The result was no consensus. I'm conflicted how to close this. There is a claim that this fails WP:V, which is a requirement that needs to be interpreted strictly. On the other hand, nobody is claiming that "South Bengal" doesn't exist. Just that the name hasn't reached a level of acceptance as an official place name. From the arguments here, I can't convince myself that either camp is completely correct.
So, going to call this No Consensus. It seems clear that this needs editing, and better sourcing, but for now I don't see a strong enough argument here to delete it. My recommendation is for people to work on the article and perhaps re-evaluate it in a few months if there's no improvement. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Not verifiable. Has cited no sources since created in 2011. Not a legally recognized place. Anyone can stick "south" on the name of a region, but that doesn't create a notable topic. The ngram hardly registers in Google Books (42 uses since 1995). As often as not it's not capitalized, indicating that it is at most an informal term that has not attained proper-name status. In no case is it used to mean what the article defines it as - a cross-border region including parts of Bangladesh and parts of the state of West Bengal in India. Worldbruce ( talk) 01:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
"Anyone can stick "south" on the name of a region"--- OH YA! almost every Bangladeshi and indian, especially indian bengali news agencies have editing section for "South Bengal". More:
− Gaurh ( talk) 10:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I'm conflicted how to close this. There is a claim that this fails WP:V, which is a requirement that needs to be interpreted strictly. On the other hand, nobody is claiming that "South Bengal" doesn't exist. Just that the name hasn't reached a level of acceptance as an official place name. From the arguments here, I can't convince myself that either camp is completely correct.
So, going to call this No Consensus. It seems clear that this needs editing, and better sourcing, but for now I don't see a strong enough argument here to delete it. My recommendation is for people to work on the article and perhaps re-evaluate it in a few months if there's no improvement. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Not verifiable. Has cited no sources since created in 2011. Not a legally recognized place. Anyone can stick "south" on the name of a region, but that doesn't create a notable topic. The ngram hardly registers in Google Books (42 uses since 1995). As often as not it's not capitalized, indicating that it is at most an informal term that has not attained proper-name status. In no case is it used to mean what the article defines it as - a cross-border region including parts of Bangladesh and parts of the state of West Bengal in India. Worldbruce ( talk) 01:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
"Anyone can stick "south" on the name of a region"--- OH YA! almost every Bangladeshi and indian, especially indian bengali news agencies have editing section for "South Bengal". More:
− Gaurh ( talk) 10:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)