Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladeshi Indian

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. postdlf (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi Indian

[edit]
Bangladeshi Indian (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)

The subject of the article is obviously OR, as no reliable source can be found that talks about the so-called "Bangladeshi Indian people". Shovon (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: The title itself is OR and the article is POV. Bangladeshi Indian, as a category of immigrants are not recognized in India. Illegal Bangladeshi immigrants could be a group instead. Further the list of people listed as Bangladeshi Indians are mostly Bengali Hindus of eastern Bengal descent who settled in India after the Partition and before 1971. Therefore, they were never Bangladeshi citizens. So the term Bangladeshi Indian is not applicable for them. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Legend of Zorro 16:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How many reliable sources define or even mention the term "Bangladeshi Indian"? Shovon (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer:In such case many types of people and ethnic groups are still not defined properly, (For a good example the ethnic history and origin of Assamese people and Bisnupriya Manipuri Society are still not defined properly.) you mean removal of all such pages? There might not be a specific source specifying specifically Bangladeshi Indians, but hence It is a fact and reality of existence of Bangladeshi Indian people. As already explained in short "the Bangladeshi origin-ed people living in present India are known as Bangladeshi Indian" as the Nepali origin-ed people living in India are known as Nepali Indian, and many such more, you mean to delete all such pages which are reality? Thanks you. BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 17:37, 3 July 2013 (BST)/17:07, 3 July 2013 (IST)
  • Delete: There are no such Ethnic groups nor India or Bangladesh used. I have to say that this "Bangladeshi Indian" term comes from brain grey cell of the creator of this article User:BijoyChakrabarty ( please don't count as personal attack) . He claim himself as Bangladeshi Indian (বাংলাদেশি ইন্ডিয়ান). Not as Ethnicity group as Nationality. He claim as Nationality Bangladeshi Indian (বাংলাদেশি ইন্ডিয়ান) and Ethnicity Bengali people (বাঙালি জাতি). Still now, no one claim her/himself as Bangladeshi Indian in the list of people. There are No reliable source at all and very much failed as WP:N issue and whole article written from personal research. In each reference I have studied and there are no mention as they Bangladeshi Indian.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 13:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jayanta Nath, You sound specifically violent against me. The term Bangladeshi Indian is not a ethnic group by the way, and It is NOT from my brain grey cell and I NEVER CREATED SUCH ARTICLE. Somebody else is the creator and I Found this article someday and so I used it on my user page, and I never claimed it as nationality I went on facts. and In such case many types of people are still not defined properly. Once again to say, the Bangladeshi people living in present India are known as Bangladeshi Indian. It is not a research page, it is a fact page about one of the types of people. It is an important page which links to Bangladeshi's Immigration to India and Bangladeshi diaspora. This page is just a normal page as Bangladeshi Americans, Bengali American, Nepali Indian or Anglo Indian terms. It is almost useless or may be senseless request to nominate this page for deletion. Please read and know on the present situation of people. you mean removal of all such pages? There might not be a specific source specifying specifically Bangladeshi Indians, but hence It is a fact and reality of existence of Bangladeshi Indian people. As already explained in short "the Bangladeshi origin-ed people living in present India are known as Bangladeshi Indian" as the Nepali origin-ed people living in India are known as Nepali Indian, and many such more, you mean to delete all such pages which are reality? BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 19:48, 3 July 2013 (BST)/19:18, 3 July 2013 (IST)
Oh Dear, so please go through with Synthesis of published material that advances a position. You can under stand and you accept the deletion request. or you can proposed merge with Bangladeshi diaspora. Thank you.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 13:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merging it with Bangladeshi diaspora is senseless when you have an article specifically about Bangladeshi diaspora to India as Bangladeshi Indian. In such case for example you should also merge pages like Indian American with Indian diaspora? or Nepali Indian with Nepali diaspora?? It is all senseless, PLEASE THINK IN REALITY FACTS AND SENCE! BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 20:10, 3 July 2013 (BST)/19:40, 3 July 2013 (IST)
Your logic is very clear id there Bangladeshi Americans, Bengali American, Nepali Indian or Anglo Indian have, Bangladeshi Indian must be there. Then anyone claim to write another article named Indian Bangladeshi ( reverse of this article) who lives in Bangladesh but born or ancestral origin/born India. Presenlty many people who lives in Bangladesh but born or ancestral origin/born India, but they are not called as like that. So this total article is POV and OR.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 14:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for realizing the logic. on the other side you have to learn the History for that! and to make it clear, for Indians in Bangladesh already a page exists as Indians in Bangladesh, and for Bangladeshis in India a page exists as Bangladeshi Indian instead of Bangladeshis in India because the history in Bengal region you know it well. and the term Bangladeshi Indian connotes a different meaning compared to widely used terms such as British Bangladeshi and Bangladeshi American since it is undocumented and is perceived by the Bharatiya Janata Party as upsetting the communal demographic balance in several parts of India. IN SENSE, LOGIC AND FACT, THE PROPOSAL OF DELETING THIS PAGE IS FOOLISH! BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 20:42, 3 July 2013 (BST)/20:12, 3 July 2013 (IST)
Q:...........merge pages like Indian American with Indian diaspora? or Nepali Indian with Nepali diaspora??
A: No, I cant propose Because Indian American is well known term by published media and it is verifiable. But term Bangladeshi Indian is not verifiable at all.In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 14:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot propose so than also don't propose this, it's all NONSENSE! and well term Bangladeshi Indian connotes a different meaning compared to widely used terms such as British Bangladeshi and Bangladeshi American since it is undocumented and is perceived by the Bharatiya Janata Party as upsetting the communal demographic balance in several parts of India. BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 20:42, 3 July 2013 (BST)/20:12, 3 July 2013 (IST)
But Dear where is the verifiable references about your claim????- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 14:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your politeness Bengali-Brother! Well to say it all again term Bangladeshi Indian connotes a different meaning compared to widely used terms such as British Bangladeshi and Bangladeshi American since it is undocumented and is perceived by the Bharatiya Janata Party as upsetting the communal demographic balance in several parts of India. The page's name should be Bangladeshis in India but due to many factors as discussed before the name is Bangladeshi Indian, hence a page where it is literally for Bangladeshis in India CANNOT be deleted IN LOGIC, SENSE AND FACT! BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 20:55, 3 July 2013 (BST)/20:25, 3 July 2013 (IST)
You said that since it is undocumented and is perceived by the Bharatiya Janata Party means not published agreed that is un-verifiable. So you can not add this article as per policy verifiable.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 15:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the page Bangladeshi Indian carefully and also read my posts carefully, The page's name should haven been Bangladeshis in India but due to many factors as discussed before the name is Bangladeshi Indian, hence a page where it is literally for Bangladeshis in India CANNOT be deleted IN LOGIC, SENSE AND FACT! BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 21:07, 3 July 2013 (BST)/20:37, 3 July 2013 (IST)
You can start an article Bangladeshis in India or move Bangladeshi Indian to Bangladeshis in India ( as like Indians in Bangladesh) and edit as per article title. I have no issue. But list of the people i the article will be deleted , because no-one are Bangladeshi, all are pure Indian.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 15:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Bangladeshi Indian also means people who migrated from the nation of Bangladesh to India after 1971 due to economic reasons, or people who proclaim their nationality/allegiance with Bangladesh (or may not), and live in India or in simple words Their ancestry/ origin lies in present Bangladesh. As The name Bangladeshi Indian refers to Bangladeshis in India (which can mean people transfer through immigration or migrated families after 1947 or 1971). Please read the whole Articles for deletion/Bangladeshi Indian also for your better self understanding on what have been discussed till now and what is the fact! The list of people fall under this for sure. and By the way this page is not mentioning anybody's citizenship specifically as Bangladeshi or Indian. BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 21:30, 3 July 2013 (BST)/21:00, 3 July 2013 (IST)
Could you explain your statement in brief? Thank you. BijoyChakrabarty ✉
There are no single source which states the term Bangladeshi Indian. It does not matter which nationality or ethnicity we want to associate with us if there is no reliable source which supports such a nationality exists. I do however note that you are not the creator of the article. But if you have such strong views that this article is to be kept you have to give Reliable secondary source that such a thing exists. The Legend of Zorro 15:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It has been explained in details, I believe Mr. BijoyChakrabarty! The article itself has many contradictions within itself. e.g. The article defines Bangladeshi Indians as "people who migrated from the nation of Bangladesh to India after 1971 due to economic reasons, or people who proclaim their nationality/allegiance with Bangladesh and live in India." Then, the article goes on to list a number of persons who had neither migrated from the present day Bangladesh (i.e. after 1971) or have never proclaimed themselves to be belonging to the group. The definition itself may give rise to the question about the status of the people who had been/or are still being forced to migrate due to reasons other than economic sustenance. However, these question, I believe, can be addressed in a different space. Till now, I have not seen a single reliable source which defines such a category of persons and hence my original assertion that this article is a piece of original research stands. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:, Yeah! if considering this article on base or original research... then it has no actual reason to be deleted. This page Bangladeshi Indian is a real fact and is only a type of people page (It is not Nationality or citizenship specific page) and is also not a Junk matter or Rubbish IT IS FACT! Hence, This page should be KEPT as it was. Thank you. BijoyChakrabarty ✉
The term Bangladeshi Indian is itself a original research. Please show a single neutral secondary source which uses this term or else neither of your multiple votes stands. The Legend of Zorro 15:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The term Bangladeshi Indian may sound OR but I guess it's not an impediment to keeping this article which can be moved to a better title like Bangladeshis in India. The scope of the article must be the people whose ancestry lies within present day Bangladesh, not just those who migrated after 1971 per other similar articles. (note: I have edited the lead a bit) --Zayeem (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is OK but still it needs to be rewrited from scratch. A better solution will be to userfy it to your user space where you can rewrite the article by the name Bangladeshis in India. But still it needs to specify whether it is about ancestry lies within present day Bangladesh or it is about who migrated from the nation of Bangladesh to India after 1971 due to economic reasons. An article can cover only one of the criteria or else trying to cover both criterias in same time may result in WP:OR. So I think loosing the page history and then working from scratch in either of these two criterias is a very valid option. The Legend of Zorro 23:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@@User:Kmzayeem, anyone can moved this article Bangladeshis in India, but the subject matter is different ( as similar like Indians in Bangladesh) .So they have to write the article from scratch. and list in the article of people of Bangladeshi Indian claim by the contributor is WP:OR.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 05:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:User:Kmzayeem, as far as I understand, the term "Bangladeshi Indian", in itself, is pure OR. The article clearly fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and as such, there is no scope for a rewrite too! Shovon (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shovon, see my earlier comment, that's why I suggested the move, the article has huge scope, to establish the notability of this article you just need to prove that there is a substantial number of people in India including many prominent figures with Bangladeshi origin which I guess all of us agree. Even I agree the article needs a lot of work but don't think a deletion is required. I don't see any difference between the contexts of "Bangladeshi Indian" and "Bangladeshis in India", but I suggested the move since the term "Bangladesh Indian" doesn't seem to be common. And about the scope of article, I guess it depends on the editors who write the article as there is no such guidelines for that. In my opinion, the scope should be all the Indians who are of Bangladeshi origins (before or after 1971), per other similar articles.--Zayeem (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zayeem, any article failing WP:Verifiability must be deleted. To save the article from deletion, why don't you "prove that there is a substantial number of people in India including many prominent figures with Bangladeshi origin", who are termed as Bangladeshi Indians by third-party reliable sources? Shovon (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are very much difference between the contexts of "Bangladeshi Indian" and "Bangladeshis in India". In brief "Bangladeshi Indian" is as like Bangladeshi Americans ( as per claim by this article) and "Bangladeshis in India" is people legal or illegal immigrated people after birth of Bangladesh (1971). This is as like reverse article of Indians in Bangladesh. So this article should be deleted as per policies.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 07:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I totally agree with Jayanta Nath. Moreover, Illegal Bangladeshis in India is suitably covered here. There is no need for a separate article, I guess. Shovon (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jayanta Nath, well I said it before, there is no such guidelines about the context of these articles and it mostly depends on the editors who write it. I don't think it would be a reverse of Indians in Bangladesh, while this article is also not something that you would follow (quality wise). As I said, move the article into Bangladeshis in India and work out on its contents, it should be fine then. The article has huge scope (history, culture) and can be expanded within a very short time. We all are mostly concerned with content issues, which doesn't require deletion.--Zayeem (talk) 07:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does not have huge scope (history, culture). Because the country Bangladesh is itself a creation of 40 years. The article needs to specify whether it is about ancestry lies within present day Bangladesh or it is about who migrated from the nation of Bangladesh to India after 1971 due to economic reasons. Two scopes are radically different from each other and two needs a separate article and the later should probably be better as a list then article. At present the article is WP:OR with none of the sources making it clear what is the scope of the article. Hence I suggested above to userfy it for you where you can write it from scratch. The first thing required to improve this article is first to make sure what is the scope of the article. The Legend of Zorro 11:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about people whose ancestry and origin lies within the nation of present day Bangladesh but live in present India (mostly in West Bengal, Assam and Tripura), In which most of them are the people who migrated from the nation of Bangladesh to India after 1971 due to economic reasons, and some are which have come to India via Immigration process in modern times. Of which some people also proclaim their nationality/allegiance with Bangladesh which results in Bengali nationalism but live in present India. This article is a mix because both ancestry lies within present day Bangladesh and who migrated from the nation of Bangladesh to India after 1971 due to economic reasons concept is interrelated. Thank you. BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 17:48, 4 July 2013 (BST)/17:17, 4 July 2013 (IST)
(edit conflict)Solomon, but if you look at other similar articles like British Bangladeshis which covers all the Bangladeshis including those who migrated before 1971, then the scope of the article should be all of the Indians of Bangladeshi origin who migrated before or after 1971. I won't mind userfying it but I would like to see some neutral observations, as I really think a deletion is not required here, rather some work on the contents would suffice.--Zayeem (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article can be made perfectly encyclopedic if worked in some neutral manner and following the common name. For example the article has a section Notable Bengali Bangal people living in India whose ancestry lies in present-day Bangladesh. Bangal people is a common name used to denote people whose ancestry lies within present day Bangladesh. This is perfectly encylopedic. But renaming this thing Bangladeshi Indian will be rewriting history. I hope it explains why it is WP:OR. The Legend of Zorro 12:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's exactly what I'm talking about. The OR can be fixed by adding references and removing the POVs, but we really don't need a deletion here.--Zayeem (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Currently most of the thing in this article is about illegal bangladeshi immigrants and the list of Bangal people is the only sensible (yet unreferenced) info I am finding. I mean that the garbage in the article outweighs the good portion and the title itself is blatant WP:OR. The Legend of Zorro 12:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they can be fixed if we give more time to the article rather than this AfD. Also take a look at the talk page where an RM is underway.--Zayeem (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will request you to spend some time on Bangal. This article now has only one reference. I stick to my argument that this article is beyond saving. The only thing any editor can do is to use the contents of this article to develop some poorly developed perfectly legitimate encyclopedic topics. The Legend of Zorro 12:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what if more references are added to this article? We can add a separate section on culture as well. This article has seriously huge potential to be developed into an encyclopedic one.--Zayeem (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Solomon, The history in that page is also correct, it is not rewriting, please try reading the page again. and the Term Bangladeshi Indian connotes a different meaning compared to widely used terms such as British Bangladeshi and Bangladeshi American, marking it's uniqueness as I already explained in my above explanations several times. BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 18:12, 4 July 2013 (BST)/17:42, 4 July 2013 (IST)
@BijoyChakrabarty I note that you have not provided reference or valid arguments in your defence since no editor in wikipedia is a reliable source. The Legend of Zorro 12:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have also started a discussion on requested move on the article talk page.--Zayeem (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Can we have a couple valid reliable sources, which either define or mention "Bangladeshi Indian" people? Other than that, all "Keep" arguments are falling like nine pins without any rhyme or reason. Shovon (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely none of them mentions the term, that's why an RM is in progress. Concern with the title can be sorted out with that RM not an AfD. The subject of the article is Indians of Bangladeshi descent, which include a large number of people and many prominent figures, the subject is highly notable and a number of references have been added. --Zayeem (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zayeem, the term Bangladeshi refers to a nationality and not ethnicity. And we have already had enough discussions on citizenship issues. As per Ragib's suggestion a person can be described as X is/was a Bangladeshi Y if he/she lives/lived in Bangladesh with a Bangladeshi citizenship, even though he/she might have been born in British India (pre-1947) or East Pakistan (1947-71). By this logic none of the persons listed in the article have any Bangladeshi origin. So I'm going to delete them. If you know any person who had a Bangladeshi citizenship but later settled in India then you might list them up. BengaliHindu (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "Bangladeshi origin" refers to those persons whose ancestry lies in present day Bangladesh. Many Bangladeshis who settled in UK long before 1971, are referred to as British Bangladeshis. They are not Bangladeshi nationals or citizens, rather Bangladeshi descents. Also, there is a citation given in the article about the list of prominent figures. Moreover, your concerns are about content issues which can be discussed in the article talk page, no need for a deletion.--Zayeem (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your contention that the phrase "Bangladeshi origin" refers to those persons whose ancestry lies in present day Bangladesh is certainly debatable. People whose ancestry lie in present day Bangladesh while they have settled in UK or maybe US before 1971 are termed as British Bangladeshis, this is also debatable. Moreover, the terms "British Bangladeshi" and "Bangladeshi Indian" are totally different. This is because the territory of present day Bangladesh was never a part of UK but it was an integral part of India. So people who were born and who lived in present territory of Bangladesh cannot be called Bangladeshi Indian. For if it were so then we have to call Bhagat Singh (1907-1931) a Pakistani Indian. If Bhagat Singh is not a Pakistani then Chandravati, Nabin Chandra Sen are not Bangladeshis. I've already voted above in support of deletion. I'm engaging in this debate just to sort things out. BengaliHindu (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your arguments are about content issues for which the talk page is the best place to discuss. The subject of the article is "Indian people of Bangladeshi origin" which include a large number of people and many prominent figures, the article is also properly referenced now, so there is no reason to delete the article.--Zayeem (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This term really is being used by some to mean something it does not. We cannot use this term to refer to the millions of Bengalis who relocated from what was about to become East Pakistan into India in the late 1940s. Bengladeshi refers to nationals of Bangldesh, that is people who lived in Bangladesh after 1971. It is thus even questionable to use it to refer to the millions of Bengali Muslims displaced during the war of independence.John Pack Lambert (talk)
Well, Bangladeshi Indian may sound odd, but shouldn't the contents be kept under a different title? The subject of the article is "Indian people of Bangladeshi descent" which deserves a separate article for various reasons pointed above, even Amartya Sen, who migrated to India from East Bengal during the partition, described himself as "a Bengali of Bangladeshi descent" in his book Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny.--Zayeem (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zayeem, what you fail to understand is that the term Bangladeshi defines a "nationality". Did Amartya Sen say that he "is" a "Bengali of Bangladeshi descent"? Or, did he use the term "I can be"? Furthermore, all other persons listed there are NOT of Bangladeshi descent. Shovon (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Whereas the arguments for delete look to me as stronger and supported by a majority, it is still not a consensus yet. Let us discuss one more week and see.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to East Bengali culture in India or something similar. Nationality in South Asia is extremely complex, and to talk about 'Indian Bangladeshis', 'Bangladeshi Indians' or 'Indians of Bangladeshi descent' should be avoided at all times as these identities overlap. There are Bangladeshis in India, recent migrants, that identify themselves as Bangladeshis (or get identified as such by host communities), but the East Bengalis that migrated at time of Partition never had any 'Bangladeshi' identity. East Bengal was part of India at the time they left for other parts of India (likewise with Sindhis, etc.). There is an East Bengali culture (albeit heavily assimilated nowadays) in West Bengal, and in Tripura the Bengali dialect is East Bengali, so there is material for such an article. But the passages on recent Bangladeshi migration would need to be weeded out, as well as weasel wordings like 'natives'. --Soman (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have already observed that East Bengali culture in India doesn't have any distinct existence in India any more. You are right. Moreover, historically, the so called region of East Bengal (especially prior to the Partition of India), constituted of the Dhaka and Chittagong divisions minus the CHT i.e. the undivided districts of Mymensingh, Dhaka, Faridpur, Barisal, Tipperah (a.k.a Comilla), Noakhali and Chittagong. This may be termed as the East Bengal proper. The Rajshahi division (undivided Rajshahi, Pabna, Bogra, Dinajpur, Rangpur, Maldah, Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling) was considered to be part of North Bengal and were not a part of the East Bengal proper. Undivided Jessore, Khulna or Kushtia sub-division (then part of Nadia district) were never considered a part of East Bengal proper. In fact in the 1905 Partition of Bengal, the entire Presidency division including undivided Jessore, Khulna and the whole of Nadia (including the Kushtia sub-division) were not included in Eastern Bengal and Assam. Similarly, Sylhet, which formed a part of Surma Valley division of Assam was not a part of East Bengal proper. Strictly speaking, the term Bangal was used to refer to the Bengali Hindus from East Bengal proper. The Bangals didn't consider people from Jessore or Khulna as fellow Bangals or pure Bangals. Therefore the term Kathbangal was used for the Bengali Hindus from East Bengal proper to categorize them as pure or hardcore Bangals. Therefore the regional identity of people in the territory of modern day Bangladesh was not unique. It was diversified. So was the culture, cuisine and dialect. Even within East Bengal proper, the dialect varied from Mymensingh to Chittagong. The Sylhet people, consider themselves more Sylheti than East Bengali. After the Partition and subsequent assimilation of Bengali Hindus in West Bengal, Assam or Tripura, there is hardly any unique East Bengali culture left in India. So, in my opinion, there is no logic to have a separate article East Bengali culture in India. It makes sense to delete this article altogether. BengaliHindu (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article Bangal would probably cover what I was looking for. Change vote to delete. --Soman (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The term "Bangladeshi" means that the persons are of Bangladeshi descent, which isn't true in this case. The illegal Bangladeshi immigrants, who have a sizable presence in India, may be included in the article Bangladeshi diaspora, but there is no place for the article titled "Bangladeshi Indians" in Wikipedia. Just check the verifiability criteria please! Shovon (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said "appropriate content". Miniapolis 13:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dipanjan Dev has made very edits elsewhere. Shovon (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Apart from not having multiple sourcees which would have been required to show widespread usage of the term, the article itself is pretty redundant. What is the difference between a Bengali in India and a Bangladeshi Indian? And how are the two different enough to warrant an article on the latter? We could have the article moved to Bangladeshi Immigrants in India instead, where it will be better placed, but only if the article seems to have enough references to be worth saving. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2013 (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. ^ This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." See the essay, WP:Verifiability, not truth.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bangladeshi_Indian&oldid=1151016027"