Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Bangladeshi political families - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dominus Vobisdu (talk | contribs) at 19:03, 10 October 2012 (→Bangladeshi political families). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:03, 10 October 2012 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk | contribs) (→Bangladeshi political families)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Bangladeshi political families

Bangladeshi political families (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)

Article is a BLP nightmare, besides a constant target for vandals. Only one of the families listed has an article; the rest is a couple of notable individuals and some (alleged) family members. But the premise of the article is that the families are notable, and that's not proven to be the case for all but one of them. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. I do sympathize with sysop troubles, but being "BLP nightmares" and "targets for vandals" aren't deletion criteria. As to notability, a quick glance tells me the Sheikh Mujib and Ziaur-Rahman families both have a father as president and daughter as prime minister. Calling such families not "proven to be notable" is absurd. If other families are not notable, then their entries should be deleted, not the entire article. There seem to be such lists (at times lists and at times articles) for many other countries, and I think the two examples I found are good enough to conclude Bangladeshi politics isn't immune from family-based influences. The quality of the article is low, with parent-child relationships not highlighted in the structure, and the obviously notable families not having WP articles and hence no wikilinks. But that isn't a deletion criterion either. Churn and change (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Believe me, I need sympathy in the parenting area, not the sysop area. I know what are and what aren't valid deletion criteria, and that this is a BLP should weigh in. But the salient point is that a list of families that should (properly) have only one member isn't a list. That politics in many countries are influenced by families is clear to everyone, but that does not in itself provide a rationale for this article, of this kind. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I went and took a hatchet to it per WP:BOLD, leaving only blue links in, and leaving a group in only if it had more than 2 blue links. I can see at least two families in there should really be in there though the family as such doesn't have a WP article, since both of those families have a president and a prime minister father/daughter combination. If the edits get reverted I am not planning to stick around and debate the issue, I will withdraw my vote. If the edits do stick, would you reconsider? Churn and change (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the article is genuinely a net negative to the encyclopædia - if it needs adult supervision by editors who could otherwise be doing good work elsewhere, and if it's an abundant source of BLP violations - then it's surely a candidate for deletion. If the "deletion criteria" really oppose the removal of something which is a net negative to the encyclopædia, the criteria should be fixed. I understand that in principle it's possible to have a decent article on prominent political folk of Bangladesh - possibly at a slightly different title - but that's not what we have now, and it would have to be written (and sourced) from scratch - I have no objection to somebody doing so after the current problematic content has been removed. bobrayner (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the BLP part. I think you should probably strike out the "vandalism" part; deleting an article because of vandalism would be an invitation to vandals to try that tactic every time they want an article gone. Also, note that WP:DEL#REASON doesn't include the reason you two mention; I would support modifying the section to include that. Churn and change (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Was so at time of nomination. No longer is. If somebody puts the deleted stuff back, yes, we should blow it up. Churn and change (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Colonel, allow me a few remarks. You point to a list for US families--and properly speaking, our current article should be retitled. As it is, what is suggested is an article on the families, not a list thereof, but the article itself is nothing but a list. That's easily fixed, sure. But it leaves the matter of content: the current article is, and most here seem to agree, a mess. If the article were to be improved without dramatically changing its focus, and retitled, it would still be dependent on the availability of other articles (on those families) that it lists--and since no such articles are available (just one), we can't build it.

    Conversely, if we keep the title and change the content to reflect it, we'd have an article about the influence (I suppose) that a number of families have had on Bangladeshi politics, which would make for a nice journal article. I see two problems with that: a general issue is that it suggests an essay of sorts; the more specific one is that the current version of the article doesn't have a sentence in it that would be suited for the revised version. Someone above pointed to WP:TNT (I wasn't familiar with the acronym and its target), and I think that certainly applies here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment I just cleaned up the reliability, notability and BLP issues by removing most of the article (WP:TNT as suggested by User:Nouniquenames) and the list now reflects only what is there in other WP articles. There are only blue links, and relationships reflect exactly what the WP articles on the people state. It is now pretty much similar to other such lists for other countries. The voting is now on an article different from the one the nom started with. Churn and change (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Unfortunately the reliability and BLP issues still exist because of the incorrect chronological order that is displayed in the latest version by Churn and change). Consensus cannot be established on the contents of this article through random or arbitrary truncation. We have failed to come to consensus about the chronology and rank of the contents that determine reliability and the page should therefore be deleted to save Misplaced Pages any loss of credibility.83.81.44.205 (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
Ok, I am withdrawing my vote; if there is a debate, then deletion is the only solution. Churn and change (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • What is the synthetic proposition here? Are you denying the fact that there are families with political influence in Bangladesh? Are you aware that this topic is the subject of scholarly attention such as the South Asian Journal in which one can read that "One of the defining features of Bangladeshi politics has been dynastic rule ... dynastic politics in Bangladesh has led to violent political conflict between two rival claims for dynasty rule and control over state resources." As your !vote is currently just a WP:VAGUEWAVE without any evidence or reasoning, please clarify your objection. Warden (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • We are interested in an analytic proposition here and not in a synthetic one. A synthetic one is bound to obfuscate our semantic interpretation of the title and its contents. There is no denial of families with political influence in Bangladesh but the degree to which each of those families listed influenced the political history of Bangladesh (many of them being relatively unknown regional as opposed to national political families) and the chronological period of their political influence have always been a subject of dispute by various rival groups who frequently vandalized that page and could never reach a point of consensus in last two years since a notice was posted for its potential deletion. Unlike most other countries in the world where there is consensus on well established historical facts, there is unfortunately no such consensus in Bangladesh on settled, fundamental historical issues concerning the political figures, historically prominent political families and the birth of that republic, all of which is seriously politicized. It is neither possible nor recommended that Misplaced Pages becomes the arbiter of disputes of politicization of an inaccurate listing on the political families of Bangladesh that should be deleted to uphold the standard and credibility of Misplaced Pages. Thank you.83.81.44.205 (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • What wrong with sources such as Politics in Bangladesh or Understanding Bangladesh which seem, at first sight, to be as reliable as any western political history? Warden (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • In Bangladesh, and to a lesser extent in other parts of Southern Asia where internationally known and reputed publishing houses do not exist, any individual with means can simply publish his own book like printing one's own money and sell it in the market with his name on it. The concept of intellectual property does not exist in practice in that country and in that region. Books written by authors in the West are often plagiarized and translated in indigenous languages and published with impunity. Publishing houses that are not international, operate on a patron-client basis and often publish propaganda and literature of self-glorification as books. Internet has allowed local digitization of such low quality work whose sources are not verifiable. Only when a book is published by an internationally known source of publication, usually acquired by libraries, these books are expected to have gone through a process of screening and scrutiny. Unfortunately, none of the families listed on that page use those two books you mentioned as references. The first book's author is not a Bangladeshi but from a country that played a disputed role in the political history of Bangladesh. Therefore a book by an Indian author on Bangladesh is like a book written by a sympathetic Nazi about the Jews. The second book is a general book on Bangladesh and not about Bangladesh's politics, history or political families. The Columbia University Press is a good source of publication but the contents are not relevant as a source for the topic of our page in question. Thank you.83.81.44.205 (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The ones listed above by Dream Focus are more responsibly managed and edited. Neither of those were subject to kind of problems and inaccuracies faced by this Bangladesh list in question. The vote so far has been overwhelmingly in favor of deletion. Unless the debate is not yet over, WP should follow the majority rule and delete that page as soon as possible. Thanks.82.73.35.159 (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: With the BLP and synth removed, the remainder of the article is a not very useful content fork of other articles, and will never become otherwise. Concerns that the article is a magnet for BLP violation and POV pushing are credible and convincing, especially the concern that valuable editor and adminitrator time would have to be invested simply to keep the violators at bay. All in all, a large net loss for the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Categories: