Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 textbooks criticism

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 keep‎. – robertsky (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 textbooks criticism

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insignificant and irrelevant unless proven otherwise, this kind of events can happen, it happens every year, textbooks can be criticised, that doesn't mean it deserves a separate article. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article also has issues with its quality and literally every year and even day, textbooks are criticised, this type of events are not suitable to stay in Wikipedia. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has failed to make a case why the sourcing situation is insufficient. Cortador (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - You have failed to understand that the article is not relevant. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BangladeshiEditorInSylhet Why do you Keep vote, when you are deletion nominator of this article. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 05:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think you can vote for your own nomination (it's implied you vote to delete it). Anyway, this seems notable from a first glance, although the page name should be less generic and there are issues with tone and style. jolielover♥talk 17:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well-sourced, though it does need to be copy-edited and the title should be changed to something more descriptive. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added strikethrough on nominator's bolded vote. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:NOPAGE. This is an aspect of Education in Bangladesh. Lone incidents do not need to be split off into their own articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my cursory examination of the article, and the nominators failure to provide a reason, as stated by Cortador. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, such criticism are often heard Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"such criticism are (is) often heard" what does it mean in Wikipedia? Somajyoti ✉ 09:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahammed Saad Somajyoti ✉ 09:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In clear words, does not go with WP:NOTABILITY. Textbooks are printed every year and criticisms arise more or less every year. I do not support creating articles for any specific year for such topics. Ahammed Saad (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahammed Saad

"Textbooks are printed every year and criticisms arise more or less every year."—your claim could be right (i don't know), but it might also be off the mark.

I usually replace the Bengali-language references in articles translated from Bengali Wikipedia with equivalent English-language references. I’ll soon take the time to do the same for this article as well.

If, as you say, the textbooks face criticism year after year, how does that tie in with WP:Notability?

Also, you might want to take note of what User:Worldbruce has written. Somajyoti ✉ 17:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happens can someone please rename and retitle this to clarify that it is specific to Bangladesh? The lead doesn't even make this clear. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The quality of this discussion mirrors the quality of the article. Please focus on whether or not the article meets Wikipedia's inclusion policies and guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you want this article Kept but also want the page title changed or the article improved, you need to vote for a "Keep" and then handle a Requested Move if this AFD closes with a Keep. AFDs can't close with a Move outcome. So, this is definitely something that can be changed later but it only matters if an article is Kept, just because you don't care of the article page title shouldn't be the basis for a Deletion argument because that can easily be changed through editorial decisions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was reported by The New York Times,[1] the BBC News, Deutsche Welle, and The Daily Star. Academics who have written anywhere from a long paragraph to two pages about it include:
- Rahman, Tahmina (January 2019). "Party System Institutionalization and Pernicious Polarization in Bangladesh". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 681 (1): 173–192. doi:10.1177/0002716218817280.
- Mostofa, Shafi Md (2021). Islamist Militancy in Bangladesh: A Pyramid Root Cause Model. Springer. p. 65. ISBN 978-3-030-79170-4.
- Wohab, Abdul (1 January 2021). ""Secularism" or "no-secularism"? A complex case of Bangladesh". Cogent Social Sciences. 7 (1): 8–10. doi:10.1080/23311886.2021.1928979.
- Lutful, Rifat Binte (28 September 2023). "The Dynamics of Islamic Radicalization in Bangladesh: Confronting the Crisis". Religions. 14 (10): 16. doi:10.3390/rel14101244.
--Worldbruce (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever we call it, it is significant, relevant, and not run of the mill criticism. It's notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is notable. SRL1122 (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Worldbruce's sources show this is clearly notable. Thank you very much for finding these sources. Toadspike [Talk] 10:58, 17 May 2025 (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.