This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to West Bengal. 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|West Bengal|~~~~}} 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (
prod,
CfD,
TfD etc.) related to West Bengal.
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
India.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
I can't find anything beyond match and roster reports—some three years old—that briefly mention him. This may be a
WP:TOOSOON situation, but realistically, I think it just fails
WP:SIGCOV and
WP:GNG.
Anwegmann (
talk) 00:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Per nom. Poor and unreliable sources failing
WP:GNG and
WP:SIGCOV. The player also does not meet the basic criteria of notability.
RangersRus (
talk) 13:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 18:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, Fails
WP:BIO, the sources provided are not sufficient to establish notability.
Pinakpani (
talk) 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: I found this title notable because this is an author with published books, those books are notable being bestselling around the country and also the author is being praised by noteworthy personalities in India. It also has enough good references on trusted websites.
Samm985 (
talk) 07:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: The subject fails to meet
WP:GNG as there is no in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. However, the subject's book titled "The Book of India Ghosts" may meet
WP:AUTHOR criterion number 3, which requires multiple reviews of books to establish notability. There are two reviews available for that particular book, one from
The Hindu and one from
The Hindu BusinessLine. Both reviews are from different publications and authors.
GrabUp -
Talk 18:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:BIO,
WP:GNG and
WP:AUTHOR. The author's work has not made a significant monument, or won significant critical attention. One of his book "The book of India Ghosts", got a review from hindu.com but this cannot be considered the criteria needed to pass
WP:AUTHOR because the work needs to be widely cited by peers or successors.
RangersRus (
talk) 15:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
RangersRus:
WP:AUTHOR’s third criterion states: “The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.” There are two reviews from The Hindu and The Hindu BusinessLine from different authors. I think this is sufficient to meet the third criteria, as multiple reviews from independent sources are available. There are other criteria, but if a subject meets any of them, then it can be presumed to be notable.
GrabUp -
Talk 15:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 13:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: This talks about the author
[1]; on the balance, just enough for notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The whole article is
WP:OR and is making connection of any unfavorable event that occurred in or around
West Bengal as discrimination against its people. Ratnahastin (
talk) 09:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Too much
WP:SYNTH and it is not a notable topic on its own.
Agletarang (
talk) 18:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep There are numerous sources in the article documenting the discriminations against Bengalis which makes this topic notable per
WP:GNG. This article is even selected as one of the
Level 5 Vital articles in English Wikipedia.
Shubhrojeet (
talk) 05:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
DELETE - such existence will incite communal hatred in Wikipedia. This kind of page shouldn't be allowed in Wikipedia. --
Twinkle1990 (
talk) 09:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Doesn't make sense, I don't remember we have rules like this in Wikipedia. We have many types of articles like this. For example,
Anti-Chinese sentiment in Japan.
Mehedi Abedin 12:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Discrimination happens against almost every social group but the topic has to be notable as well.
Lorstaking (
talk) 09:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and all unfavorable events that occurred in or around
West Bengal as discrimination against its people.
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk) 19:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While this might be a clear Delete, I'm seeing too much opinion and not enough policy-based arguments about this article. Let's lower the temperature and consider how this article does or doesn't abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Just because discrimination happens against other groups isn't a good reason to delete this particular article. I also note that this AFD has been available for closure for other 13 hours and no admin has opted to close it which made me consider whether it needed more substantive discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I did a google scholar search for "anti-bengali discrimination india" and found a decent number of sources that seem to contribute to
WP:GNG. I don't see a good reason to delete at this time.
CarringtonMist (
talk) 16:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Although there is an issue with original research, there is also a decent amount of directly-related sources. Definitely needs to be cleaned up though. Perhaps since the page has been renamed, expand its coverage to include anti-Bengali sentiment in Pakistan/Myanmar.
70.176.221.156 (
talk) 01:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Not denying that there is discrimination. It is just that the topic is not notable enough for a stand-alone article.
Georgethedragonslayer (
talk) 18:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Does not need a standalone article for this
WP:SYNTH. Most of the content is only about the language-related issues and religiously motivated discrimination where the victim happened to be Bengali speaker.
Captain AmericanBurger1775 (
talk) 01:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I have just done a massive (~1hr) edit on the article, stripping it of extensive OR/SYNTH and a lottttt of off-topic/unencyclopedic content. Despite the massive removals, I feel a pretty solid article remains, one that I've hopefully stripped down to the most relevant content (and thoroughly marked remaining statements in need of sources). I'm a bit scared to venture into picking/defining RSes myself, as an overly cautious editor, but given the statements from others above that more sources DO seem to exist, I hope I've paved the way for this to be an easier "keep and improve"
Chiselinccc (
talk) 08:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to see opinions after Chiselinccc's massive clean-up job on this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep It is strange because although the title is Anti-Bengali sentiment, its content is mainly about Discrimination against Bengalis in India. I didn’t searches for sources about anti-Bengali sentiment in India. But I found many sources about Discrimination against Bengalis in Pakistan (pre-1971) and we can add Pakistan section that will make the article better. Even some sources say that in present Bengali people living in Karachi, Pakistan are facing discrimination. The title is "Anti-Bengali sentiment" so by adding the Pakistan part we can keep this article.
Mehedi Abedin 12:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - there is a fair bit of well-sourced information, and Chiselinccc's definitely puts it in keep now.
Brat Forelli🦊 00:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply