Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List countries by Bengali speakers


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, I'm amenable to restoration to that namespace or User space. Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

List countries by Bengali speakers

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:UNSOURCED, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH (WP:CIRC). Created 4 days ago, apparently from arbitrarily WP:copying within Wikipedia without mentioning sources. Article states: Some numbers have been calculated by Wikipedia editors by mixing data from different sources; figures not attributed to sources and given with a date should be treated with caution. In most sources, the results shown are of people who say that they can speak Bengali, while that was not verified; which means the actual number of Bengali speakers could be higher or lower. This means the creator has not taken up the basic WP:BURDEN of providing WP:RS and Attribution, and expects other people to fix the problems he caused. This is in line with a common pattern of disregarding policies and guidelines by creator User:Marxist Economist ever since he began editing Wikipedia 2 months ago, and has been repeatedly warned about from day 1, but seems to ignore. As this is a theoretically potentially legitimate topic, I say we WP:TNT this, and wait for someone else to start over properly. (I would recommend a standardised article title like Geographical distribution of Bengali speakers per established convention in such a case). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Geography. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 09:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR. Mccapra (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: This article needs fixing, but there is no need to start over. This article is not nearly bad enough to be deleted per WP:TNT. It is OR to some extent as it copies from other Wikipedia pages, but someone can update the page with references and fix any grammatical errors without much difficulty. WP:TNTTNT explains my reasoning well. Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 14:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is calling for violation of Wikipedia's fundamental contract with contributors, that they are credited with their contributions by the page history of an article. That is exactly what the creator of this article has done by explicitly admitting he does not attribute any figures to any sources whatsoever, plus copying within Wikipedia from other contributors without giving credit where it is due. If this "fundamental contract with contributors" is regarded as significant, then the first thing we should do is delete this copyvio and punish the creator for his violation of the contract. As noted (and can be seen on his talk page since day 1), this is not the first time he is violating many of the Wikipedia community's rules. As for what is here, it is so small with such a short history that it's not even worth saving. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment As this is mainly an issue caused by ME's behavior, maybe a better solution would be to take up his behavior at ANI and draftify this article? Iseult   Δx parlez moi 15:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That said, looking over WP:TNT more closely, I'm not opposed to a deletion either. This article plainly falls under the TNT argument mentioned there: if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. I'd like something along the lines of ANI to address the root cause, though. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 14:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per nom. No opposition to draftification. I'm not sure there's a strict copyvio issue here, as the bare numbers in the table seem highly unlikely to be eligible for copyright; but there really doesn't seem to be anything salvageable here, just a small pile of unverified and possibly unverifiable numbers. It's not even clear if the list description's reference to "Wikipedia editors" refers to the editor(s) of this page or other pages. But either way that just isn't an acceptable way to source information. -- Visviva (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2023 (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.