Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Bangladesh-India border clash

2005 Bangladesh-India border clash

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The description of events is one-sided, lacking verification from multiple credible sources. Additionally, there are significant discrepancies in the reported details and conflicting accounts that make it unreliable. The article's content does not meet the standards for inclusion and accuracy expected in a balanced historical record. Nxcrypto Message 16:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. Nxcrypto Message 16:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks any lasting coverage. Lorstaking (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a notable clash. If you would like to delete this, Please also delete some pages About clashes between India and Pakistan. I Will attempt to add more sources, I kind of forgot about this page, that I created. I should have added more sources earlier. User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article most of the current citations are Bangladesh-based like Dhaka report, The Daily Observer Bangladesh, bdnews24. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies in the reported dates of the clash—some sources mention April 16[1], others April 17[2], and some April 18[3]. These discrepancies undermine the article’s reliability. The incident story have various contradiaction as compared to Indian news site with Bangladesh based news site. Additionally, minor conflicts like these, which lack significant international coverage, often do not meet the notability criteria required for inclusion on Wikipedia. The comparison to India-Pakistan conflicts is not relevant here, as the notability and coverage of each conflict should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Nxcrypto Message 09:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a NZer, so totally outside the local political discussions here, but reading the three sources you cite, they all seem to say that the battle took place on Saturday 16, 2005 (all reference it occurring on Saturday). The different dates (16, 17, 18) were the dates the three stories were published in their respective newspapers, and do not show a confusion about the date on which the shootings themselves occurred. This seems fairly well covered in several different newspapers to me, with similar details in each. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Absurdum4242 Welcome to Wikipedia! It seems you're in a hurry since you've just created your account. I believe that gaining experience takes time. Nxcrypto Message 11:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As far as I can tell, the only way to get the experience is to actually do the work to get it, which is what I’m trying to do here. If we are all working in good faith (which I assume we are), statements of fact such as “the articles are confused about dates” should be reasonably easily proven or disproven simply by reading the articles in question, and without a deep knowledge of Wikipedia policies (which I am never the less trying to gain). Then it’s just a matter of clearly articulating what we think - which I hope I have done, in service of moving towards consensus. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This happens regularly and is nothing surprising. WP:GNG has to be satisfied. Even right now, Bangladesh is saying that Indian BSF is killing Bangladeshis.[4] The above argument against the deletion that "delete some pages About clashes between India and Pakistan" is baseless. Azuredivay (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The suggestion that different source articles are confused about the dates / give different dates seems to be based on a confusion between the dates the articles were published, and the dates the events themselves were said to have occurred. The sources seem both independent and robust, are numerous, include both local and international news publications (including BBC and Al Jazera), and give details which are consistent between the different articles. The wiki page itself could use some editing for clarity / grammar / neutrality etc, but this does not warrant deletion, it should be edited instead (and I’ll have a go at that tomorrow if I have time).

Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement - There is another clash in the same year in August 2005, During the Bangladesh Nationalist Party's Government, When Indian troops opened fire, We should add that to the page, It has many sources. the argument above by Absurdum4242 appears to be correct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk • contribs) 10:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources could establish WP:GNG. Agletarang (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong - Okay, Can you please clarify and tell how it does not establish WP:GNG? Keeping is a better option. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
Keep. I totally disagree with the above arguments, it meets General Notability Guidelines. There're independent sources added, and perhaps worth reconsidering. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 12:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until I see a couple of reliable sources that establish WP:LASTING coverage, my vote is to delete this article. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really, What do you even define as reliable sources? Have you even read the page? According to your logic, Al Jazeera and BBC News are unreliable and also other sources, You are very incorrect, @Captain AmericanBurger1775, I suggest keeping.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk • contribs) 07:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Captain AmericanBurger1775, It's also not a logical vote, Since the person voting for deletion was warned several times for saying cuss words without becoming more mature later on, and apologising.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk • contribs) 07:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. Sir MemeGod  19:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? - Do you even know about the nomination? And, check the page Again, If this AfD goes successful for deletion just because of votes, It would be a violation of the Administrator Instructions in the edit notice.

This comment is by User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (please sign your comments). What are you trying to say here? It sounds like you are making accusations about someone or maybe just about the way AFDs work on Wikipedia. You are not assuming good faith of our discussion closers. Please refrain from casting aspersions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not challenge every editor who has a different opinion from your own. It's called bludgeoning a discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and it is true, A lot of them have not done it in Good Faith. Liz. Ok sure, I will not challenge every editor. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
Delete Absurdum4242 is correct that NXcrypto's original rationale for deletion is flawed. Being one-sided or containing discrepancies is not a good reason to delete.

What Absurdum4242 and Tanbiruzzaman don't address, however, is that although there are multiple, independent, reliable sources, except for the India Today retrospective from a couple of weeks after the fact, and the one sentence in The Daily Observer, all are primary source news accounts of the April (Dawn, Australian Broadcasting Corp, bdnews24, Al Jazeera 2) or August (VOA, Al Jazeera 1, BBC) clashes. WP:GNG says notable topics are those that have received "significant attention ... over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia."

Lorstaking and Captain AmericanBurger1775 are correct that there is no coverage that shows a lasting effect. The event was nearly 20 years ago. If historians believed it was significant, they would have written something about it by now, and they haven't. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this article should not be kept. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Well Not Really, How would you know that they think it is significant or not? Also, you cannot just say that they would have written something about it by now, That is a person's choice if they want to write about it or not regardless of it being significant, My argument might have some issues, If so, Please reply. Also, What do you define as significant coverage and lasting effect? I am not asking for the community's answer, I am asking for your answer. As what do you think is significant coverage and lasting effects. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I encourage those who have !voted keep to consider changing their recommendations, and those who have given only brief delete reasons to consider elaborating to show a clearer consensus. The no WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS problem is one that comes up fairly regularly, such as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2022 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 As-Suwayda clashes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1958 East Pakistan-India border clash, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Bangladesh-Myanmar border skirmish. Author BangladeshiEditorInSylhet should be familiar with the reason for deletion since two of those are his creations. His 1979 Bangladesh-Indian skirmishes and 2019 Bangladesh-Indian border clash should be examined too. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the 2 pages I created back then were not meeting with WP:N. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page about the clash between East Pakistan and India and the one with Bangladesh and Myanmar. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion is still active. Remember, your arguments should be grounded in policy and your assessment about whether or not the sources in the article, that have been bought into the discussion or that you have found, are sufficient to provide SIGCOV and establish GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]