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 to delete. Let's start with the head count: 5-3-1 in favor of "Delete" (the 1 being a "merge" suggestion). Not enough to matter, so let's look at the merits. On the merits, I don't see the argument for just throwing away this material as being clearly compelling or superior.

It is true that the term "Banglastan" is referenced a lot, and with a reasonable amount of supporting material (e.g., explaining what it is etc.) in a number of notable sources. And there's no strong policy-based arguments made for deleting the material considering it meets general notability. If it was up to me personally I'd recommend merging it Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, using it to expand the section "Bangladesh Period (1978–present)" which after all is just one paragraph. But there was only one "vote" for that so that's off the table IMO; I'm not going to supervote an outcome that was "voted" 8-1 against absent a very compelling argument. This is not to say an editor couldn't tag it for merging or just merge it and leave this article as a redirect, if they're so inclined and if no one obects. Herostratus (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banglastan[edit]

Banglastan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No detailed coverage of the term and the ideology. Just picked up some trivial mentions from some news and added in the article increase the size of it. The only considerable source ( ref 2) that has some detail about the ideology is fully based on a post of facebook. The user has misinterpreted many sources in many articles. This is not also aa different case. Rahat (Message) 17:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The usage of the term has been reported by the leading newspapers of Bangladesh. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete A pretty wrong enterprise on part of the page creator. Just picked up some speculative news items to shape them into an article. ...their vision of Bangladesh as a Taliban state modeled on Pakistan or Afghanistan is a very big false and technically wrong claim which is simply not to be propagated using Wikipedia's platform. Statements like According the Facebook handle... testifies its frivolity. -AsceticRosé 01:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per AsceticRose.—indopug (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Highly disputed" is not a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete misrepresentation of source, the idea of it heard from a facebook user thats all and another politician said it to hurt the opposition without any source. So the notion of this idea is imaginative unless it is proven. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Judging from the numerous RS already present in the article, the term has sufficient usage. Pax 02:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEO. The article is full of synthesis and mostly talks about the activities of the right wing politics of Bangladesh rather than the term "Banglastan". I have also checked the sources, apart from the fact that many of them are wholly unreliable, they merely "uses" the term in their coverage on the right wing political activities in Bangladesh but don't show any anything "about" the term. Zayeem ^(talk) 11:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh. Not enough notability for a standalone article, but can be cited in the Jamaat page. The term has received coverage in several major newspapers.--203.112.78.254 (talk) 08:11, 6 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.