Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam in ancient Bangladesh
- 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 speedily deleted per article creator's request as allowed by WP:CSD#G7. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Islam in ancient Bangladesh (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 is a POV fork of content such as that found in Bengali Muslims#History. The title itself is an anachronism; there is no "ancient Bangladesh". The sources are a decidedly mixed bag, with some not mentioning the topic of the article at all. The content is decidedly within WP:FRINGE territory. Huon (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Hagiographic fork of Bengali Muslims#History. Eperoton (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I was considering a redirect, but it is indeed anachronistic nonsense. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete or merge back to Bengali Muslims. Dealing with a pre-partition subject such as this on the basis of post-partition boundaries is wholly anachronistic. I have not looked hard enough to see of there is anything worth merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as a POV fork. @Metropolitan90:, since you deleted the article could you close this discussion? Chris Troutman (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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.