Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bongal Kheda

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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bongal Kheda[edit]

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

Reason: Misinterpretation of references and full of original research and false information. This source used in this article clearly says the movement was against the all Bengali people, not only the Hindus. But the user defined the movement as a campaign against Bengali Hindus. This user has created so many articles by misinterpreting sources and adding original research and false info. - Rahat (Message) 20:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Claim of misinterpretation of reference and allegation of original research is not a valid reason for deletion. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: BengaliHindu (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 15:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 15:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 15:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. CSD A11. Part of one users (BengaliHindu)'s propaganda/campaign to incite ethno-religious contention. – nafSadh did say 00:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 09:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Speedy delete tag; " subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator" does not seem to apply. If the subject does not exist at all, the article needs deletion, but I see even the nominator admits the name does exist and refers to something. If the content is wrong it needs editing. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is/was a notable event; allegations an article has the wrong slant are not sufficient grounds for deletion. Pax 11:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tone down. The 1980s incident seems to be unreferenced and needs to be tagged accordingly. However, I take Economic Weekly to be a reliable source for the 1960s incidents. Calling the events "ethnic cleansing" is too strong to my mind. It seems to have involved riots by natives against in-comers. It would also be helpful if a transation of Kheda could be provided. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep What does Bongol Kheda even mean? Assam has a history of violence against Bengalis, both Muslim and Hindu. It'd be better to have a page on Anti-Bengali violence or Bengaliphobia in Assam in general. This topic could be merged into that.--203.112.78.254 (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2015 (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.