|WikiProject India||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|Article Incubator||(Rated Start-class)|
I was working on this article for last four days and finally recreated it adding as much valid references as required...I tried to provide as much inline citations as possible. I removed POV that was earlier existing and created it with NPOV.
Icon group sources
All icon group publications are sourced from wikipedia. They are not RS. Basically, they take wikipedia material (unsourced or sourced) and publish it as books. So please take care to provide alternate sources instead of those books--Sodabottle (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I added two more refs. but did'nt removed "Icon group publications",they are still there with new refs.....there are only 2 "Icon group publications" refs , rest 53 refs. are sourced....thanks-- Last Emperor (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- The Icon group sources have to be removed. Other than that issue, there's still the problem of WP:SYNTHESIS that was identified in the AfD. In addition, entire sections (like the Jangladesh bit) are irrelevant to this article. A two line bit about this group's relevance in Jangladesh should suffice whereas that bit is completely WP:UNDUE. Since there's so much of ancillary text that shouldn't belong in this article, it's really difficult to evaluate at this point. —SpacemanSpiff 17:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm ok with moving this to mainspace, but I have two concerns:
- The excessive alternate names and scripts in the lede; this should be condensed to include only the top two or three names and the rest should go into the body of the article in a section on the names (this can be done after a mainspace move)
- I still am not comfortable with the Jangladesh section, I know that there are many articles that have similar undue content, but we're discussing this article and I will support removal of such content from other articles also. The content within this needs to be streamlined to focus on the Sihag clan and not Jangladesh in general.
- I appreciate the effort that has gone into improving this article compared to the absolutely horrible state it was in prior to the earlier AfD and I won't oppose a move to mainspace currently; but the above two points should be fixed soon (before or after the move). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)