Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1992 Bangladesh pogroms

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 keep. Spinning Spark 13:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Bangladesh pogroms

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

Mostly copied from International_reaction_to_the_demolition_of_the_Babri_mosque#Bangladesh with the author's own words. Apart from deletion, merging can also be considered. Zayeem ^(talk) 05:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If the reaction to demolition of one mosque constitutes of destruction of 28,000 households, 2,700 business establishments and 3,600 temples, it is a candidate for an independent article. The event was widely covered by major newspapers and TV channels. It prompted Taslima Nasrin to write Lajja. BengaliHindu (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The incident is notable enough to be in Wikipedia, however, it should be merged with the page International reaction to the demolition of the Babri mosque since, as mentioned most of its contents is copied from that page with the editor's own words and there is enough space too in that page. --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets notability criteria. While the article on international reaction is notable and need, the reaction in Bangladesh in particular deserves its own article. The progrom in Bangladesh was a massive and protracted one, leading to multiple fatalities and loss of property, and covered by media widely. --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, we can't have same contents in two different pages. There is enough space in the page to merge the article. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the same content at all, and even if it were, and there are thousands of articles with overlapping content. --Trphierth (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common practice to have daughter articles of articles with wide scope. In this particular case, International reaction to the demolition of the Babri mosque is the mother article enlisting reactions from across the globe. The progrom in Bangladesh is a daughter article of the mother article. The progrom in Bangladesh meets general notability criteria to have its own stand-alone article, as long as it is not merely a copy-paste of the relevant section of the mother article (which is not the case here; the daughter article effectively ventures to expand on the Bangladesh event that is summarised per WP:SS in the mother article.).--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I think merging would be the right step here. The mother article is only 8.2kb long, far away from 50kb to be split. The daughter article is also unlikely to be expanded in a reasonable time as it is already a month old article and still possesses a short content. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a notable event with many fatalities. and its not same content as in the other article and even if it were, and there are thousands of articles with overlapping content. --Trphierth (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Replied in my earlier comments. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dwaipayan. Looks notable to me .Shyamsunder (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2012 (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.