Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bangladesh

WP:DSBD

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:

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.
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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bangladesh/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:Notice board for Bangladesh-related topics

Bangladesh

Sayed Zubair Farooq

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and no evidence or claim of notability. The sourcing is poor, and the article has an overall promotional tone. There are not in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Father is notable but that is it. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Bangladesh, United Arab Emirates, and Australia. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject works for Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum according to the article and that counts, what raises concern is the significant coverage in independent sourcesTesleemah (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it is coming from secondary sources, most of his career is referenced from news articles, his family background is referenced from Bangladesh: A Legacy of Blood, a very reliable source written by Anthony Mascarenhas, Humanitarian and social life is where there may be primary sources, i can remove that if you like. Thomas Khan 45678 (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

except for the article on halalop being a secondary source

Thomas Khan 45678 (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

another notable thing is that he will be running in the coming bangladesh elections but I dont have a secondary source for that yet. Thomas Khan 45678 (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It will be better if citation are from independent sources. And don't add any sentence you can't find references for. A notable stub will still stand Tesleemah (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i have removed sources that were written by himself Thomas Khan 45678 (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is promotional? Thomas Khan 45678 (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence may give you an idea what "promotional" means; "Sayed Zubair Farooq will win the election, because he's the best and wealthiest politician to ever live in or come from Bangladesh". Intrisit (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nah like what is promotional about the article Thomas Khan 45678 (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh, that!! Sorry, seems I didn't scan through the article well! Intrisit (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dainik Shiksha

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article shows zero evidence of notability. Sayful Ialam (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sayful Ialam (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Websites, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explain that why it shows zero evidence of notability please. We also needs reasons for deletion discussion (although my feedback is mutual). Mehedi Abedin 16:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How is it not notable? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet

Rajendrapur Cantonment Public School and College

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not provide substantial independent coverage and depends mainly on promotional content and local news. It fails to satisfy WP:GNG due to a lack of third-party references that demonstrate its significance. Nxcrypto Message 12:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - It Should Be Moved to A Draft. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
Why? What are you going to do with the draft that you didn't do when you wrote the article in the first place? – Joe (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Really? I didn’t even properly know what draft was back then in July, I knew a small fraction. Not everyone knows every Wikipedia policy or the majority of them. I will try to Increase the amount of references, What's the problem here? User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Schools, and Bangladesh. Skynxnex (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramu Cantonment Public School and College

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks significant independent coverage and relies heavily on primary sources, primarily promotional material and local news. Without substantial third-party references, the article does not meet WP:GNG. Nxcrypto Message 11:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Schools, and Bangladesh. Skynxnex (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lalmonirhat Cantonment Public School And College

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks significant independent coverage and relies primarily on promotional material and local news sources. It fails to meet WP:GNG as there is absence of third-party references to substantiate its relevance. Nxcrypto Message 12:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Schools, and Bangladesh. Skynxnex (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajshahi Cantonment Board School And College

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article reliance on promotional content and local news also it does not fulfill WP:GNG. Nxcrypto Message 12:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. Skynxnex (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gafur Bahini

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks sufficient independent sources to establish notability and relies heavily on a two local disputed references. Its content overlaps with broader articles on the Bangladesh Liberation War and Mukti Bahini, making it potentially redundant. Nxcrypto Message 09:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think the article fails WP:GNG. --CometVolcano (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? This is a notable militia. At, this point, I now understand the reason for deleting pages of minor skirmishes, but this is different. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
The user who nominated for deletion, literally deleted sources and then the argument was on relying on two sources, Seriously? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
Violation - Some of these AfDs have been decided on votes, and not proper arguments. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
Draftify if Needed If this topic does not have enough notability, We Shouldn’t Completely Delete it, We could put into draft. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
Delete: After conducting a notability test, I conclude that the article does not meet any notability criteria. The subject of the article does not have significant coverage from multiple independent sources. Tried to search, but unable to find such coverage, and the article fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 12:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification will not help because this is a historical article, and if no coverage is found now, there is little chance it will receive coverage in the future. GrabUp - Talk 12:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mukti Bahini, where this component of the Mukti Bahini is not mentioned but is worth a few sentences. The total information about this militia is essentially the paragraph in The Daily Star. That was later paraphrased in its sister paper, Prothom Alo. Sengupta's 2011 book covers some of the same ground in three sentences. The remaining sources: The Daily Observer, Deutsche Welle, and Banglapedia are passing mentions. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. ✗plicit 14:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi Football Ultras

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, fails to meet WP:GNG and involves conflict of interest with article contributors. Yesterday "Bangladeshi Football Ultras" posted on Facebook page about the team involved of the article, they mentioned some users (may be they are User:Syfullah Nabil, User:মোহাম্মদ জনি হোসেন, User:Mehedi Abedin, User:Mr Kazi Tuhin & others according to mentioned name on post) but the post deleted today^[1] Post Archive link ^[2] Post screenshot link ^[3] added . The article creator commented on the post & thanked to User:অনুরাগ (may be) & others. I think the article is a part of advertising and promotion.

References

Al Riaz Uddin (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Al Riaz Uddin (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brother this is not a promotion or paid editing. Don't delete this article. Syfullah Nabil (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this facebook post, they literally thanked you (& others) for creating the wikipedia article and said "Thank you to the whole team behind it, who are still working" and then you commented & said "I am proud to make this contribution to Bangladeshi Football Ultras". You should disclose any relationship you have with them. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article may be removed if significant policy violations occur but this is not a promotion or paid editing. For notability, there should be at least three independent sources based on only about the topic and there are 2 references from prothom alo and 1 reference from banglanews24vonly writen on the topic. According to this criteria the article is quite surely notable. Md Joni Hossain (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article has some refs, but all of them are basically interview masquerading as article, WP:PRIMARY. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, fails WP:GNG. In this facebook they thanked Prothom Alo, the same way they thanked some wiki user for creating their wikipedia article. I won't be surprised if those news articles are also paid news. It is quite evident that serious WP:Canvassing involved from Bangladeshi Football Ultras. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am here not to vote on the deletion discussion, but to clarify my situation and stance. I was not in the team who created the article, and actually I have no connection with these people mentioned on the post (but I know মোহাম্মদ জনি হোসেন). I didn’t create the article, also I didn’t expand or make significant contributions on the article. What I did is I added categories on the article as a routine work. My routine work is to see for new articles from WikiProject Bangladesh and create talk page and add categories to them if needed. And if needed, I also make some edits to correct article contents. That's what I did for Bangladeshi Football Ultras. I noticed that the "External Links" section was not on the bottom so I edited the page to move it. Then I noticed that the article needs categories so I added them (see my edits: 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). They are all part of my routine work. But yes of course if I realize that any certain article may be deleted soon then I choose not to edit them sometimes. But I didn’t realize that this page could be one of them, so I edited it. And I have nothing to do with that "team". Looks like these people are under wrong impression or they don't understand what the teamwork really is. Mehedi Abedin 16:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I want to add another thing here, before the creation of the article, মোহাম্মদ জনি হোসেন asked me on Messenger app that if the subject is notable in Wikipedia or not. Aside this, we both have no conversation about Bangladeshi Football Ultras. Mehedi Abedin 16:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No notability or anything that justifies encyclopedic content. Svartner (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is clear that the article does not meet the criteria for notability. Instead, the main person of this work can be punish for this paid editing or canvassing. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 07:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's failed to meet WP:GNG and users involved conflict of interest.--DelwarHossain (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Irrespective of notability, this article is written in a variety of gibberish I can't parse, and gibberish is my second language.TheLongTone (talk) 10:14, 3 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.

Md Ziaul Hoque

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article's sources are routine or otherwise not WP:SIGCOV. A search has turned up no sources that would qualify as significant or secondary in order to meet WP:GNG. Garsh (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without reading Bengali it's effectively impossible to find more sources as the subject has the same name as a former Pakistani president. However as a two star admiral I’d expect him to be a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am missing something, there is no subject-specific notability guideline to that effect. His position does not necessarily guarantee coverage, and whose name he may share isn't a good reason to toss GNG to the wind. Garsh (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOLDIER used to say that two star admirals were presumed to be notable, but that guidance was deprecated in 2021. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being head of a national coast guard clearly makes him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some will argue that because we have an article about the admiral who heads the US Coast Guard, we should have an article about the admiral who heads the Bangladesh Coast Guard. The latter may be as worthy an individual and as deserving of notice as the former, but the reason we have notability guidelines is so that we can write a whole, fair, and balanced article. For whatever reason, Ziaul Hoque has not been written about in any depth in reliable, independent sources (even in Bengali). It is not acceptable for an article to be based entirely on government press releases (which are one-sided), and self-published sources that have no reputation for accuracy or fact checking. Those are the only sources available about Ziaul Hoque, so we should not have a stand alone article about him. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Worldbruce. A biography based on primary and non-independent sources is not NPOV, so until sources are found that make neutrality possible the article should not exist. JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I have no knowledge of this subject, but I suspect an admiral possesses a smidgen of notability. Maybe one of the Wikipedia editors from Bangladesh can pitch in to help? Doha Dear (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. You'd presume given his position there would be plenty of RS about him but apparently not. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myself Allen Swapan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during New page Patrol. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Bangladeshi streaming-only series. Of the two references, one is a review and the other is a link to their own commercial. Article was deleted in 2023 due to creation by a banned user and recreated February 2024 by a new user . North8000 (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 1) given a review is cited a redirect to Syndicate_(TV_series)#Spin off is warranted ; 2) but there is plenty of coverage on this (including bylined articles), for example https://www.dhakatribune.com/showtime/309335/‘myself-allen-swapan’-streaming-this-eid ; https://www.tbsnews.net/splash/myself-allen-swapan-when-spin-outperforms-its-parent-series-622514 ; https://www.indiatoday.in/binge-watch/story/what-happens-when-a-wanted-criminal-pretends-to-be-your-husband-2366489-2023-04-30 : -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1979 Bangladesh-Indian skirmishes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant casualties, no WP:LASTING coverage. Wikipedia discourages articles based on WP:NOTNEWS and this is nothing more than that. Nxcrypto Message 14:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article seems well sourced, and several sources are in the late 2010s, some 40 years after the conflict itself, making a nonsense of the “no lasting coverage” claim… it’s… difficult not to see this as politically based spamming since the last couple of nominations on Indian-Bangladeshi border skirmishes from this same editor are just cut and paste, and they have nominated other similar articles last week too… I’ll assume good faith though, and just say that I disagree that the article meets the criteria for deletion based on the merits. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable incident, Lasting effect? It did have some. Nxcrypto, I noticed that you are copying the same message in similar AfD Discussions, Without even checking the page and It's content and aftermath a lot. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
True - The 1979 clash is very notable and it does not violate Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Nxcrypto for some reason is copying and pasting the same message in multiple AfD Discussions, And some people will not check the page and just want to delete it, So they will say "It does not establish WP:GNG and WP:Lasting", Even when, It is clearly notable event with coverage many years later. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
Citations - The page has several citations including from books and newspapers, some require subscription or have limited information but I think the page meets with General Notability Guidelines. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Talk with BangladeshiEditorInSylhet)
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Creating an article by collecting outdated archives instead of modern sources ensures that the subject failed to attract lasting coverage. --Dympies (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The incident was itself so insignificant that it makes sense why it fails WP:GNG. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:49, 3 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!} 16:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remain confused at how the three last-minute delete votes on the day this was set to close can claim a lack of “modern sources” when the Indian Foreign Policy book, for example, was first written in 2007, with the 7th edition being linked to being published in 2018. Add in the cut and paste nature of the original nomination and… as much as I hate to suggest everyone isn’t arguing in good faith, this feels like brigading?

Also…. I don’t think that’s how WP:NOTNEWS works? Given that this happened almost 50 years ago? Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Absurdum4242: Notwithstanding how other participants have phrased it, WP:LASTING refers to lasting effects, not lasting coverage. The single 75-word paragraph in the book is lasting coverage, and distinguishes this event from some discussed at AfD recently which have none, but that paragraph's conclusion is telling: "forces of the two countries clashed but the tension soon cooled down." Nothing significant happened. No one was killed, injured, or taken prisoner; no territory, booty, or reparations changed hands; no new method of determining the border was adopted; no treaty was signed. The event was not a precedent or catalyst for anything. There were no lasting effects. The paragraph in the book suggests that the event may be worth a paragraph in an article more broadly focused on Bangladesh-India border relations. It is not suitable for a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the correct WP would be WP:Continuedcoverge instead, where “ The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance.”? Absurdum4242 (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, enough coverage in WP:RS including editorials. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not at all. Nxcrypto Message 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft if Needed - I suggest draft if this does get deleted. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet
Participants are allowed one bolded !vote per discussion. If you wish to change your !vote, please strike out the old one. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 11:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet to see a single source that addresses the concerns of the nom. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, this is not a constructive comment, and is unlikely to serve your argument. Please remain civil. Owen× ☎ 11:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bangladesh–India border as an alternative to deletion. This article is not primarily about the 1979 border firing. Three-quarters of it is about border incidents before or after that. The 1979 event had no lasting effect and there is limited sustained coverage of it in secondary sources, making it a poor choice of topic for a stand alone article. It would, however, be worth a paragraph in a broader article that put it in context with the many other exchanges of gunfire across this border. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Passes WP:GNG] and Wikipedia is well-known for its systemic bias against topics in this part of the world. A merge to Bangladesh–India border would also be acceptable as a secondary result. Deletion should not be an option here.--User:Namiba 16:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bangladesh–India border. Though I would prefer deletion but merging is not bad either. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:GNG and geographic criteria 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
at this point, delete User is going through and using some hidden source to make a bunch of unverifiable stubs. It's bad enough when a known-to-be-unreliable source is used, but we have no idea here and the onus shouldn't be on us to figure out what source was used. Settlements are so thick on the ground in this region that GMaps is useless, notwithstanding the language issue. Mangoe (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mangoe: Yes it's a stub, but hidden source and unverifiable? The first sentence of the cited Daily Sun article says (admittedly using a transliteration without the "c"): "... Alokdia village in Kalidah union of Feni Sadar Upazila ...". That supports the entire body of the stub. The infobox contains coordinates, which are not in the newspaper article, but Google Maps show them to be in the middle of a pair of built-up area blobs bounded by Alockdia Mastar Para Link Rd and Alockdia Rd, surrounded by Alokdia Bitun Nur Jame Masjid, Alockdia Kazi Bari Jameh Masjid, Alockdia Baitul Aman Jame Masjid, and Alockdia Kendrio Jame Masjid, Alockdia Forkania Moktob, Alockdia Pharma and Departmental store, and Mannan bhuiyan Market, Alockdia (or Alockdia Sporting Club, according to the sign), so calling the map "useless" rings false. The 2011 Bangladeshi census confirms that Alokdia is a village in the stated union, upazila, and district, and says its population at that time was 2,769. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:45, 20 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]

comment One can debate whether WP:5P1's "Wikipedia combines many features of ... and gazetteers" and WP:GEOLAND's "presumed to be notable" mean that verifiable, legally recognized villages should be kept, which WP:PLACEOUTCOMES says they typically are, but the rationales for deletion given so far are unconvincing. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:50, 20 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!} 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).

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]

Delete - one source in a stub basically is original research. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 9 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.

[1] ttps://www.facebook.com/share/p/nq1AYZaca8ZvRJ6i/?mibextid=oFDknk

[2] ttps://archive.ph/inKeg

[3] ttps://imgur.com/a/GPwc4w5

[1]

[2]

[3]