visnu)  13:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Seb az86556, the article says - "Greater Bangladesh ("Brihat Bangladesh") is a political concept calling for the territorial expansion of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to include the Indian states of West Bengal, Assam and others in northeastern India" which according to The Bengal borderland: beyond state and nation in South Asia by Willem van Schendel, an highly notable academician and an expert in the field (see, or ), is a case of "demonization" of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants to India by some "influential Indian politician". The book is selectively used as source for the article. The other source - Illegal migration from Bangladesh by Braja Bihari Kumara mentions such a claim as part of the discussion in a politician-heavy seminar in India (an annex to the book). The third book - Terrorism in India's north-east: a gathering storm by Ved Prakash - mentions it as an agenda raised in a conference of minority radical groups of India and Myanmar. Putting together such passing mentions and ignoring the academic commentary available doesn't represent a non-neutral POV. But, more importantly, the subject is not notable enough to warrant an article. Zillions of political rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and urban legends are born every day. Certainly an encyclopedia can't or shouldn't accommodate all that. The only remaining source is a report by S K Sinha, an Indian politician and ex-army officer, which apparently cited no source of information.
 * @S h i v a (Visnu), this has nothing to do with the DYK, and the whole mention of the DYK irrelevant here. Let's rather focus on the problem here - this is primarily not notable, and secondarily not neutral. While neutrality can be fixed, notability is a basic requirement for existence of an article here. Mentioning Gyan publication serves no purpose either, as it is not an issue here. Also other stuff exists isn't a valid argument. If we are discussing this article, we are discussing this article. I still want to mention that the Nepal article quoted is mostly about the Sugauli Treaty, and no fringe political assumption.
 * Thank you both. Aditya (talk • contribs) 14:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Aditya - it is a courtesy to provide a link to where the discussion of this issue began - what's wrong with that? Several of the points associated with this AfD have been discussed there - that is where this debate originated. Apparently the reliability of Gyan Publishing was an issue raised by Ragib as part of the problem with this article. Why would Sugauli Treaty be the only factor for Greater Nepal? It wasn't just about that in the article and AfD and it has an article of its own anyway. It serves as a root of the irredentism yes, telling us what is the basis, as does the illegal immigration issue here, and to an extent the partition of Bengal and Bengali nationalism. As for WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I personally don't think the other articles are "CRAP" that exist as examples why this one should not exist. Thank you,  Shiva   (Visnu)  14:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)Comment I'm concerned that the first reference that the article cites is a book by Gyan Publishing House, which has been reported multiple times (1, 2, 3, 4) for plagiarism and circular referencing from Wikipedia. The publishers seem to have been, as a result of these discussions, flagged as unreliable. Unless the authenticity of this source is verified, the credibility of the information in the article (which would only have two sources to back it then - one being an unsourced report) would take a beating. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I do note that one of the editors commented that a generalization cannot be made and each one has to be evaluate on case-by-case basis and that not all publications from this company are problematic. But if this discussion establishes that the source should not be there, that will be duly enforced - I would see it as an improvement, not evidence that this article is a hoax or something. This article will still have 2 credible references and the notability and deletion/non-deletion of this article can be weighed through those. Shiva   (Visnu)  14:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * While the following cannot be offered as direct links or for quotes, here are some other books that according to synopsis, discuss the term "Greater Bangladesh" in their subject matter: Bangladesh: A Silent Security Threat by S.K. Mishra, Bangladesh: Treading the Taliban trail. Shiva   (Visnu)  14:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was not aware of the extent of the Gyan Publishing problem. Then WP:RS is an issues here as well. Anyways, this isn't an article about irredentism, rather it's an article on a fringe conspiracy theory that was mentioned by sporadic sources passing, and was identified by an academic study as such. I would like to point out that Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. The non-neutrality comes from the way this fringe theory was presented as a fact. Relying on your good faith, I am not accusing that the article is being used as a soapbox, though it clearly can seem so. The best refuge for the theories put forward here may be the article on Illegal immigration in India. The new citations are advertisements for the book. What was the actual content? A mention of another politician making grand claims? Another government seminar that discussed Bangladeshi immigrants from multiple perspectives? If we are trying to establish that the term exists, we must admit that it does. But, unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. It's an encyclopedia.
 * BTW, I just googled my own name, and it returned a number of mentions in books and newspapers. I sincerely don't think that can be a reason for an existence of an article on me. And, you got the other stuff policy wrong. Cheers. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We're talking of the existence of a political concept in scholarly and political circles, admittedly mainly Indian, about possible expansionist ambitions from various groups and potentially the government of Bangladesh. "Grand claims" of a politician? All forms of irridentism involve such examples, but also note that the Governor of Assam made an official report, not merely a political speech or interview. It is really a separate subject matter, especially since there is terrorism involved here. The link between Sugauli Treaty and Greater Nepal is actually pretty close to what we are discussing here. However, it is certainly a good idea to note the data about "Greater Bangladesh" in Illegal immigration in India, especially if consensus here determines that a separate article is not justified. Shiva   (Visnu)  15:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @Aditya - ah, but googling hits don't prove that there shouldn't be an article about you :) If someone writes a scholarly work about something notable you did, then why not? A lot of notable things are done which are not put up on enough websites to score a lot of Google hits. Shiva   (Visnu)  15:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @Aditya - as for misunderstanding policy, it is clearly possible that both/either you and I may have gotten it wrong or else we would not be in this debate. I don't claim to know it better than others or not be mistaken in this case. I don't have a problem honoring the consensus here. Hopefully we'll all improve our respective knowledge. Shiva   (Visnu)  15:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That was fast. Anyways, we haven't seen a reliable and verifiable reference made to scholarly circles yet. But, "possible expansionist ambitions" and "potentially the government of Bangladesh"!!! Wikipedia is definitely not a crystal ball, my dear. And, please, stop mentioning that other stuff exists, it's just not a valid argument. And, yes, offline sources are most welcome, as long they are reliable, verifiable, appropriately in context, and don't just mention the subject in passing. BTW, is the "Strong Keep" position moving towards "Merge"? I hope whatever the consensus is we shall emerge as friends from this debate. Cheers. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alrite, now there has been too much of unnecessary sarcasm and condescending behavior from certain editors. I do not wish to aggravate tensions, hence I am not going to comment further. I have already stated numerous times that I will honor the consensus opinion - if my current understanding is flawed, I will learn and improve. Shiva   (Visnu)  15:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

* Keep - Pretty staightforward and neutral encyclopedia-type discourse on a religious/nationalist movement. Beaucoup Google returns on a search for the phrase. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Struck through accidental duplicate comment. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Pretty staightforward and neutral encyclopedia-type discourse on a religious/nationalist movement. Beaucoup Google returns on a search for the phrase. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you go through the referenced material before taking a position? If you have not, please do. It doesn't pass through notability guidelines. The existence of the phrase is not good enough for an article. The only academic reference clearly states that the term was an attempt to demonize hapless illegal immigrants by some influential politicians. An unverified theory of some politicians doesn't make a religious/nationalist movement. And, putting forward an unproven or unverified claim as a fact is not neutral. Please, check WP policies for that. And, finally an encyclopedia is not a place to have a discourse, there's nothing called an encyclopedia-type discourse. I hope you have noticed the peacocks and weasels here.
 * @S h i v a (Visnu), dude, there was no "sarcasm and condescending behavior" from any editor here. Please, don't get hurt so easily. Wikipedia can only survive if we can collaborate. My proposal to be friends still stand in all sincerity. Please, assume good faith. Aditya (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. The concept is not a well known one ... other than the allegations of a few right-wing Indian politicians' rhetorics. The references provided in the article do not provide the concept any significant coverage.


 * Courtesy of Google Books, I checked out ref #1,, where "Greater Bangladesh" is mentioned only 4 times in total. (plus once in the glossary). Among the 4 mentions of this, 1 quoted the phrase from a petition filed in a court of India.(pg 368). Pg 335 is about allegations from BJP, a right wing political party.Page 180 claims the concept to be an obscure militant group's "aim". Finally, page 520 mentions one Sadiq Khan and Abdul Momin to be the advocates of the idea ... none of them are well known political analysts or columnist at all. Ref #3 quotes Sadiq khan's 1991 article on Holiday, where the Khan talked about population and manpower exports and migrations, rather than creating a "Greater Bangladesh". Once again, Khan is not notable at all in Bangladesh as a "intellectual", and misquoting a 1991 article by Khan in his own weekly magazine does not indicate the concept of "Greater Bangladesh" is anything other than the imagination or political rhetoric of right wing Indian politicians.


 * I will add more justification of my comments later. --Ragib (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per the reasons given by Ragib. Shyamsunder (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:V. The concept of a Greater Bangladesh is not well known in either Bengal. Neither Bangladeshi Govt. nor Govt. of the West Bengal ever discussed on this issue. This issue was not even a subject of discussion in national media of either country. I can remember one similar concept called United Ireland, that became Wikipedia article. If you go through the article, you'd see the reason why it became a WP article. It is because of its background and well-established history dated back in 1916-1922. Since then both Irish and British Govt are actively involved in negotiation and it was a subject of several public referendums in recent years. This issue is also a highly covered topic in both British and Irish media. But Greater Bangladesh lacks in all sorts. (Please note that I am not comparing two articles, rather just showing the depth of reference and coverage is required to establish such an article in WP.) -- Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  22:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - If it's a fringe right wing ideology, that's fine and dandy — make a note of it in the article. Existence of an article on a topic does not constitute endorsement, obviously. Carrite (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not the main problem, ... the main problem is that it fails WP:N. Even in the books in the references, it is mentioned in only a few places, and only in the passing. Besides van Schendel's book, none of the others are really RS. --Ragib (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not discussing an ideology here, right wing or not. We are discussing a fringe conspiracy theory. If you want the article to be appropriate it would probably read something like - "Greater Bangladesh is a rhetoric coined by a few politician in India to demonize illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. The governments of India or Bangladesh never discussed the concept, and it was never reported by mainstream media as a reality. One regional Indian administrator though wrote a report on the subject and sent to the central government, the report was covered by a few mainstream news outlets. Once a regional minority radical group and in another time a security analyst have discussed it as part of various discussion issues. A couple of military writers have used the term at least once in one book or other, a fact that was used in the digital advertisement for the books.". The neutrality adjusted and verified article would look like a joke. Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Looking at the Google books result, the term "Greater Bangladesh" does seem to be notable. But, I'm not sure whether these results are for the concept this article talks about: "territorial expansion of the People's Republic of Bangladesh". utcursch | talk 06:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question there. The Mikey Leung book discusses it as a 7th century notion. The Zakia Soman book describes it as a funny allegation. The Bardwell L. Smith book uses the term to describe the geographical concentration of Bengali people. The Aijazuddin Ahmad book launches the term to define a co-operation treaty between Bangladesh and West Bengal.The Mohāmmada Hānanāna book refers to a pre-1947 proposal to divide the Raj into three parts: India, Pakistan and Bengal. Yes, the term has many flavors and connotations. Could make for a nice entry at the Wiktionary. Aditya (talk • contribs) 13:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom. Mar4d (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A re-look at some mentions of the term does make it a phenomenon. Therefore, I vote keep. Mar4d (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that "greater" and "Bangladesh" used in succession to make a phrase that defines many different and unrelated notions makes it a phenomenon? What exactly is this phenomenon? Or more fundamentally - what defines a phenomenon? Surely not random use of two different words to make a variable meaning (and that too not too common). Please go through the reading material. Enough links has been provided here alone. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Question "Cheap Artist" seems to have 150 book hits, more than 50 news hits, and almost 50,000 web hits. "Fucked up" has nearly 270,000 book hits, nearly 6,500 news hits, and almost 7,500,000 web hits. "Small dick" has more than a thousand book hits, more than 250 news hits, and almost 7,000,000 web hits. All these seems to be "phenomenal". Do we suggest that these are encyclopedic enough enough to have articles about? Wikipedia looks for encyclopedic stuff, not phenomenons. I believe a more encyclopedic article can be created for any of these than the article we are discussing. Check for the neutrality adjusted version of the article posted in this discussion. Aditya (talk • contribs) 18:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  11:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)See WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST 2)We have smelly socks (Yes, it survived AfD). Fucked-up and small dick are redirects to synonims of these same notable concepts. -- Cycl o pia talk  00:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment - This is a term that relates towards an ongoing political battle between Indian nationalists and Muslim nationalists and I strongly advise the closing administrator not to merely count noses in determining this result. Think of it as a highly contentious Israel-Palestine article that must be carefully examined. There is not a doubt in my mind that "Greater Bangladesh" is a term which has scholarly currency as the "vision" of Muslim nationalists. For this use, see for example: Braja Bihārī Kumāra's book Illegal migration from Bangladesh, page 223, which summarizes "In the light of demographic aggression of our country [India] by Bangladesh; arrival of 20 million illegal aliens and large number of refugees; ...its denial to accept its own citizens and even to accept their presence in India; the motivated claims/opinions of Bangladeshi individuals about "lebensraum"; their desire and dream for greater Bangladesh, and continued unfriendly acts towards India..." (emphasis mine). This is a hot topic for Indians and we must be sure the summarization of the debate here is based upon the real issue at hand — whether the topic is worthy of encyclopedic coverage — and not a facile count of I DON'T LIKE IT votes... Carrite (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The expression is used properly in the academic literature (see some of the results here). It has also historical connotations (cfr. ) and it is strongly and properly present in news sources (see here) where it is treated as a defined concept. This book makes use of the concept reasonably often, for example. It seems a definitely notable expression. -- Cycl o pia talk  00:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have already commented on the book, which, written by a non-notable author, makes false claims based on comments attributed to "Intellectuals" who are virtually non-notable in Bangladesh. (the same attribution is repeated in multiple sources, but on reading the actual article by the NN intellectual, I found the book's claim unfounded). The "news reference" you point out are from obscure news sources, or op-ed/interviews, rather than actual news items (save for a few). I'd really like to see some credible and significant news coverage from mainstream media on this. Unfortunately, your news link does not show that. --Ragib (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is not if the claims are true or false. This is a matter for the NPOV and accuracy of the article. When establishing notability, what is important is that the expression is indeed used and discussed in sources. You say that there are a few news items and "multiple sources" that repeat an attribution: this is enough for us. Wikipedia covers a lot of notable hoaxes and notable misconceptions: what is important is to make sure that they are marked as such (if they are -I have no opinion on this). -- Cycl o pia talk  23:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify: You say above about the book that the concept is the imagination or political rhetoric of right wing Indian politicians -This may well be true, but we're not discussing that, we're assessing if it's 'notable imagination or political rhetoric. See Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories for an example of notable wacky right-wing political rhetoric. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Upon this relisting, I would like to re-emphasize the example and precedent of Articles for deletion/Greater Nepal, which is very similar to this one. The nominator made a similar argument, and it was declined on the basis of similar arguments being presented here. Shiva   (Visnu)  19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The very existence of the article probably violates most of the WP:5P, especially WP:N. It really doesn't matter how much I like it and how much you don't.
 * "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more notable than it is." WP:FRINGE
 * "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." WP:GNG
 * "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. WP:GNG
 * "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage, or jargon guide." WP:NOT
 * "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." WP:SOAPBOX
 * "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." WP:ASSERT
 * "Don't misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views." WP:ASSERT
 * It really gets tiring to see the arguments twisted around
 * @Cyclopia 1: This isn't about other stuff exists or not. This is about the existence of two English words sequentially. This is what shows up in most of book, scholar, web and news hits. Instead of trying to prove the examples wrong, you can try out any two words to generate google hits.
 * @Cyclopia 2: A passing mention in a book by for a supposedly 9th century notion without a source for that information? 22 news hits that include unacceptable sources, letters to the editor and assorted trivia? 27 scholar hits that are either by Braja Bihārī Kumāra or quotes Braja Bihārī Kumāra or is mostly inconsequential? Are we seriously taking this as a defined concept?
 * @Cyclopia 3: Why pick the unimportant part of Ragib's comment, when clearly he said in verbatim "the book, which, written by a non-notable author, makes false claims based on comments attributed to "Intellectuals" who are virtually non-notable in Bangladesh. (the same attribution is repeated in multiple sources, but on reading the actual article by the NN intellectual, I found the book's claim unfounded)." If you want to counter his argument counter his argument, not his writing style.
 * @Carrite: Great quote, but would you please read a few more pages of the book to find that it was a part on an annex on a seminar where it was mentioned once among hundreds of other stuff? I had already mentioned that earlier on this very thread. Sometimes repeating the obvious becomes necessary.
 * @Shiva: Please, stop that WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. You have done that more than necessary. And, it's still not a valid argument.
 * Sorry, if I sound rude. That's not my intention. Probably that's my crappy writing style. Cheers. Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Aditya - it is humorous and poignant that your final words to Carrite were "Sometimes repeating the obvious becomes necessary" just before you ventured to tell me to stop repeating an argument that I've "done that more than necessary." If you are aware of sounding rude, then please take more care in your comments. Shiva   (Visnu)  04:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Aditya: I am sorry but if there is anyone twisting policy, it is you. You for example are getting WP:GNG completely upside down: it need not be the main topic of the source material. Not, you see? It does NOT need that.
 * Now, WP:FRINGE is a matter of how content is presented, not of content existing here or not. It's a matter of keeping NPOV. But it has nothing to do with the suitability of the subject for an article. Nor WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ASSERT etc. have any bearing. They have bearing on how to write the article, not on if to write it or not. What can be solved by editing is not going to be solved by deletion, per our deletion policy. Notable fringe theories are covered by us.
 * And yes, we are seriously taking this as a defined concept. I don't know who this Braja Bihārī Kumāra is, but if people cite him and use his concepts in papers (you say yourself, "quotes B.B.K."), then it is a notable concept. Accept that.
 * About Ragib's comment: The point is that the book making false claims or being written by a non-notable author is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the concept is discussed outside of here, it's verifiable and it has been cited here and there in publications. There are dozens of false claims written by non-notable authors that are nonetheless notable, because they are repeated in sources. Also, I don't understand where I have criticized his writing style (which is fine, for what I can see):I was answering to arguments.
 * I suggest that if you care about this problematic concept, you should spend your energies in making this a NPOV compliant article, instead of simply trying to get a notable concept deleted because you don't like it. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also: I see you above write "it's an article on a fringe conspiracy theory that was mentioned by sporadic sources passing, and was identified by an academic study as such." - If it has been discussed by an academic study, it is most probably notable. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Twisting policy"? I said, in verbatim "twisting arguments". See what I mean? By the way GNG says it need not be the main topic, but it needs to be mentioned more than in the passing (i.e. not a quick mention in an annex, and forgotten). Even the academic study mentioned that fringe theory only once, and went on to discuss other things. on Please, Googling isn't definitive measure of notability. Anyways, if you like it you like it, and I really can't change that. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I am deeply suspicious of the possibility (likelihood?) of a political agenda behind the nomination of this article for deletion. Personal political objections to the concept discussed in the article are certainly insufficient grounds for deleting that article. Otherwise, all manner of disputed political ideals would be deleted, and that would be absurd. (Caveat: I am a New Zealander who couldn't care less about the political issues implicit in the topic of this article and the commentary above). BlueRobe (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be right, but I strongly doubt it. Whatever personal POV is involved, its inadvertant and unintentional. According to their contribution histories, Messrs. Ragib and Aditya Kabir are distinguished editors in good standing; Ragib is also an administrator I note. I doubt they would do anything so contrary to Wikipedia's basic rules. Shiva   (Visnu)  11:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * BlueRobe, you made a nasty personal attack here. You should apologize. Even though I don't agree with Shiva on the notability of the topic, I never indicated any bad faith or hidden agenda in his part. Strongly disagreeing on a topic based on my evaluation of the subject's notability and the reliability of supporting sources does not indicate any political ideals, and by attacking me and Aditya personally, rather than our arguments, you are simply being incivil. I urge you to withdraw this personal attack, and I am open to hearing any logical argument from you in support of your keep opinion. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The "lack of notability" arguments are clearly nonsense - the concept has widespread recognition in media (especially regional media sources), as a simple check of Google will demonstrate. This entire page is packed with people pushing their own political agendas. Thus, I strongly urge caution before deleting this article and playing into the hands of some behind-the-scenes political manoeuvre. BlueRobe (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will also add that this nomination's reference to the "non-neutral point of view" is a misrepresentation of the WP guidelines. Wikipaedia does not prohibit biased points of view (POVs). POVs are rife throughout Wikipaedia whenever there is an article that strongly relates to one of the parties to a dispute or conflict. Wikipaedia's policy is that the article on the POV-topic should be written from a NPOV based on WP:RS. If articles that represented a POV were banned then Wikipaedia would have to censor out articles on Climate Change, Palestine and Terrorism - and that would be absurd. BlueRobe (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen - all of you are excellent editors - I have no doubt of the integrity of Ragib and Aditya Kabir, nor do I consider BlueRobe's comment to be an outright personal attack. If any of you honestly feels there is POV/agenda-pushing going on, the only way to fight it is through policy-based, logical arguments. Retaliatory remarks will not be of any help, so please be cool, calm and respectful. Shiva   (Visnu)  22:56, 21 September 2010 (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.