Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illegal Bangladeshis living in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 to delete, default to keep. There's no consensus that the alleged OR / SYNTH issues with this article or its allegedly POV title are severe enough to warrant outright deletion. In view of that outcome, editors are encouraged to seek consensus for a solution to these issues through improving, merging or renaming the article. Sandstein (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal Bangladeshis living in India

Illegal Bangladeshis living in India (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete: The entire article is POV and constitutes several synthesis. There are different claims "In 2003, former Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes alleged that there are there are more than 20,000,000 of these aliens in India" while "The Government of Bangladesh claims that "there is not a single Bangladeshi migrant in India". There a new topic can be created titled "Illegal immigration to India", but at its present form this article is nothing but WP:SOAP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Article is original research ... nothing but the synthesis of various pieces of non-notable news items to justify some of the authors POV. For example, it cites isolated news items regarding some crimes, and based on the nationality of the suspects, generalizes this over the entire (allegedly) Bangladeshi migrant community. (The same kind of "conclusion" can be reached about British nationals by finding "A" news item about, say a British, who is a suspect for a crime in India). --Ragib (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete 20 million Bangladeshis illegally settling in India, nearly 2 thousand deported from a single state, nearly 2 billion Rupees spent by a single state to combat the situation, 3 million Rupees confiscated in a single incident, an entire border fenced - and all we get are handful of dispersed and unconnected sources, many covering it in the passing in the form of politicians' rhetorics. This violates WP:NN, WP:POV, WP:SYNTH and represents a clear attempt at agenda pushing. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Which is why I am saying a new article titled Immigration to India can be created. Wikipedia has article titled Illegal immigration to the United States, but does not have articles titled Illegal Mexicans living in the United States, Illegal Europeans living in the United States, Illegal Canadians living in the United States or Illegal Asians living in the United States. Immigration to India will be a valid subject, but this one is WP:POV and soapboxing. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
More Comment: Generally articles titled Immigration to X country are valid topics. But when you create articles titled Illegal immigration to X country, that becomes WP:POV. And also look at the article Illegal immigration to the United States, that article also has several problems. The article is tagged with neutrality dispute. So look at WP:OTHERCRAP. Articles titled Illegal people from Y country living in X country is no no. These types of articles become POV fork of Immigration to X country articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment; why on Earth does adding the word Illegal make it POV? Illegal immigration to country is often a clearly defined subject, objectively measurable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Then I will support Illegal immigration to X country articles. But Illegal immigration from Y country to X country is clear POV fork. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • A POV fork of what? Are there any other articles about immigration to India? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. I said that a new article titled Immigration to India is necessary. We cannot keep a WP:SOAP like this only because at present there is no article titled "Illegal immigration to India". Carefully read others comments before asking this kind of nonsensical question. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You're wanting a move then. You don't need AFD to do that. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You are carefully omitting the other argument provided above that this article has many original synthesis. Some isolated cases and non-notable news pieces are punched together to constitute an agenda-driven article. Care to the arguments provided by User:Ragib. If you like soapboxing, that's fine, there is no rule that a person cannot have his/her own POV/agenda, but this has no place in wikipedia. Care to the arguments provided by the other people. Be constructive in argument, or quit. Your careful motivated and agenda-driven omission of other arguments is simply disrupting this AfD. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
On investigation, I see that the article was moved from a different title already, i.e. Illegal immigration to India. Since you don't seem aware of this and haven't edited the article or its talk page, I conclude that you haven't researched the matter. And since the article has a stack of sources and some editors who are prepared to discuss them, I am changing my opinion accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
"And since the article has a stack of sources." - as mentioned above, the article is simly a synthesis of random pieces of information to justify the hypothesis put forward in the article, rather than any coherent theme. WP:COATRACK also applies to this synthesis. --Ragib (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The coherent theme is well summarised by the title of the article. I read a few sources and they support this theme. I made my own independent research and turned up a supporting source in less than a minute. There's a notable topic worthy of an article here. If you don't like the way it is currently written then edit it and discuss it there. AFD is not the place to settle your differences. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, does wikipedia have an article on Illegal Mexicans living in the United States? Illegal Canadians living in the United States? Surely, we can dig up a NYT or LATimes article on this, or a multitude of newsreports showing people of X ethnicity immigrating to USA illegally, or of Y ethnicity accused of a crime. But an encyclopedic entry that sounds very much like an op-ed opinion supported by various newsreports is not of much value, and rather suffers from WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:COATRACK. On a minor note, how is a "Bangladeshi illegal"? They are not Bangladeshis by law, and hence "Illegal Bangladeshi"s? --Ragib (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Check the "article", it is not a news report, but rather an op-ed piece. :) --Ragib (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, Immigration to X-country would be a valid article. But the material available in this article is not useful for such a purpose. --Soman (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Invalid Link to this page Note that the link to the deletion page at the top of the article is invalid.--ISKapoor (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Please Keep: The truth is that the illegal migration of Bangladeshis is very well documented, and this migration impacts India in several significant ways. However Bangladesh government has an official policy of not acknowledging this migration. I see that some of the wikipedia members from Bangladesh would not like to see this fact acknowledged. The editors Ragib, and Aditya know how to to play the game, and I think they will get what they want.
  • It should also be noted, that in Bangladesh, the population of the minority Hindus has fallen dramatically since it emerged as East Pakistan, and it continues to fall. If you have noted the related articles on Bangladesh related articles on Wikipedia, you must note that there has been a consistant effort to camouflage this fact. That is a shame. Wikipedia should be a neutral collection of articles without selection suppression of unpalatable, but well documented facts. Such suppression does not serve wikipedia readers and does not serve the society.--ISKapoor (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The Hindustan Times article which I cited above seemed to give a good NPOV summary of the situation which is naturally somewhat confused due to the porous frontier and the imperfect nature of the the partition of Bengal. Since such newpapers have a good grasp of the inflamed situation, I doubt that Wikipedia will sway matters much either way. But I'm not understanding why the Bangladeshis would win an edit war over this. Aren't there more Indians? Colonel Warden (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Colonel Warden, You failed to notice that the Hindustan Times article you cited above is an Op-Ed piece, rather than a news report. --Ragib (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I did notice this. This demonstrates notability since it is tertiary coverage. Furthermore, the author seemed quite perceptive in his analysis which accords with my observations of similar situations elsewhere - Ireland, the USA and England - where we have much movement of peoples. I suppose the author to be an educated Indian who is above simple populism and so reasonably impartial. If our article is written to a similar standard, then we may be glad of it. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
ISKapoor, what nonsense are you talking about here? Wikipedia is not a battle ground over petty nationalism, and the ethnic identity of users is irre levant in this discussion. We are not discussing anyone's ethnic background here, rather we are discussing the merits of the article in question. Please refrain from making any personal comments like "The editors Ragib, and Aditya know how to to play the game, and I think they will get what they want.". Please stick to discussing the article and NOT the editors. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Illegal Bangladeshis in India are a well documented issue. See:

  • Global Surveillance and Policing: Borders, Security, Elia Zureik, Mark B Salter, 2005.
  • South Asia in World Politics By Devin T. Hagerty, 2005.
  • International migration: trends, policies, and economic effects, Slobodan Djajić, 2001.
  • Demography and National Security By Myron Weiner, Sharon Stanton Russell, 2001

Also please see numerous links to articles in the wikipedia article.--ISKapoor (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also see scholarly articles, just a sample here:

  • Bangladeshi Migrants in Delhi: Social Insecurity, State Power, and Captive Vote Banks, by Sharat G. Lin, Madan C. Paul; Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol. 27, 1995.
  • The marginal nation: transborder migration from Bangladesh to West Bengal, book, Samaddar R, New Delhi, India, Sage Publications, 1999.
  • Trafficking in Bangladeshi Women and Girls, Bimal Kanti Paul and Syed Abu Hasnath , Geographical Review, Vol. 90, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 268-276.
  • Refugees or Infiltrators? The Bharatiya Janata Party and “Illegal”Migration from Bangladesh, Author: Gillan, Michael1, Asian Studies Review, Volume 26, Number 1, March 2002 , pp. 73-95(23)
  • Cross-Border Illegal Migration and Conflicts in India’s North-East: Emerging Challenges and Responses, Dr. Archana Upadhyay, Department of Political Science, Dibrugarh University.

--ISKapoor (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment; I personally don't see the need for having to include the passage 'illegal' in the article title, except for pov-pushing and insinuations. More useful would be an article covering the overall history of migration from East Bengal/East Pakistan/Bangladesh from 1947 onwards. However, the present material in this article would be of little use. --Soman (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. The issue of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in India is a very notable topic, often raised in Indian political social circles. I agree that the claims of Indian politicians might be highly exaggerated, and this article may be seem very one sided, since it doesn't talk about the exploitation faced by these poverty-ridden immigrants. But that's no reason to delete the article. The topic of the article is very valid and notable, just like Illegal immigration to the United States. POV is no reason to delete an article -- just tag it with {{npov}}. As for the notability of this topic, that should not be questioned:
    News: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
    Government sources: [13][14][15][]
    Political parties/NGOs:[16][17][18]
    Books:[19][20]
    An entire book has been written on the topic: Illegal Migration from Bangladesh (ISBN 81-8069-224-8). utcursch | talk 08:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    Just to clarify: "Illegal Bangladeshis living in India" is not a great title for the article. utcursch | talk 05:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per utcursch. Shyamsunder | 21:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to Immigrants in India removing OR sections: The higher level article Immigrants in India need to be created first. If illegal immigrants from Bangladesh to India is the major issue there, that can be mentioned with proper citation in that article. If the article tends to become too long, only then it could warrant splitting it into "legal" and "illegal"; and if the article on "illegal immigrants" becomes too long then countrywise separate articles may make sense. Without creating the higher level articles, creating separate articles focused on a single country does violate WP:NPOV. This is comparable to creating an article like Outsourcing US Jobs to India without creating the higher level article on outsourcing issue. Arman (Talk) 11:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    We find sources and we write about the specific topic of those sources; we don't find sources on a specific topic and try to make WP:OR generalisations to parent topics (like trying to write an article about all immigration to India from all countries on the basis of sources about illegal immigrants to India from a single country). cab (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Utcursch. The article could use a cleanup, but it is a valid topic. Noor Aalam (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per utcursch as a notable topic with numerous sources demonstrated to exist. Illegal immigration from Bangladesh to India or somesuch may be a better title. No need to create any parent topic like immigration to India first. cab (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • How about WP:NPOV? The per Utcursch thingy is fine, but it doesn't help the subject to xenophobic, slightly racist and utterly opinionated. India doesn't only have illegal Bangladeshi immigrants, and Bangladeshi illegal immigrants don't just go to India. If the Nazis were publishing articles on Jewish domination of German commerce would we still be as accepting? The Jews did dominate, as could be proven by financial audits and academic discussions, but was that a valid NPOV topic? You want a cleanup? Then begin with the subject itself. It stinks of prejudice, especially without any context of Immigration in India or Immigration in India. Valid topic? Sure, like Proof in Islam of the demonic ways of the West (I am sure, if written, it will have plenty verifiable and reliable sources to quote). Do we really want to keep the title and create space for a WP:COATRACK willingly? Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I fail to understand your analogies. I also suggest you read up on Godwin's Law; comparing this article to the genocide of six million people is insultingly trivialising, and calling anyone who discusses the fact of people from one country going to live in another country without following that country's visa procedures a "Nazi" itself reeks of censorship. As a person with no connection to either country in question, what I see is a collection of sad facts like "Centre for Women and Children Studies estimated in 1998 that 27,000 Bangladeshis have been forced into prostitution in India" or "India is building a fence along its entire border with Bangladesh" which are clearly related to the illegal migration of Bangladeshis and are cited to well-regarded sources, as well as point-counterpoint about the opinions of India's and Bangladesh's governments, with the points of view clearly attributed to each one. The article nowhere claims that Bangladeshis are the only illegal migrant group in India or that Bangladeshis go nowhere besides India, nor in its present version does it make any claims that Bangladeshi illegal immigrants in India are the root of all evil, as you make it sound. So perhaps you can explain to me what part of this article is sparking such anger from you? cab (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • (inserted) No one called no one a Nazi here. Perhaps your observation of ghosts in innocent shadows will tell you why it is imprtant to have an attitude of NPOV. Or perhaps not, as you seem to be more interested in sensitivity in discussion pages than sensitivity in the article itself. Sad. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
        • How about Illegal Jewish immigration to Sweden (1933-1945)? Jews from Germany and other Axis-dominated/occupied states took refugee in neutral countries during this period, often in breach of the then immigration laws. Emphasising the word 'illegal' for a group of people is dehumanizing, and should be avoided in wiki article titles, not only in this case. --Soman (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Whether or not to use the term "illegal immigrant" to describe settlement of foreigners without a visa/in violation of visa terms is not a matter likely to be decided here on a single AfD. You may want to try reviving the discussion at the talk page of the old proposed guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration). cab (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Utcursch.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Are we trying to turn Wikipedia into a joke or something? Get 10 cites and 10 editors to say keep and you can have any amount of derogatory defamatory synthetic and rhetorical POVs included as an article? What is this? Western ignorance of eastern realities? Or plain pretension that we are not getting what's being discussed here? It's not jst about the title, it's about the subject itself. No amount of lawyering would be able to remove the strong POV from the article. If you find the "illegal" and "Bangladeshi" parts this suitable, why not try an article on Bangladeshi threat against Indian integrity as well. If you need references for that article, I am sure I'll able to supply you with quite a few. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Userfy and incorporate whatever reliably sourced material exists into a fresh article under a more appropriate title - Immigration into India, for example. It can't stay at this title, definitely, and as it stands its simply a laundry list of which politician made a speech when. --Relata refero (disp.) 01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Utcursch and cab. Actually, the title and the subject of this article is somehow hurting Bangladeshi editors. But subject is well sourced and apparently that establishes its notability.--NAHID 17:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Most political rhetorics can be "well sourced" and hence claimed to be "notable". The issue here is NPOV, which you conveniently ignored. And, perhaps you have noticed that even Utcursch is no great fan of the title you supported "per Utcursch". Please, refrain from fly-by voting. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. That "per X" and "per Y" attitude shows much lack of individual reasoning, and clear signs of straw-polling. A lot has been said after the keep-sayers discovered their rallying point, and none of that is being addressed in their "votes". Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:18, 12 April 2008 (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.