Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The World Heritage of Bengal

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. Many "keep" votes are based on Bengal as a region having a coherent heritage - which isn't in question - rather than whether World Heritage sites specifically, in this region, are treated as a group by reliable sources, which is what would make this a viable topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World Heritage of Bengal[edit]

[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)

List of World Heritage Sites in Bangladesh and List of World Heritage Sites in India already exist. This list is just a grouping of the sites in West Bengal and Bangladesh (previously known as East Bengal). The sources are for the individual sites and none mention the list as a whole. Recommend converting this into a disambiguation page. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above articles only list World Heritage Sites. But, the Bengal region has both cultural and world heritage. As the region is linked by language, culture and emotion (see Bengal article), there may be separate articles on the heritage sites, culture of the region. And, not just a list, each topic is described in detail. This article provides a lot of rich information about the Bengal region. Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge. People come here to get knowledge, and knowledge is never divided politically! রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Bangladesh, and West Bengal. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Region of Bengal" consisting of Bangladesh and West Bengal. And this region of Bengal has a distinct identity. And the culture of this region is Bengali. And the world heritages that exist in this region can have a separate article. There is nothing wrong with that. রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is quite hard. On the one hand it seems to be repeating information from other pages in a slightly different form. But on the other hand, it is clearly correct to say that Bengal - as a region - has coherence over national boundaries. In terms of sources, I'm not sure it is true to say that none cover the region as a whole - for example this paper discussed a subsection of the world heritage sites together, despite being either side of the international border. There remains the difficulty of whether this turns Wikipedia into a gazetteer, but in general for me I think there are likely sources that discuss the cultural heritage region as a whole in enough detail to show it is notable. JMWt (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this type of synthesis article is appropriate or necessary. There aren't any other examples of combining the WH sites and [[UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists|intangible heritage in an article, nor combining regions. The citation above is about the dual WHS listing of the bordering Sundarbans and Sundarbans National Park, but this natural site being transboundary does not extend to the cultural sites that don't necessarily have that connection (and while these are two designations, there are many other multinational sites). Like, Jamdani, Mangal Shobhajatra, and 'Rickshaws and Rickshaw painting in Dhaka' all appear to be specific to Bangladesh, not Bengal in general, while 'Durga Puja in Kolkata' is specific to India – UNESCO designated that city's celebration of the festival, not the broader region's. This article does not add any information that is not already in the two lists of WHSes and intangible list/individual articles or content that ties them together at all. Also, sites are given the name "World Heritage" while the intangible heritage is not. This just doesn't come together cohesively as a notable topic. We don't need this to be an example for "The World Heritage of Korea", "The World Heritage of the British Isles", or other multinational regions that merely duplicate content elsewhere without being a particularly useful new overlay of presentation or navigation. Moreover, even if there are "likely sources that discuss the cultural heritage region as a whole", that's not the same as just listing the specific heritage places and activities that are UNESCO-designated, for which we do not have such broader regional sources. Reywas92^Talk 20:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to your logic, there should not be an article on Akhand Bharat too? রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a childish comment. According to my logic, there should not be an article on "The World Heritage of Akhand Bharat" or even "The World Heritage of South Asia". Reywas92^Talk 14:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete above explanation is well detailed and convincing. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Reywas92, this is purely synthesis. Although Bengal is a distinct region, it being one doesn't justify this sort of thing, and wouldn't for other cultural regions across national boundaries either. ― novov (t c) 04:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Wikipedia have a "Bengal" article? Because the region is divided politically & both has national boundaries! রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 08:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reywas92 and already covered List of World Heritage Sites in Bangladesh and List of World Heritage Sites in India.Bengal politically is not a distinct region it is divided.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Wikipedia have a "Bengal" article? Because the region is divided politically! রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 08:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal existed until the Partition of Bengal (1947) and similarly Punjab existed till 1947 hence they articles.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article provides a comprehensive overview of the UNESCO World Heritage Sites located within the cultural and historical region of Bengal. The sources can be improved in the article, this is not a reason for a good article to be deleted. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I understand that Bengal is divided politically. But, political division cannot be the reason for deletion of this article. Cultural existence is never determined by political area! Authority refers to political boundaries. And, no one's authority is undermined by this article. Bengali culture is a culture of thousands of years. I am a Bengali. And, speaking as a Bengali, if this article is in Wikipedia, it will be possible for us to gain more knowledge about Bengalis. This article is full of knowledge and information. So, please correct the mistakes in the article without deleting the article. And, look at Bengali Wikipedia, there are Bengalis in both Bangladesh and India in favor of this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firozahmedht (talk • contribs) 01:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC) — Firozahmedht (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, I find Reywas92's argument that this is OR/synthesis to be the most compelling and agree with his assessment of the article on that basis. Daniel (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Giving this another week to see if a rough consensus can be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and Reywas92.The sources are for the individual sites and none mention it as Bengal. Sources refer to it as Bangladesh ,West Bengal and India and not Bengal. This is duplication of content of List of World Heritage Sites in Bangladesh and List of World Heritage Sites in India.Bengal's history comes to end after the Partition of 1947.Tame Rhino (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history of Bengal ended in 1971, not in 1947! When Bangladesh emerged as independent Bengal. Know the history and then talk! রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ultimately this comes down to a question of OR: do reliable sources group together all of Bengal when discussing UNESCO World Heritage sites? While there are plenty of reliable sources covering the history, religion and culture of the transnational region, this is not the case for world heritage sites specifically as a category; the only source that I could find that even uses the term Bengal to discuss heritage sites this way appears to be the exception that proves the rule [1], as despite its framing it then proceeds to exclusively discuss locations in West Bengal. Consequently, this topic falls short of WP:LISTN. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:57, 11 January 2024 (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.