Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu Taliban (3rd nomination)

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 delete. See detailed rationale at the bottom of the discussion. —Darkwind (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Taliban

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Per WP:NEO & WP:POVFORK "Some refer to hindutva supporters as a “Hindu Taliban.”" India: A Global Studies Handbook p126. The article fails on neo as the sources used only mention it in passing, none go into in-depth coverage to explain what the neo is actually about. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : A term used by some journalists that too many using it in passing need not have an article.--sarvajna (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the discussion for the first AfD nomination seems to have been a rather clear keep, while no real consensus was reached on the second. I don't see why this needs to be nominated for a third time, actually. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the first AFD was flawed, those voting AGF on the sources, however most of the sources were in fact about Hindutava and those that do mention "Hindu Taliban" mention it only in passing, per WP:NEO "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term" Darkness Shines (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, man. The Dawn and France24 sources seem to mention the term not merely in passing. Not sure if Rediff is RS, though (not saying it isn't, just that I'm personally not sure). I'm still leaning toward keep but I see that others indicated delete. It would help if we could get answers from a larger pool of editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The dawn sorce has two mentions of the term, other than the article title. "Gujarat continues to be in the grip of Hindu Taliban" is one line, and that is it. The second mention is "Compared to the Hindu Taliban, the Muslim Taliban may be less active. But they are very much there." I would not call that in-depth coverage, would you? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, Mezzo, the first AFD was an instance of unplanned lazy nomination, the 2nd saw a no consensus bordering on delete (because two delete votes were discounted rather with a poxy rationale). Hence, it was not that clear. It is not a vote. Mr T ^(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the references in the article, this appears to be a fringe term. A sentence elsewhere should take care of this in a more than adequate way. --regentspark (comment) 20:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep In my opinion i think the article should not be deleted,but as another editor pointed out the sources are really weak.Uncletomwood (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect you to change your stance but will try anyhow, if you already acknowledge that the sources are weak (which BTW is downplaying the real deficiency of in-depth coverage), why vote for a keep? I mean what can trump the violations like non-existence of in-depth coverage in WP:RSes, WP:NEO among other issues? Not to mention what a Propaganda-spilling inferno it has been. Mr T ^(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pointless WP:POINTY nomination by a user who has a clear of WP:COI. The results in the previous AfDs were clear. And the term has a heck lot of coverage online in a breadth of sources. If the nominator can't be bothered to see them, it's not the problem of others. Mar4d (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:COI and then be so kind as to redact your absurd allegation. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments should be made on policy, not on users. If you only object against a certain user starting this discussion, but you cannot counter his actual arguments, your "vote" is not valid. --RJFF (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why delete.... just as it reflects the extremism. There‘re lot of articles of the same nature for which no one raises any question. The nominator may not like this article that doesn‘t mean have to delete it. MehrajMir (Talk) 12:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments fall in line with those that are to be actively avoided. See WP:LIKE and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Uncletomwood's comment below against Faizan applies to you too. Mr T ^(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are not Hindu extremists there? Why reducing Wikipedia's coverage of them? Extremism is there, and the article should be kept. Faizan(talk) 12:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re Faizan, yes there are Hindu extremists, which is why we have the Hindutava article. At all the other keep votes, where are your sources which discuss this neo indepth? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faizan,assuming you are muslim,your point of saying keep is because hindu extremism is there,a Bloody brilliant reason to say KEEP.Wikipedia is not for propagation..I hope you know that.Uncletomwood (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Taliban a student movement, a protegee of the CIA/ ISI that took Afghanistan back to the middle ages. Isn't it the new Godwin's law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh Khandke (talk • contribs) 13:29, April 10, 2013 (UTC) diff

But isn't it a term used by Hindu Extremists? Faizan(talk) 13:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is just a term for the Hindutva movement. Did you not see the source I added with the nomination? "Some refer to hindutva supporters as a “Hindu Taliban.”" India: A Global Studies Handbook p126. This term is just a NEO for that. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the same is the case for Islamic extremists, they are also referred by some. Faizan(talk) 14:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? Do you mean the Taliban? They called themselves that. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faizan Al-Badri, have you lost it? You really think "Hindu extremists" assuming they are remotely as violent and as pernicious as the real 9/11 terrorists, call themselves Hindu Taliban? Given that these so-called Hindu extremists are the number one rival of Islamic fundamentalists in India, why on earth would they call themselves the Taliban? Is there no limit to this absurdity? Mr T ^(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Taliban weren't the ones behind 9/11. Not sure what point you're trying to make here. This article is over the use of the term in relation to Hindu fundamentalists and we have plenty of sources and coverage showing that this is a widely used term. 07:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy delete: per Nom, per the lack of WP:SIGCOV. It's just a pejorative slang used for supposedly intolerant right-wing Hindus. These are living people we are talking about. WP:NEO. More if an article about a very popular and well-noted topic as "Civilization Jihad" can be speedy deleted under WP:G10 and can be framed as figment of imagination, I believe this is also an attack page a fictitious construct. FYI, even the draft about Civilization Jihad is MFDed. This issue and those who are voting "Keep" need to be taken to a noticeboard or at least monitored very thoroughly.
"Hindu taliban" doesn't make sense, they don't exist, even the suggestion is preposterous. [1], [2], [3].
How is Tunku Varadarajan now a taliban expert? This is a promotional attack page put up to smear an entire community. Mr T ^(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: guys, the constant back and forth debates from both sides along with instances of uncivil behavior seems - at least to me - likely to lead to another "no consensus" result. I think it would be better if each editor simply states their vote without responding or engaging with others. Though at this point, unfortunately, this discussion has gotten so out of hand that "no consensus" already seems very likely. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polling is not a substitute for discussion, mind it. Your argument here like everywhere else, seems to fall in line with "Just does not belong and don't refute others".
Wikipedia works by building consensus. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration, not straw votes. Mr T ^(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's very clear here by the nature of the back and forth arguing, and the discussion boiling down into usage of the F-word, that this isn't consensus building. It's an argument that seems headed toward another lack of consensus. Please consider what I say instead of simply trying to formulate a response to it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you let the admin decide? Mr T ^(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the original point I was making, sir. And that's a bit difficult when you appear to be engaging in mildly aggressive behavior with a number of editors who simply express different views than yours. Again, please consider this general advice I gave to everyone here, including myself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Hindus are extremists.Page must be on wikipedia.Msoamu (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...Hindus are extremists? You mean as a group of people? You might want to qualify and/or entirely change that statement, it looks really, really prejudiced and offensive as it is. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the poor way that vote was put across there are of course Hindu extremists, it is commonly referred to as the hindutva movement. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that's right all Hindus are extremists, talibans, go ahead!! Wow! Mr T ^(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obscure, rarely used term. --RaviC (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to reconsider that. Mar4d (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Hindu Taliban" is just a pejorative slang used for supposedly intolerant right-wing Hindus. You might want to reconsider your poxy attempts to mask the lack of notability. Mr T ^(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d, with all due respect, I stand by my original judgement that this is an obscure term that does not add any value to Wikipedia. --RaviC (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I sincerely beg Wikipedia to promptly delete this page, or else it will be sending out a strong negative message to an absolute peace loving religion on this earth called "Hinduism" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramukh Arkalgud Ganeshamurthy (talk • contribs) 14:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia usually should not have articles on neologisms and the like (WP:NOTNEO), unless they are of high notability, which could not be shown in this case. (Some uses of the term here and there do not make high notability.) Especially, POV forks must be deleted at any rate, which is the case here. We already have articles on Hindutva and Hindu nationalism which are the established terms for this phenomenon, so a separate article on "Hindu Talibans" (a clearly derogative=POV term referring to the supporters of Hindutva) must be a POV fork. --RJFF (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep - Mar4d has shown evidence that the term does indeed exist. Hindu nationalism and the Hindu Taliban are different terms. Reliable sources attest to the fact that the term exists and organisations such as this exist. Acknowledging the previous nominations, the article should be kept given that there are no reasons to delete it. Further, Tunku Varadarajan a clinical professor at the Stern School of Business, also a lecturer in Law at Trinity College, Oxford University and a graduate from there, his opinion as an academic is tantamount in confirming the existence of such a movement. As an academic his work is scholarly and therefore relevant. As a teacher and an observer of the world around him, it would seem strange for his work to be disregarded and the article deleted. Therefore a strong keep is what is needed. Numpty9991 (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC) -block evading sock puppet of Dalai Lama Ding Dong Beta Jones Mercury (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does Wikipedia need articles about obscure neologism. Anyhow the terror activities by Hindu extremist groups are already there in Saffron terror. That way, a new phrase Internet Hindus is also in use these days. Do we create an article about that also? --Vigyani (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons given by RJFF and others.Shyamsunder (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The closing admin might want to regard the simultaneous discussion to merge this article into the existing article Hindutva: Talk:Hindutva#Merger proposal. --RJFF (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Compare to the deletion of Christian Taliban, a redirect to Christian fundamentalism. It's highly inappropriate to use "Taliban" as a pejorative for any fundamentalist group. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]