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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bongal[edit]

Bongal (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)

This article is full of Original research and misinterpretations of sources. For instance this source says the word "Kola Bongal" was used to indicate the Bengali people living in Assam. But the article creator wrote it the article the Bengali Hindus were called 'Kola Bongal' literally meaning 'the black foreigner' which is totally misinterpretation of the source. This article is full of such types of misinterpretations. Rahat (Message) 13:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make more sense to correct the (allegedly) mistaken information rather than taking this to AfD? Pax 05:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Claim of misinterpretation of reference and allegation of original research is not a valid reason for deletion. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: BengaliHindu (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Kolbasz (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Acoording to no 6 of WP:DEL-REASON, there is a valid reason foe deletion and also according to WP:OR, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: #6 reads, with my emphasis, "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)". - In other words, in the absence of RS, those are valid criteria. But there are RS in the article. For instance, an article about a neologism or a social slur (e.g., kike, wop, etc) is acceptable if it is sourced. Pax 22:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 15:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 15:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 15:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 09:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Term is a notable slur. Pax 07:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DElete -- Bongal is cognate with Bengal. If there is an implication in the change of vowel that makes it insulting, that needs to be explained. Otherwise this adds little to Bongal Kheda (which I am voting to keep). We certainly do not need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would interesting to have it explained, but it's not necessary to keep the article. (I would imagine it's a portmanteau of "Bengal" and "Mongol", alluding to the worst connotations of the latter.) Pax 09:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Bongal Kheda. Dictionary definition masquerading as an article. --Michig (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2015 (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.