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. Editors seem to agree that we need to start over on this, so I'm pulling out the WP:TNT. I can userfy it upon request, though you'll likely to find the product of minimal help. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MASS KILLING in Bangladesh, 5TH MAY 2013 (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)

My PROD contested; Peripatetic's CSD removed by page creator, but I thought it would be good to bring it here. The article is poorly written POV anti-government (almost fringe) stuff. No objection to deletion and NPOV recreation (under a better title). Ignatzmice•talk 19:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Moved to 2013 Dhaka protests (which isn't a great title, but not as bad). Ignatzmice•talk 11:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Rework with new title and NPOV. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, move to better name, rewrite from the neutral point of view, and expand. A Google News search for "Bangladesh protest shooting" shows significant coverage in The Guardian, reporting at least 30 deaths. I'm on a smart phone and working now, but normal editing is called for here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and rework -- Peripatetic (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Title is POV, article is copyvio from an activist page and POV, the images are a bad joke!! In fact, the 2 images that are out there are patent nonsense! --Ragib (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. OK, I've given the page a fresh start by removing all the nonsense (and probably some reasonable text, too) and warned the vandals. I also deleted the Al Jazeera source because the bare-url 404ed. The topic is probably keep-able, though it needs a proper name and it will probably need to be at least semi-protected. Dricherby (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but this could warrant a page with a proper title and writing for the event itself. There's just little to nothing worth salvaging from this article itself as-is. - Vianello (Talk) 20:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is with no offense intended to the attempts at cleanup. Sometimes, though, when you start polishing something, all you're left with when you remove the gunk is a grain of sand. - Vianello (Talk) 20:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offence taken, Vianello. I'm fully aware that the page I left was very, very bare. Dricherby (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thanks to Dricherby's cleanup, I think the article stands a chance now (but maybe not). Therefore, I've moved it to the less sensationalist 2013 Dhaka protests. Ignatzmice•talk 20:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sadly, this title is too broad and needs to be redone somehow. Protests have been going on non-stop in Dhaka ever since the beginning of February, starting on the 5th of Feb with 2013 Shahbag protests. Yesterday's action and last night's counteraction are all part of the aftermath of Shahbag and we still have a long long way to go. At any rate, the point is that the title is misleading and needs to be reworked. -- Peripatetic (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I suggest you start a discussion about an appropriate title on the article's talk page. Dricherby (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up Comment - Or merged with the main Shahbag article in some kind of Aftermath section. --Peripatetic (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Rework: Absolutely this is an important event and has WP:SIGCOV. However, the article as is should have been sandboxed, worked on with at minimum: improved title, more citations, some narrative and organization, and better factual support. This article currently fails on the most basic policy of WP:WTAF. Please rewrite it, resubmit it based on this criticism, and then I'll support its inclusion.Crtew (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody did write the article first but it was an unacceptable and total mess. By the time I'd removed the ludicrous claims (e.g., that literally millions had been killed, that nuclear weapons had been used and so on) and the POV-pushing, there was nothing left but the stubbiest of stubs. Indeed, the original article was so bad that it was speedy-deleted as a hoax but restored because the deleting admin noticed it was at AfD. Dricherby (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with many comments above about the NPOV stance while I'm supportive of the development of this as an article. Crtew (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about merging: With all due respect, the 2013 Shahbag protests has been a poorly written, one-side POV article from its inception. That article lacks basic substance in some areas (such as the media coverage section which is an inane list of who has covered the event). The "article" is in desperate need of some balance (and might very well be improved if it wasn't for the battleground mentality on the page). Moreover, whoever made that article into a B-class knows absolutely nothing about the assessment criteria. That topic and this one is important, but that article is at best a start class with a host of problems. To lump this topic in with the counter-protests would miss the mark of what is needed to improve the coverage of what has been going on in Bangladesh since the war crimes trial began. This whole area needs some serious rethinking. Crtew (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article is intended to be a biased article with a strongly negative title. There is already a more general article on Hefajat-e-Islam_Bangladesh which includes a section about the clash of Hefajat and police on May 5 and later. There's no need to have another article just on one section of an article.Shantonu.hossain (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you'd read the article before !voting, you'd see that it's been renamed since this AfD started. Dricherby (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That article is definitely not NPOV, but it would see that a merge or redirect into it would be a pretty good option. Ignatzmice•talk 11:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not only the 'title' I am opposing. Even if the title is changed it doesn't justify the need for another article which could be a subsection of an already existing article.Shantonu.hossain (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. As retitled and cleaned up, it's barely a stub, but the event was substantive and newsworthy, and could link up with others.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands as there is no claim to any lasting significance so therefore fails the WP:NOT policy. LGA _talk^edits 07:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:LASTING, which you link: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." This is a recent event (four days ago) with unproven lasting effect. You can't cherry-pick half the guideline. Dricherby (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2013 (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.