Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Asia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Asia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

• adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
• removing closed AFDs.
• removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

• tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Asia}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Asia}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

This list also includes sublists of deletion debates involving articles related to specific Asian countries.

Contents 1 Asia 2 Armenia 2.1 Serge Avedikian 2.2 List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia 2.3 Gerard Cafesjian 2.4 Khachkar destruction 2.5 Tokgrum 3 Bangladesh 3.1 Prods 3.2 AFDs 3.3 Atiur Rahman 3.4 Ashique Mostafa 4 Brunei 5 Cambodia 6 Central Asia 7 Afghanistan 7.1 Uses of torture in recent times 7.2 Afghan Calendar Project 7.3 Islamic Party Jamiat of Afghanistan 8 Kazakhstan 8.1 Allegations_of_apartheid 9 Kyrgyzstan 10 Mongolia 11 Tajikistan 12 Turkmenistan 13 Uzbekistan 13.1 Uses of torture in recent times 14 China 14.1 Zong Pu 14.2 Zhu Xiao Di 14.3 Jia Pingwa 14.4 Guo Jingming 14.5 Chen Ran 14.6 Chang Tsi 14.7 Li Dawei 15 Hong Kong Articles for Deletion 15.1 Wah Yan College Cats 16 Other Hong Kong deletion discussions 17 Macau 18 Taiwan 19 Automatic delete candidates 20 Ongoing deletion debates 20.1 Gurudeva Vagish Shastri 20.2 Hindutva propaganda 20.3 Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath 20.4 Rajan Sankaran 20.5 Sharad Raghav Rane 21 Category discussion debates 22 Template discussion debates 23 Indonesia 23.1 Anton Medan 24 Iran 24.1 Arabs of Khuzestan 24.2 Fereydoon Family 24.3 Allegations_of_apartheid 25 Japan 25.1 Categories 25.2 Proposed deletion 25.3 Articles for deletion 25.4 Eikaiwa managers 25.5 Ourei Harada 26 Korea 26.1 Kim Jong-il in popular culture 26.2 Entarians 26.3 DPR K-League 2 27 Lebanon 27.1 Reda Wahid 28 Malaysia 29 Automatic delete candidates 30 Pakistan 30.1 Ongoing deletion debates 30.2 Qazi Nisar Ahmed 31 Articles for deletion 31.1 Health Research Development Information Network 32 Closed AfD discussions 33 Sri Lanka 33.1 Princess Diana Institute of Peace 33.2 Rajkumar Kanagasingam 34 Taiwan

[edit] Asia

[edit] Armenia

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Bangladesh. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

• adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
• removing closed AFDs.
• removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

• tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Bangladesh}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Bangladesh}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

[edit] Bangladesh

[edit] Prods

[edit] AFDs

[edit] Brunei

[edit] Cambodia

[edit] Central Asia

[edit] Afghanistan

[edit] Uses of torture in recent times

Uses of torture in recent times (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is inherently WP:POV and can never be WP:NPOV - this is the type of article that would have an NPOV and cleanup tag forever since much of this data is at the level of pure allegation. My suggestion is that the article be deleted and whatever relevant information is there about each country be taken to that country's article on human rights, and anything else to articles on torture, which I think is unnecessary since the information is just a rehash of info from other Wikipedia articles. Khorshid 19:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment where have you found that WP:NPOV is reason to delete? Also, could you eleborate on what you consider POV, especially with those notorious unreliable and biased sources as HRW, AI, WaPO, The Telegraph, et cetera. The article was started in Nov 2004. Strange this sudden and poorly substantiated AfD. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:DELETE - this article is not in any shape or form encyclopedic. It is inherently POV can never be neutral - please also read WP:NPOV. Furthermore, HRW, Amnesty, and other such groups are not in any way "neutral" or unbiased - on the contrary, they are political action groups like any other, often relying on second and third-person accounts which cannot be verified. Like I said, country-specific items can be taken to the respective human rights articles for those countries. An article simply listing uses of torture in various countries can never be neutral. Khorshid 19:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Furthermore there is no conspiracy or "cabal" at work here so don't start with that nonsense please. Khorshid 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  Delete, pending further checks. I find it troubling that the article makes claims of torture in some places without proper citations (or any for that matter). These are extremely serious accusations that must be backed up by rock-solid references. Wikipedia is not a blog and alleging torture without double- and tripple-checking one's sources (which must obviously be provided) is bordering on defamation. In any case, it's not appropriate. -- Seed 2.0 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I did some more research (particularly relating to the non-US sections) and I'm afraid I'll have to stick with my original vote on this one. WP:NPOV is a huge problem here and it's likely to stay that way. Accusations of this magnitude must be backed up by serious, confirmable sources, every step of the way. In addition to that, I would like to point out that Wikipedia articles are not a place to voice one's opinion (and articles are not essays) - there are plenty of places on the Internet to do that but this Wiki's mainspace isn't one of them. -- Seed 2.0 21:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not sure this could ever be encyclopedic. Arkon 21:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Divide the article into Torture and Foo articles, it is a valid subject country-by-country because there is no indication that one country's practice is based on or relies on anothers. There is an article Torture and the United States and so we can take whatever's sourced and put it separate articles. The collection just seems to muddle the facts. Carlossuarez46 21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The topic discussed is clearly encyclopedic, contains a great deal of well-sourced content (and some which badly needs sourcing), and is verifiable in principle. There seems to be a major problem with the structure, insofar as the country-by-country structure keeps the article consistently too long. Torture in, and torture and foo articles would be a big help. However, I have to add that there are major patterns of regional use of torture (for example in the Warsaw pact and Operation Condor countries historically). Several early sections of this article could be retained together with an attempt at a global summary. See, for comparison, Use of capital punishment by nation. We could also have a productive conversation (on talk, not here) about how to clearly and concisely represent different types of sources: conclusions of judicial review and governmental inquiries, human rights documentation, refugee reports, medical documentation, press reports, etc. Of course, NPOV and sourcing concerns should be taken up in the article itself.--Carwil 21:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. FYI, here are the unsourced statements I found:
  • In 2002, in Cologne, Germany, a history of physical torture at Eigelstein police station only came to light because the victim died, and a post-mortem examination unearthed the facts.
  • Under Enver Hoxha's Communist dictatorship, torture was widely used.
  • The government headed by Baathist Saddam Hussein made extensive use of torture, including at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.
  • Israel has used "moderate physical pressure" on terrorist suspects defined as "ticking bombs" for their knowledge of imminent terrorist attacks against civilians which the information they possessed had the power to prevent, at least since the 1970s. In 1987 the Israeli Supreme Court formed a special commission headed by retired Justice Moshe Landau, to review the whole question of physical pressure during investigations of this kind. In their report they reinforced the criteria for the use of "moderate physical pressure".
  • Russian army is believed to use torture extensively in Chechnya and the surrounding districts, as investigative tool, and as a deterrent/punishment for captured fighters.
  • Torture was widely practiced in the Soviet Union prior to its transformation to a federation in the 1980s, to extract confessions from suspects, especially in case of alleged plots against the security of the state or alleged collaboration with "imperialist powers".

Note I'm not the author of the comment above but I'd like to add that I am concerned about some these sources being cited out of context. As I mentioned above, serious alligations warrant serious research and serious sources. Some of these sources are a tab bit outdated and some are less than objective. -- Seed 2.0 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per Carwil. --Rayis 23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is very important and notable human rights issue. Having POV label is not a reason for deletion but for improvement. Proper "pro" and "contra" can be provided. Unsourced statements can be removed, in agreement with existing policies.Biophys 03:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afghan Calendar Project

Afghan Calendar Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable vanispamcruftisement, no evidence of multiple non-trivial works on Google. Contested prod. MER-C 09:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep seems notableRaveenS 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, is it? And how so? MER-C 07:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Party Jamiat of Afghanistan

Islamic Party Jamiat of Afghanistan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Probably just a mixup with Jamiat Islami. Neither [10], [11], [12] give any indication of a party with this exact name. Soman 13:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge and Move I think we should merge and move both of them to Islamic Society of Afghanistan or Party of the Islamic Society of Afghanistan--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: My suggestion is merge and move to Jamaat-e Islami-ye Afghanistan and making Jamaat-e-Islami a disamb page. --Soman 13:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It does not appear that anyone has notified the creator or significant editors of this article about this AfD. This is considered to be civil under WP:AfD but is often ignored. This should be the responsibility of the initiators of the deletion process. I will provide the notice myself, time permitting, if no one else does so by tomorrow. Edivorce 22:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kazakhstan

[edit] Allegations_of_apartheid

Allegations_of_apartheid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Clear violation of WP:SYNT. Contains quite a bit of OR. In addition, much of the article's content is duplicated elsewhere. Jtrainor 23:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. If you had said "nothing but OR", you might have had a point, but AFD isn't part of the cleanup process. "Contains quite a bit of OR"? {{sofixit}}. --Calton | Talk 23:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Calton.--Urthogie 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete OR collection of practically unrelated events under umbrella of a broad term, ignoring any context. Magnet for vandals and warriors. Unmaintainable, potential to grow w/o limit every time when someone somewhere says the work apartheid. Classical example of the problem with OR on WP. Pavel Vozenilek 07:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep not all WP:OR. Some of it is sourced.--Sefringle 01:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I just looked at the Canada section, but unfortunately those concerns about the Indian reserves are well-known and at least that section is valid. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is important human rights issue. Most sections are valid.Biophys 03:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pavel. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of allegations and accusations. Also in violation of WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Let's get back to building an encyclopedia. We should send a clear message to all those who would use Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote their personal opinions, political ideologies, nationalist movements, etc etc. We have too much of this nonsense already here. Wikipedia is not a political conference. Khorshid 04:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I completely second Khorshid's assessment. If there are any individual concerns, the standard country structure allows "Human rights in X" articles, and they can be covered there. If there is any meaningful content, merge them under those articles. Such articles really leave the door open for all sorts of POV-pushing and OR. It is time that Wikipedia got more serious covering subjects - every country has "HR in X", develop fully anything that pertains to that country there. Baristarim 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - We can make individual articles for countries with real allegations against them, but this 'hub' is completely unnecessary. The Behnam 10:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, sandbox the salvageable material and merge to many articles What happened was this.
  1. Now banned User:Homeontherange and other leftist editors created Allegations of Israeli apartheid, a page that was reliant on a neologism to dissect an issue that was already well covered elsewhere. The article seems in my mind to be a violation of WP:POINT, inherently POV and an unhelpful propagandistic use of the term apartheid. Though the editors have done their best to neutralise it since.
  2. Naturally, Israeli focussed editors were unimpressed, and scoured the net for other uses of the term in relation to other nations. And found them. Hence the creation of Allegations of apartheid by Israeli focussed editors, which placed Israel merely as one of many nations attacked by the pejorative. One of the countries most linked to the term was Cuba due to its tourist policies of the 90s (exclusive hotels etc), which also happened to be one of Homeontherange's preferred nations.
  3. Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba was carefully created by Israeli focussed editors, essentially as response to the Allegations of Israeli apartheid. This naturally ticked off unrelated Cuba focussed editors who believed that it was a violation of WP:POINT and the material should be merged into Tourism in Cuba. A merge resisted by the Israeli editors for reasons that are best explained in point 2.
  4. Seeing as it had seemingly become acceptable standard practice to throw accusations around on article mainspace providing they were sourced, Cuba related editors went over to Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America and added a whole load of verifiable accusations to that page. And the knock on effect was that U.S. focussed editors have repeatedly demanded its removal in turn. Which they shouldn't be able to do because the standard had already been set by previous articles.

So, either we end this nonsense and merge all of these articles into neutrally titled pages that cover these issues in an encyclopedic manner, or we keep all of them them. At present I vote for unilateral disarmament, and call for editors to get back to creating good articles of the kind one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Here are the related articles/forks. If I have left any out, then please notify.

• Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka. Merge into politics/human rights of Sri Lanka etc
• Allegations of State terrorism by United States. Merge into Cuba United States relations etc and the many related pages.
• List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state delete, the term has no agreed definition and thus it is just a list of anything that comes to mind.
• Allegations of apartheid delete
• Allegations of Israeli apartheid merge into Human rights in Israel etc
• Allegations of Islamic apartheid merge into Criticism of Islam, Sex segregation in Islam etc
• Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba merge into Tourism in Cuba
• Allegations of Brazilian apartheid delete, just useless.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 12:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Zleitzen does give a fair history of the article, but I can't agree that this crime against humanity is just something to split off into various human rights in country X articles. Genocide gets its own article , as does Genocides in history, so I'm not sure why (little-a) apartheid (which could as easily be called Apartheids in history) shouldn't as well. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hopelessly POV and unencyclopedic to the extreme. If anything can be salvaged, move into the appropriate articles as suggested above, but honestly, this sort of thing is probably documented in such articles already. Editors should not have to waste their time with this tripe. There are far more articles out there that are in need of work and attention. metaspheres 20:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kyrgyzstan

[edit] Mongolia

[edit] Tajikistan

[edit] Turkmenistan

[edit] Uzbekistan

[edit] Uses of torture in recent times

Uses of torture in recent times (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is inherently WP:POV and can never be WP:NPOV - this is the type of article that would have an NPOV and cleanup tag forever since much of this data is at the level of pure allegation. My suggestion is that the article be deleted and whatever relevant information is there about each country be taken to that country's article on human rights, and anything else to articles on torture, which I think is unnecessary since the information is just a rehash of info from other Wikipedia articles. Khorshid 19:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment where have you found that WP:NPOV is reason to delete? Also, could you eleborate on what you consider POV, especially with those notorious unreliable and biased sources as HRW, AI, WaPO, The Telegraph, et cetera. The article was started in Nov 2004. Strange this sudden and poorly substantiated AfD. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:DELETE - this article is not in any shape or form encyclopedic. It is inherently POV can never be neutral - please also read WP:NPOV. Furthermore, HRW, Amnesty, and other such groups are not in any way "neutral" or unbiased - on the contrary, they are political action groups like any other, often relying on second and third-person accounts which cannot be verified. Like I said, country-specific items can be taken to the respective human rights articles for those countries. An article simply listing uses of torture in various countries can never be neutral. Khorshid 19:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Furthermore there is no conspiracy or "cabal" at work here so don't start with that nonsense please. Khorshid 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  Delete, pending further checks. I find it troubling that the article makes claims of torture in some places without proper citations (or any for that matter). These are extremely serious accusations that must be backed up by rock-solid references. Wikipedia is not a blog and alleging torture without double- and tripple-checking one's sources (which must obviously be provided) is bordering on defamation. In any case, it's not appropriate. -- Seed 2.0 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I did some more research (particularly relating to the non-US sections) and I'm afraid I'll have to stick with my original vote on this one. WP:NPOV is a huge problem here and it's likely to stay that way. Accusations of this magnitude must be backed up by serious, confirmable sources, every step of the way. In addition to that, I would like to point out that Wikipedia articles are not a place to voice one's opinion (and articles are not essays) - there are plenty of places on the Internet to do that but this Wiki's mainspace isn't one of them. -- Seed 2.0 21:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not sure this could ever be encyclopedic. Arkon 21:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Divide the article into Torture and Foo articles, it is a valid subject country-by-country because there is no indication that one country's practice is based on or relies on anothers. There is an article Torture and the United States and so we can take whatever's sourced and put it separate articles. The collection just seems to muddle the facts. Carlossuarez46 21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The topic discussed is clearly encyclopedic, contains a great deal of well-sourced content (and some which badly needs sourcing), and is verifiable in principle. There seems to be a major problem with the structure, insofar as the country-by-country structure keeps the article consistently too long. Torture in, and torture and foo articles would be a big help. However, I have to add that there are major patterns of regional use of torture (for example in the Warsaw pact and Operation Condor countries historically). Several early sections of this article could be retained together with an attempt at a global summary. See, for comparison, Use of capital punishment by nation. We could also have a productive conversation (on talk, not here) about how to clearly and concisely represent different types of sources: conclusions of judicial review and governmental inquiries, human rights documentation, refugee reports, medical documentation, press reports, etc. Of course, NPOV and sourcing concerns should be taken up in the article itself.--Carwil 21:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. FYI, here are the unsourced statements I found:
  • In 2002, in Cologne, Germany, a history of physical torture at Eigelstein police station only came to light because the victim died, and a post-mortem examination unearthed the facts.
  • Under Enver Hoxha's Communist dictatorship, torture was widely used.
  • The government headed by Baathist Saddam Hussein made extensive use of torture, including at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.
  • Israel has used "moderate physical pressure" on terrorist suspects defined as "ticking bombs" for their knowledge of imminent terrorist attacks against civilians which the information they possessed had the power to prevent, at least since the 1970s. In 1987 the Israeli Supreme Court formed a special commission headed by retired Justice Moshe Landau, to review the whole question of physical pressure during investigations of this kind. In their report they reinforced the criteria for the use of "moderate physical pressure".
  • Russian army is believed to use torture extensively in Chechnya and the surrounding districts, as investigative tool, and as a deterrent/punishment for captured fighters.
  • Torture was widely practiced in the Soviet Union prior to its transformation to a federation in the 1980s, to extract confessions from suspects, especially in case of alleged plots against the security of the state or alleged collaboration with "imperialist powers".

Note I'm not the author of the comment above but I'd like to add that I am concerned about some these sources being cited out of context. As I mentioned above, serious alligations warrant serious research and serious sources. Some of these sources are a tab bit outdated and some are less than objective. -- Seed 2.0 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per Carwil. --Rayis 23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is very important and notable human rights issue. Having POV label is not a reason for deletion but for improvement. Proper "pro" and "contra" can be provided. Unsourced statements can be removed, in agreement with existing policies.Biophys 03:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China

[edit] Zong Pu

Zong Pu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This person may or may not be notable, but the article doesn't show it and provides no information to allow further research. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep interwikied; Chinese version (zh:宗璞) seems to demonstrate notability (multiple sources). cab 09:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, it's a little stub, but there is a lot of information about this person in Chinese wikipedia.SISLEY 09:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep There is additional material even in English to insert. There are 1730 ghits, most of them real. I have added some articles and other references. A totally inexplicable nomination. I do not understand not even looking at the first page of Google results!DGG 00:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for the moment, it has been sourced.. Baristarim 04:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zhu Xiao Di

Zhu Xiao Di (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Reads like advertising and does not really show notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, the article is messy, but it doesn't mean this person's article should not be in wikipedia. SISLEY 09:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the article is a mess and asserts no notability (sources etc) whatsoever. Baristarim 04:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jia Pingwa

Jia Pingwa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Insufficient assertion of notability, as the only thing that appears to do so is a link to an award that he won that, however, does not have its own notability shown. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I'm not sure why you are doing this, you can translate the information in Chinese wikipedia instead of trying to delete all the articles about some Chinese people. SISLEY 09:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This article fails WP:ATT, WP:NN, is just about the shortest possible stub, hasn't been touched in months, and interestingly enough, the only Google hits for the so-called "Hongloumeng Prize" that is the subject's sole claim to notability are this article and the (Chinese language) web page linked within it. More damning, while the Google translation claims that this prize was awarded in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Google has no more hits than the English one. I'm not sure myself upon what grounds SISLEY is objecting, because nom's reasoning is perfectly clear, and seemingly justified. RGTraynor 17:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. RGTraynor, I'm puzzled why you didn't just search jin pingwa hong kong into good ol' American Google to find Jia's award from Hong Kong Baptist University, or this and this page, which show scholarly articles were written on Jia's work. hateless 20:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • and one more link: this book is a whole book, 318 pages full, dedicated to his writings. In English, no less. hateless 20:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep' I have just added: A rating as the 3rd most popular Kung fu writer in China, the reference for the award mentioned above, the book mentioned above from Routledge, a reputable academic press--and its long review in a scholarly periodical, an article in China Daily, and two English language articles from journals--all from the first 20 ghits of the ,12,800 for "jia pingwa" I cannot imagine why the Chinese sources have less. I cannot imagine why this was nominated without checking at least the English google. There seems to be considerable biographic material available even in English. The thing to do when one sees a stub is to try to expand it. DGG 23:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guo Jingming

Guo Jingming (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

is this person really notable enough? Gut feeling is no, but I want to see what folks think. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I don't know why you do not put messages like this in Chinese wikipedia if you really think this person is not important. SISLEY 09:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - the china.com.cn article cited certainly demonstrates notability: "Guo Jingming ranks the 93rd on Forbes' list of Chinese celebrities in 2004. He is arguably the most famous young commercial writer in China." -- BPMullins | Talk 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chen Ran

Chen Ran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability other than the list of works -- and the notability of the works themselves was not asserted, and it's not even clear what her genre is. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, there are lots of works in the article, and you have articles with less information. SISLEY 09:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, author and her works are non-trivially covered in multiple journal articles such as [13][14][15][16]. cab 09:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. cab 09:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per cab. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chang Tsi

Chang Tsi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Effectively an unsourced article since the source relied on provides insufficient information as to this person's identity (and given that, the person, if he existed, cannot really be referred to as a "famous" poet). Delete unless more information as to identify is provided. --Nlu (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Uncertain: From Chinesw wikipedia:

天寶十二載（753年）進士，曾任檢校祠部員外郎、洪州鹽鐵判官。大歷末（779年），伉儷歿於洪州[1]。有《張祠部詩集》。在唐代詩人中，張繼不算大家，也不是名家，宋人葉夢得《石林詩話》記載其詩在南宋時僅存三十多首。《全唐詩》中，只存四十餘首。《楓橋夜泊》是他最著名的詩，作於天寶十五載流寓蘇州時，这首诗首先被选入高仲武編選的《中兴间气集》，後又選入《唐诗三百首》。高仲武評張繼詩：「員外累代詞伯，積習弓裘。其於為文，不自雕飾。及爾登第，秀發當時。詩體清迥，有道者風。」「比興深矣。」其事蹟見於辛文房《唐才子傳》。 According to this, he became a scholar in 753. In terms of Tang poet, He is not a huge poet; Record show that he only have 30 poems left by Song dynasty, while The "Complete Poem Collection of Tang" he only contributed 40. However, he did contributed<<楓橋夜泊>>, which is collected in the "300 Tang Poems", and most famous chinese poem anthology. 142.58.101.27 00:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No assertion of notablity.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Expert opinion needed In the view of those who understand its significance, is any poet with a poem in the 300 Tang Poems notable?DGG 04:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I know Li Bai's poem is there... can someone check? 142.58.101.27 04:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that not all poets who had a poem in there qualifies. The problem with this article, again, though, is that it doesn't establish which Chinese poet the name "Chang Tsi" corresponds to. --Nlu (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, the people at the relevent national WikiProject are probably more likely to be able to figure this out than a bunch of random AfD voters cab 09:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. cab 09:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Li Dawei

Li Dawei (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No real assertion of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. from the article, does sound a bit notable, but i must say, there are billions of chinese, if every notable chinese person were given a page, well, it would engulf Wikipedia. Perhaps more stringent notability requirements are necessary for chinese people? Not being racist, just to keep the number manageable.Jörg Vogt 07:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry I may misunderstanding, my reading of your proposal appear to be racism - separate rule for Chinese is unfair, we Chinamen are humanity also.Wen Hsing 08:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The existing notability criteria (multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources) are emphatically fine; Wikipedia is not paper. The existence of this article doesn't interfere with the creation of articles about other notable authors in your country. cab 08:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Added sources. Seems at least weakly notable; his latest book 卡通猫的美国梦 got reviewed by a major Chinese newspaper (南方都市報, dunno what they call it in English) [17], and he himself was written about as well as a Chinese magazine in Germany.[18] Incidentally [19] claims he won the 2000 prize from October (a decently-reputable literary magazine in China), but I'm still trying to verify this. cab 08:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. cab 08:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, he's more notable than other people you have in wikipedia.SISLEY 09:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The closing administrator may choose to disregard your vote unless you provide a more convincing reason to keep the article. Cheers, cab 10:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case, it is a BIG reason to keep the article, you guys can see what Nlu is doing again the articles about Chinese people which are not in Chinese wikipedia without considering what it's in this one or other wikipedias, because this article is also in French, German and Spanish. This article contains details of Li Dawei's life and his works, it has references, etc,etc. SISLEY 16:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The German, French, and Spanish versions of the article do not provide any additional information that would show notability, either. --Nlu (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Several major books, several reviews of his work. There's no problem finding reasons to keep. There is probably considerably more to be found, as is the case of some similar AfDs today.DGG 23:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong Articles for Deletion

[edit] Wah Yan College Cats

Wah Yan College Cats (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted per CSD and later restored. There is little established notability to justify the existence of this article. It appears to be dominated heavily by content which has not been attributed properly - most likely original research, as the article history shows that it has only been edited by one registered editor. Additionally per notability guidelines for organizations, there appears to be insufficient secondary reliable sources out there to support this article. At most, I can see this article having a section in the Wah Yan College article, but not its own. Luke! 05:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Added some references, removed some redundant parts.--:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 06:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, also see a search on the organization's Chinese name (華仁愛貓組). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raphaelmak (talk • contribs) 06:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

• Delete Lovely work, although it doesn't belong to Wikipedia.--K.C. Tang 07:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Wah Yan College, Hong Kong - although it may not have gained enough notablility, however, per WP:NOTE and WP:MERGE: "One common recommendation across all notability guidelines is not to nominate articles on such subjects for deletion but to rename, refactor, or merge them into articles with broader scopes, or into the articles that discuss the main subject, which may be created if they do not already exist."; "If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." I think it is possible to merge it with an article of broader scope, in this case, Wah Yan College, Hong Kong.--:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 08:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep I figured it was just something made up in school one day, but it looks like they got themselves written about in Ming Pao? [20] Can someone with a subscription take a look at that? Thanks, cab 09:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. cab 09:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment What's the policy on secondary school organisations? I think I remember an article about some computer programming team at La Salle getting deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Will this camp expand to be a large nonprofit shelter home? One of the links said the organization applied for "financial assistance from the Quality Education Fund (QEF)". At the moment the contents are quite personal, like the name of cats etc. This page is linked from Animal Cruelty. You sure you want this to represent animal shelters in Hong Kong?? Benjwong 21:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There doesn't seem to me much encyclopedia-worthy content worth merging. Of course, we could decide to IAR from here on, and keep all well-written or clever articles in WP regardless of subject. It would simplify some of these discussions. DGG 01:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Hong Kong deletion discussions

---

[edit] Macau

---

[edit] Taiwan

[edit] Automatic delete candidates

(PROD-tagged) pages, culled from Category:Proposed deletion

[edit] Ongoing deletion debates

Deletion debates culled from WP:AFD and WP:MFD

[edit] Gurudeva Vagish Shastri

Gurudeva Vagish Shastri (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Was nominated for speedy deletion under CSD-A7, but declined as contains an assertion if notability of you look very carefully - that the guy created a yoga technique. There is no assertion of notability for the yoga technique that I can see, so I'd like community input on the entire article. Originally created at Vagyoga, moved to title claimed by article intro. My opinion is reserved.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  19:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as the article is sourced only by self-published material as far as I can see. Claim of notability is not supported by any clear evidence. Buddhipriya 02:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Article seems more to laud skill than provide insight into its scientific nature and merits. Seems like an advertisement the way it is written. Seems to only mention positives. ZaydHammoudeh 07:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The page was created for Vagyoga. Firstly this page is not for Gurudeva Vagish Shastri. But it concentrates on his invented technique.
  Vagyoga is a newly emerged technique of Sanskrit grammer which has its applications in Yoga and Kundalini Meditation. Its follower belong to all over the world. So why this new technique br ignored ? --Vagyoga 06:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Note that I have refactored this page for readability. Note also that the article has been moved to Vagyoga but that the author has nominated it for deletion here   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  07:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• He is a great teacher, with very heavy weight academic credentials. He is the former head of the Sanskrit dept. at Sanskrit University in Varanasi. I think this material is valid. Pam Strayer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.102.195.245 (talk • contribs).
• Delete as above. Anwar 14:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hindutva propaganda

Hindutva_propaganda (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

• Hindutva propaganda: I submit this article for consideration for deletion given that this flies in the face of WP:UNDUE,WP:ATT,WP:NPOV. The highly prerogative title of the page makes it obvious that page is primarily meant to be an attack page. Hindutva is described by its proponents to be a Hindu revivalist movement, it is has been often derided by its opponents to be an extreme right wing ideology. Whatever may be one's opinion about Hindutva, i believe terms like Hindutva propaganda are personal opinions and the title hardly conforms to WP:NPOV. Much of the article consists of cherry picked quotes from two Papers by Michael Witzel and Nanda & Sokal. Witzel is a Sanskrit scholar, which hardly makes him an authoritarian voice to pass judgements on Indian political ideologies. Mr.Witzel is also considered to be controversial for his supposed anti-Indian/anti-Hindu bias [21]. It is basically like writing an article on Republican ideology sourced from Noam Chomsky artciles. Undue weightage is given to Witzel and Nanda's opinions on Hindutva.

Whats more, on the lines of Hindutva propaganda we donot have Redneck propaganda,Islamist propaganda,Christian propaganda,Marxist propaganda. Also the article ends up making wild allegations like: during the 1930s, the Hindutva movement was influenced by Nazi mysticism, and pseudoscientific theories of racial supremacism. Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) leader M. S. Golwalkar in 1939 he wrote that "Germany has shocked the world by purging the country of the semitic race of the Jews, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by".[2].

This serious allegation against a major Indian ideology is based on untracable reference (# ^ Ruthven (2007:10ff.) ) by an obscure Scholar whose interest/expertise is unclear. [22].

Also the main contributor to this artilce User:Dbachmann had added a statement (since revised):

Following the assassination of Gandhi by a member of the RSS in 1948, Hindu extremism was discredited in Indian society for some decades.

Its should be noted that Nathuram Godse (Gandhi's assasin) was NOT a member of RSS at the time and RSS was absolved by the Supreme Court of India of any hand in Gandhi's assasination. Addition of content like this by Users like User:Dbachmann is shocking. RSS in past has not hesitated to sue anybody accusing it of hand in Gandhi assasination. Such irresponsible behaviour puts Wikipedia in a position where it can be sued.

It should also be noted that admin User:Dbachmann who has created this article, has also sprotected it. Isnt this unfair use of admin powers uncalled for, especially when there has been no obivous trolling on the article... Given the condescending tone of this article towards its subject, this article falls squarely in the 'attack page' category. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge with Hindutva. On user talk:Dbachmann#Re:Hindutva propaganda, Dab claims that this is an article is an "exposition" of "fringe theories" in the realm of Hindutva and Indian politics. However, I fail to see how this article is anything but a collection of quotes and opinions from a bunch of authors. As a reader, this article sounds too judgmental and opinionated, consisting less of facts and more as an expose or a research paper. Nor do I think Wikipedia is a place to do "expositions." Rama's arrow 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• any article will rely on a "bunch of authors". The point is, these are authors published in mainstream studies on nationalism and pseudoarchaeology. As always, if you can find similar publications that object to the opinions presented so far, you can add them. The problem is that the case is really too obvious to contest, no scholar in their right mind would deny that fringe science is used for political propaganda here. Find us a criticism of the allegations by a neutral third party, preferably peer-reviewed and not published by the Theosophical Society, and we'll be able to document a controversy. So far, for lack of scholarly objection, we are just documenting a straightforward case. dab (𒁳) 10:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless you can document that the BJP has been using the Indus script as a tool to get votes, there is absolutely no connection. Rather the synthesis of various unrel,ated thing, Theosophy, Vivekananda, various Indian authors, and conflating them to the BJP/VHP/RSS is obvious original research and implausible. Hindutva "propaganda" is more along the lines of "Muslims will be a majority in India in 3000C.E." or something like that, not the Indus script is Vedic post-Classical Sanskrit.Bakaman 16:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I raise an objection on the talk page to the name of the article, indicating that I would prefer it to be at Hindutva and Pseudoscience or some such title. The subject itself seems to be notable; note that your objection here is merely that the article is not sweeping enough. This is a strange contrast with your delete below. Hornplease 18:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. There should be a article to outline every mix of rightwing (twisting of) religion and politics. Their use of propaganda to try to capture peoples minds, from the (pseudo) christian politics of George W. Bush to lure in evangelical christians, to the extreme in other situations, such as the luring of indians of hindu faith into anti-minority movements. Hindutva or christutva or whateverva are serious subjects that deserve their own articles as they are real and organized movements that need to be noted. I applaud this article and its highlighting of a subject that has continually tried to be hush hushed.--Kathanar 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but nobody is trying to "hush hush" anything. Please do not bring your own motives and conspiracy theories into this. Try and be as objective as possible when contributing on Wikipedia. Rama's arrow 02:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - The article is a synthesis of sources, it is non-neutral and gives undue weight to the opinions of two people. For AFD'ing the predecessor to this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindutva pseudoscience (2nd nomination) I was in fact threatened by Dbachmann (talk • contribs) after afd'ing it. Rather than give in to such childish threats, I have edited this article to try and balance the view in accordance with wikipolicy, but this article is a lost cause.Bakaman 01:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it a lost cause? Please explain how any of the reasons you give above are (a) true and (b) a reason for deletion.

Note that this user has repeatedly been accused of misbehaviour by users other than dab, including me, and has featured prominently in several recent ArbCom cased. So Dab's comment is not out of line at all. Hornplease 18:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Users include BhaiSaab (talk • contribs), Szhaider (talk • contribs) and TerryJ-Ho (talk • contribs) (all banned by arbomc). Two fringe non-banned users in a sea of a million or so do not constitute a consensus, and featured prominently is more along the lines of, knowing a lot on the recent India-Pakistan (which featured Rama's Arrow) and Freedom Skies (an India-China battle). Infact hornplease has been featured prominently on arbcom himself, noted for misrepresenting policy, and also noted as the only user bent on attacking productive contributors on arbcom in the sea of overwhelming consensus against him and dab and whoever else these "other users" seem to be.Bakaman 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note (1) My only feature on arbcom has been in connection with presenting evidence against the above user; (2) I was not the only user presenting that evidence as a look at the HKelkar arbitration will establish; (3) The 'overwhelming consensus' that the above user is proud of is represented, in all its glory, by some of the contributors to this page; (4) The only person accusing me of misrepresentation is the above user. Again, have a look at the RfArb records for a good laugh. Note also this user's tendency towards useless argumentation; any discussion, even an AfD battle, is reduced to a personality or cultural clash. Even RfArbs on user conduct above are presented as 'India-China battles'. Sigh. Hornplease 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(1)You presented evidence against hkelkar as well. (2) Yes you are right, you were with noted trolls that later became banned trolls (3) that's a complete misrepresentation, and it merely shows the user is unable to move on (4) personality clash also includes attacking people for their vote, a practice you seem to be practicing above this "discussion" and below this discussion.Bakaman 22:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(1)You're right, I presented evidence against you and the banned troll. (2) I was 'with' the noted trolls? I specifically said that I had no direct knowledge of their behaviour, so I wouldnt discuss it. (3) I'm not the one refusing to move on. I pointed out that for this user to pretend to be a Wikipedian in excellent standing was a little odd, as he's noted for his tendency to get into brawls of this sort. (4) I don't attack people for their votes! ON the other hand, thinking that pointing out that you had not been 'threatened' by anyone is an attack on your vote, that is a fairly accurate reflection of your attitude here. Hornplease 22:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please cite any consensus of editors in Good standing agreeing with you. Unless User:BhaiSaab, User:Ikonoblast, et al. are suddenly in good standing your definition of my edits stands a fallacy. Just like most other discussions with the above user, the onus is not on the issue at hand, rather it is ad hominem attacks on the editors intelligence "you are incorrectly quoting policy", "you are too dumb to grasp the intricacies of deletion" ,etc.Bakaman 23:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete WP:POINT and POV nonsense. WP:POINT made, delete. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is a bad faith third nomination. rudra 05:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What makes this a bad faith nom? I've already elaborated my concerns regarding this article. Dont you have anything to say about that? Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 05:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

AMbroodEy rudra is merely parroting dab's spurious accusations of trolling and "bad faith" on the part of any editor with sensible disagreements.Bakaman 16:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

this is the 3rd Afd in three weeks. Granted, the first one was closed out of process because it had been submitted by a sock (which in itself is telling). After an unsuccessful Afd, you are expected to wait for at least two months, and then present the reasons why you think the original AfD was flawed, or why the circumstances have changed. If you were just concerned with the title, you would come to the article's talkpage and do a move suggestion. dab (𒁳) 10:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• speedy keep, again, just like we'd speedy keep Politics of creationism, Pallywood and Soviet propaganda during World War II. There were also repeated attempts to delete Criticism of Islam with similar arguments, and look, the article's still with us and doing well. The pseudoscience is real and notable, hence Wikipedia can discuss it, even if certain editors would prefer it to remain undocumented. dab (𒁳) 10:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop drawing parallels with unrelated articles. For starters i believe we do have a Criticism of Hinduism article. Secondly, you have no concrete evidence to link the said scholarships with corresponding Indian political movement. The Hindutva squat usually goes like "Evil vatican cospiring to Christianise India" or "Muslim boys luring Hindu girls" stuff... Plus Swami Vivekananda wasnt a Hindutvadi. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 17:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Also for other nominations. I have no control over how Mr.Kelkar chooses to act. 2nd nom. was for Hindutva pseudoscience and NOT Hindutva propaganda. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 18:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

'No concrete evidence'? Have you even read the article?Hornplease 19:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)s

• Not just undocumented, but introduced, or retained, as "real scholarship" in other articles. That's the real agenda here. rudra 10:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• 'Real scholarship' is a subjective adjective. Read WP:FRINGE. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 17:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, WP:FRINGE is invoked here? It's inapplicable in this case, but I suppose if Nicholas Kazanas is nominated again, you will be among the first invoking it again? No? Oh dear, I wonder why. Hornplease 19:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The article currently has some issues but still appears notable. It should be kept for now, and improved. The Behnam 12:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that can happen? See the edit-war there.--Scheibenzahl 20:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Move - The article name is POV in itself. I suggest it to move to Hindutva scholarship. One can retain/work upon the content, which can very well reflect the incoherences in the scholarship and (un)acceptance by prominent/mainstream scholars.--Scheibenzahl 16:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and Merge - The article is nothing but culmination of quotes from 3 authors, Wizel, Nanda, Sokal, with POV quotes and weasel words filled between. The whole article looks as if created by first time user. One should first decide what the article is actually about, and then create appropriate section under Hindutva article.--Scheibenzahl 20:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: I find something unusual that referring to the discussion, the page has been redirected, perhaps violating - "You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community." This is really serious. Moreover, keeping the page locked during AfD process is also not prudent and appears to me an ownership syndrome of contents. --Bhadani (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The page has been moved, not redirected. I have frequently observed in the past that some pages are locked at the time that they are nominated for deletion. Finally, neither is an argument on the merits of the page, merely a veiled attack on an individual, and thus the vote should be disregarded. Hornplease 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than attacking one of wikipedias most prolific contributors (note recent issues of The Hindu) perhaps one must introspect into the blatant incorrectness of the view. Hornplease has unceasingly attacked those contributors not sympathetic to his point of view on things. It is rather unsurprising that he would choose to attack Indian admins, especially those that expressed opposition to hornpleases' unsavory behavior on arbcom.Bakaman 22:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? I'm attacking Indian admins? Wow, that's nice. Who? The only Indian admin I've ever had a run-in with isnt even here. Has Bhadani ever discussed my behaviour? No? Then you were mischaracterising facts again? What a shock. Hornplease 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should tell us why your vote shouldnt be disregarded... your explaination after all consist of theree words... as for Bhadani i believe hes quite an experienced admin, he knows his business, so no need for you to draw paranoid implications.Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 18:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, formed in stated ignorance. I am entitled to mine, based on observation. Hornplease 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather your observations are quite poor and have been criticized and defined as invalid by many users, most of whom are admins, and all of whom are knowledgeable on wikipolicy unlike you. The more despicable behavior is illustrated you since you seem perpetuating the "work" of Szhaider (talk • contribs), TerryJ-Ho (talk • contribs), Ikonoblast (talk • contribs) et al. And Bhadani is cited in [The Hindu]] see [23], and commended by Jimbo Wales.Bakaman 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, rather than repeat myself, why don't you point to these 'many admins'? (I know better than to ask you to point to the 'rather poor observation'.) Better still, file an RfC rather than cluttering up every page I'm on with an angry rant. Hornplease 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: per my nom. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 17:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, bad faith nom. Hornplease 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Care to elaborate why this article deserves to be kept? This article istelf appears to be a product of extreme hostility/prejudice of some editors towards a certain ideology/political school of thought. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 18:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The nomination should be in good faith. You say above 'three-word reason'; at least the three words are possibly relevant. The Guide to Deletion says clearly that nominations should be in good faith; in other words, that the primary aim should be improvement of the encyclopaedia. A strong suspicion that this is not the primary aim is a sufficient reason, according to the Guide. Happy? Hornplease 19:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The suspicions are unfounded. Having a page serving as a loudspeaker for Witzel and Nanda does not better the encyclopedia, deleting it does, therefore Ambroodey put it up for afd.Bakaman 21:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. The fact that there are several quotes, that this is a well-known problem - consider the NCERT textbook thing - does not feature in your analysis? Your antipathy to 'loudspeaker's does not extend to genuinely non-notable individuals such as Nicholas Kazanas? No? I thought not.

The point that neither the above editor nor the original nominator seems to realise that notability is the criterion, and POV is only relevant at an AfD if its a POV-fork, is why I felt justified in my three-word justification. Which is considerably more justification than this speedy-keep deserved. Hornplease 22:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

9 google hits from wikipedia mirrors does not meet a notability threshold. Everyone that comments on AFD is aware of what notability is, and asserting that only certain editors do not serves to show a predilection toward certain views and editors and not a reasoned argument, which is not being presented above.Bakaman 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Does not assuming Good Faith qualifies as Bad Faith? If yes then you are clearly in violation of that.--Scheibenzahl 20:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge with Hindutva, as per Rama's Arrow. I realize that Dab has strong feeling regarding Hindutva, but extreme generalizations such as this do not deserve an encyclopedic entry. _{Freedom skies| talk}  19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

For this editor's stated motivation, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies.Hornplease 19:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith are we? Do as you preach. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 19:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

One can view the "good faith" with dubiety with more or less the correct assumption that this user 's conduct on this page is not served for discussion or the purpose of a consensus. Rather it seems the motives present are to use "arguments presented" to denigrate users. Ambroodey attempt to end the hypocrisy perpetuated by this user will undoubtedly fail.Bakaman 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Hornplease 22:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep A well sourced informative article.IP198 23:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom --D-Boy 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -

Scholarship associated with Hindutva movement or in agreement to Hindutva claims are generally associated with Hidutva propaganda.
How can scholarship be 'propaganda'? Propaganda is by definition preaching/pontificating of a POV by someone who is devoid of scholarship.

Such claims are generally disregarded by mainstream scholars as consisting of pseudoscience, pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology.
So does that mean there is no Hindu/tva scholarship at all that 'mainstream scholars' dont consider as p-p-p?

It has been suggested that such scholarship is associated with the religious fundamentalism or ethnic nationalism, and are a product of Indian politics. Others have accused this allegation as being anti-Indian.

(INSERT:) Please be aware that the passages you are quoting were the result of a sweeping edit by Scheibenzahl (talk • contribs), and do not reflect the state of the article at the point that this AfD was registered. The edit was then reverted six times, effectively leaving it in place. The changes could even be interepreted as sabotage, especially when an AfD is in the offing and interested parties are likely to consult the current state of the article without too much attention to who contributed what when. You may see further discussion of this very paragraph on my Talk page. rudra 10:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Muck that a small group of people throw at each other cannot be used to paint entire populations with the brush dipped in the same muck. For all the hell that is being raised on wikipedia, the fact remains that 99.99%(I daresay) of practicing Hindus(that includes priests and sanskrit scholars) dont even know that a controversy of this nature even exists and are as oblivious to such names as Witzel and Sokal or whoever as they are about Frawley and Kak. 99.99% of them are even unaware that something called AIT was even proposed and the same can be said of their awareness of OIT. So in the absence of an audience willing to listen, branding a POV as 'propaganda' is far fetched. This issue if anything, is purely one that exists and is known only to people 'in the know' and should only be presented as such.

Just because all groups involved in this issue accuse each other of 'propaganda' doesnt mean we should have articles on their insinuations and counter insinuations. This is an article on such a POV and reads(as it was designed) as a POV fork. Just as having an article on, say, "Witzel's propaganda" is not right, having one on what Witzel characterises as "Hindu/tva's" propaganda is just not right. It is one thing to write articles by citing Witzel's(or Sokal's) scholarship and entirely another to write one by citing his gripe/angst/grievance/lamentations. In other words, to advance something like

any traditional Hindu idea or practice, however obscure and irrational it might have been through its history, gets the honoric of "science" if it bears any resemblance at all, however remote, to an idea that is valued (even for the wrong reasons) in the West.[2]

I hope that, Sokal in his book, has

a) Established with notable and verifiable sources that there is indeed such a practice on the Hindu/tvavadi's parts to [....however obscure and irrational it might have been through its history, gets the honoric of "science"....] b) That this kind of claiming scientific sanction for their rituals etc., is not an isolated case and that it is more often than not, the rule and not the exception. c) That this pattern is found in an overwhelming percentage of Hindu/tvavadis.

If on the other hand, Sokal has only studied the habits of a handful of his adversaries(like say, Kak) for his 'sample size', then it is fair to say that his results are falsifiable. One of the reasons is also because he is supposing his sample size to be the true representatives of Hindu/tvavadis. Truth to say, there is no single person anywhere in the world who can claim that. Arya Samaj for all the currency it holds in these matters, is virtually a non entity in entire southern India and in several parts of the rest of India. Vivekananda fame stems not because of his opposition of AIT but simply as an 'elightened being'/saint and as Sri Ramakrishna's student. Infact, I daresay, even adherents of the handful of Vivekananda missions across India are not aware that he even had something to say about AIT. It will be news to them as will AIT/AMT/OIT itself.

Propaganda is what Hitler did during World War II. His theories, that covered the entire gamut of p-p-p and much more was certainly propaganda, in that, it was concocted for consumption of a public that would readily and happily gulp it down and ask for more. Propaganda was what periyar did with his visceral hate campaign against brahmins. In other words, there is an active propagandiser and a proactive propagandee. I could go on but I hope people get my drift and pardon for not putting all this very succintly. Sarvagnya 23:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep I haven't read the article yet, but I certainly have read some benighted trash produced by Hindutva luminaries, among them Subhash Kak, B. B. Lal (once a great archaeologist, who alas, in his late retirement, parted company with rigor), and N. S. Rajaram. There is a latter-day cottage industry out there producing unmitigated cultural grandiosity in the name science. Readers need to be warned of that. Perhaps the name of the article could be changed to "Hindutva Pseudoscience" or something similar, but its usefulness is not in doubt. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The only useful point that this article makes is that mainstream scholarship dismisses the claims made by Frawley, Kak et al. This point has already been made on several related articles ad nauseum.

Simply stating 'matter of factly' and dispassionately that 'mainstream scholarship' dismisses that of Kak et al., is 'warning enough'. This article, apart from making the said point, goes ahead and includes quotes by Witzel, Sokal etc., in a bid to underline and emphasise the contempt that that 'mainstream scholars' have not just for the opponent's 'scholarship' but also for the opponent. This, it does by cherry picking and quoting verbatim what is simply ad hominem cruft. As a student of the subject, I am only interested in the subject and not the ad hominem exchange of fire that takes place between people. An encyclopedia is simply not the place for such cruft.

Simply make the point of what the issue is, who holds what view of the issue and whose view has 'scholarly sanction' and whose does NOT and leave it at that. Readers are intelligent enough to read everything and make up their mind. We are here only to present the facts and not to engineer opinion.

Also once all views have been stated, there is no need to keep updating these articles with the latest scores everytime Witzel and Rajaram exchange fire. Newspapers and magazines and books and blogs will keep those scores for us.

And most importantly, characterising the views of a Kak and Rajaram as being the views of 'Hindutva/vadis' is a fantastic case of generalising to suit conveniences. Hindutva/vadi itself is a term that has no definition in black and white. It was coined by somebody who himself is not seen as representative of anything or anybody, leave alone Hindus. If Hindutva is defined simply as 'being Hindu' then I am a 'hindutvavadi'(sic). Needless to say, I dont see Kak or Savarkar or anybody as representatives of my faith. Not by any stretch of imagination. Nor do an overwhelming majority of hundreds of millions of other Hindus. Hindus have no high command like the pope or the catholic church. So ascribing to all Hindus, a view of someone that not even 1% of Hindus have even heard about, is simply nonsense.

Coz, truth be told, for all the zillion hours of editing and cpediting and 'POV fighting' that editors of these articles have put in, all these articles read as confused pieces with hardly any value for the dispassionate reader. Many of these articles have derailed so badly that it makes almost no sense to somebody who has no clue of the history of edit warring that has gone in to put the article together. In other words, believe me, these articles make no sense to anybody except the dabs and the Bakas. The very purpose of wikipedia as an encyclopedia is being defeated and compromised by both parties insisting on adding every ad hominem exchange of fire that takes place.

I think its high time we all get together at the village pump and hammer out a policy to explicitly deal with 'controversial' articles. The policy in a nutshell should read something like "Keep the facts in, keep the commentary(also read as 'ad hominem' cruft) out". Sarvagnya 05:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with some of the things you say. However, "Hindutva" is not the same thing as "being Hindu." Nor is it "Hindu nationalism." Although the word has supposedly been around since the 1920s, it is political word, linked very much to the resurgence of the BJP in India in the 1990s. In the 1960s if you had asked someone what the word meant, you would have likely elicited derisive laughter, not because of the political implications of the word which no one knew then, but because the word 'Hindutva" is a portmanteau of a Persian/Urdu word "Hindu" and the Sanskrit "tatva," which only a shabby scholar (like Savarkar) could have put together. Hindutva scholarship has not only continued this tradition of combining implausibles, and created fantastic nonsense (like the Vedic Aryans solving quadratic equations in 5000 BCE), but has also aggressively insinuated itself into school curricula and so forth. This last issue is worrisome. I think we need an article that keeps tabs on the mischief Savarkar's intellectual descendants are wreaking upon us. I am sure the article can say at the outset (if it doesn't already) that "Hindutva" is a political word and is not the same thing as "Hindu" etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

....which only a shabby scholar (like Savarkar)... - here lies the problem. It shouldnt be of any concern to the editor or the reader of an encyclopedia whether somebody is a 'shabby' scholar or a 'great' scholar. All that should matter is the facts. Leave the commentary out. Also if 'Hindutva' itself has no fixed meaning and depends heavily on the context and/or whose mouth it is coming from, how can terms like 'Hindutva propaganda', 'Hindutva p-p-p' or derivatives like 'Hindutvavadi' etc., have any meaning?

...Hindutva scholarship has not only continued this tradition of combining implausibles, and created fantastic nonsense (like the Vedic Aryans solving quadratic equations in 5000 BCE)...

'Hindutva scholarship now! Even if we were to assume that Savarkar was the high priest of Hindutva, how did you conclude that Kak and Frawley, for example, are carrying on from where Savarkar left off? It is not like say, Karunanidhi carrying on Periyar's work(that is a case where Periyar was the high priest and annadurai, karunanidhi et al form the unbroken shishya parampara). Kak and Frawley for heaven's sake were not even born when Savarkar was around! If Kak says something, ascribe it to Kak and nobody else. If Frawley says something, ascribe it to Frawley and no one else. If supporters of Kak's views want space for it on wikipedia, start an article for say, each of Kak's books where he has presented his views and present them there. Same holds for Frawley. Same holds for Rajaram. And in the AIT article, put all these articles in the ==See also== and also a SS prose under ==Criticism of AIT==. Now if you ask why Kak, who in your view is a quack should be given space in any of these articles, it is simply because he is a 'notable' critic of the AIT and associated theories. And how did I accord the status of a 'notable critic' to Kak, you may ask. I accorded the status because 'scholars' like Witzel have 'dignified' what you dismiss as drivel with responses. Witzel and co have unwittingly given Kak and co the 'notability' required for a wikipedia mention by choosing to respond! every bum has an opinion but then not every bum's opinion gets the audience and critical analysis of experts! go figure.

And btw, why should any claim that vedic aryans or their chinese or egyptian contemporaries or anyone for that matter solve quadratic equations be fantastic nonsense? If homo sapiens of modern day can solve quadratic equations, I dont see any reason why homo sapiens of 5000 years ago could not have. The science of logic and probability tells me not to dismiss the possibility as fantastic nonsense or even nonsense. Yes at the same time, do I believe that they did? No. Not until I see some proof. Do I believe that it might/could have been possible? Yes(I dont see any reason why not). So, for purposes of an encyclopedia we would have to leave commentary like fantastic nonsense out of the picture and simply state the facts. The facts in this case should read something like - "A claim has been made by so and so... that homo sapiens of 5000 years ago could solve quadratic equations. However, in the absence of any proof to support the claim (or because the proof provided in support of the claim do not measure up to scientific rigor), the claim has been dismissed by the scientific community at large." Sarvagnya 10:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is fantastic nonsense because the notion of negative numbers (a sine qua non for a general solution of a quadratic) didn't exist anywhere until the first millennium CE, and because special cases of quadratics like: x² − 9 = 0 are not called "quadratics," but simply "square roots." Even they require knowledge of negative numbers for a complete solution. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

the notion of negative numbers didn't exist anywhere until the first millennium CE - that is per the historical evidence we have at hand at present. Present historical evidence cannot preclude the possibility that new evidence may be found tomorrow. So your shrill pitch of fantastic nonsense can only be seen as stupid and misplaced bravado stemming from curling up nice and cosy behind 'scholarship'. Sarvagnya 23:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• comment, can we close this AfD as undignified mudslinging? It does nothing but parade our resident and well-known "pov brigade" voting "delete" in unison. Not interesting, not the point of AfD, not flattering for anyone involved. Support your cherished pov by citing academic sources, not by on-wiki campaigning. dab (𒁳) 09:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Dab, considering some of the insulting comments ('pov brigade' is a relatively benign example) you've made recently about Hindu editors, your accusations of undignified mudslinging are surprising. This discussion obviously needs to continue, per Wikipedia norms for hotly contested AfDs. ॐ Priyanath talk 18:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I support closing the AfD. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Conversely the cabalist mentality of those voting "keep" is self evident.Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 18:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That is the most ridiculous suggestion - yes a few editors usually have routine issues being constructive, but this debate is legitimate and not a "mudslinging" venture. Have the patience to sit out the debate. Rama's arrow 16:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Debate of what? The article as it was when the AfD was started, or the article as it is now, after edits by people who have voted to delete? What a joke. rudra 16:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be woefully unaware that this is in fact a wiki, and that unless the page is full protected, the page can be mercilessly edited by you, me, George W. Bush, and any life-form capable of using a computer. There is no special reason to stop editing just because one's pet page is up for AFD, and that neither you nor any other editor owns the article.Bakaman 21:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I admit I wasn't aware that sabotage by delete-voters during an AFD to sway later votes is perfectly acceptable, so much so that attempts to set the record straight for orderly discussion, far from having any merit, could in fact result in warnings if not disciplinary action. rudra 22:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Madhava 1947 (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, naturally; an interesting and sourced article on the links between politics and religion.--Aldux 18:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge wherever required to Hindutva, or Vedic Maths or Saffronization. The article does not give any clear indication of propoganda as such. If this article is recreated or kept, it should try to match the quality of info as in Nazi propaganda --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • indeed. The editors at Nazi propaganda having the advantage of being able to build the article in peace without a bunch of Nazis pulling it down and indulging in general trolling hoping to confuse the unsuspecting reader. If our merry Hindutva band could behave for a few days, maybe we could make some actual progress. dab (𒁳) 07:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • You could create an article in your own user page and when the article does give evidence of propoganda, you can recreate it. Right now, the article is quite complex with very little evidence of propaganda--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or a Major Rewrite I have no interest in, or knowledge of Indian politics, so I cannot comment of the actual issues addressed in this article. I can say that after reading it, I have no additional knowledge save that there is a acrimonious disagreement about whatever it is that this is supposed to be about. The article is laden with lengthy quotes backing up short statements, which seems to be bordering on WP:SYN and WP:OR.

The out of India hypothesis of Indo-European linguistics is a priori unrelated to Aryan mysticism, but has been conflated with pseudoscholarship.

Voice of India and Aditya Prakashan are at the center of the allegations a cottage industry indulging in historical revisionism put forward by Michael Witzel and Steve Farmer in their debunking of the "Harappan horse seal" hoax of The Deciphered Indus Script

What the hell does that even mean? I am an educated person but I cannot parse the meaning of this article. There is a dearth of succinct declarative statements. There is also a tone to it that borders on a diatribe rather than an encyclopedic gathering of data. A reader with no preknowledge, like me, is left bewildered, and I cannot see how anyone with knowledge of the issue could be other than pissed off or proud. The debate on this AfD, the endless back and forth POV by a few obviously interested parties, is further confusing the issue. killing sparrows 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I meant when I said that this article(and a host of other related articles) make sense only to the dabs and the bakas who have been active participants in this fiasco. Sarvagnya 22:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but rename to Hindtva Philosophy or Hindutva Ideology . Rewrite content to mainitain Netrality. Offer both sides of the story: explanations and crticisms, for each item . --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete or merge with Hindutva article under critism section - One can not have an article based on some quotes by Witzel , Purpola etc. who themselves are facing attacks on their way of interpretation of Indian history from newer scientific findings which supports traditional legends. ( refer Troy legend and it's findings ). Troy findings is Greek legends specific but findings in India will have major impact on world history and it's AIT based historical views. And, hence such opposition from a Sanskrit professor or an archelogist who support AIT/AMT , should not be the base for this article. I am not denying to write critism , but it should be placed under sub-section ( and not a whole article itself full of quotes from such people who are themselves accused of bais ). WIN 05:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Few comments Without carefully reading the article, I have come to couple of conclusions. Some of the deletionists in this nom have made valid points though others have let their emotions totally influence their decision. These are the few points I would like to address:

1. The title Hindutva propaganda almost implies the entire Hindutva movement in based on propaganda. Regardless of whether it is or not, I ask those who voted keep to consider a more neutral title at least such as Propaganda/Pseudoscience in Hindutva Just like with every ideaology, there are moderates and extremes. Saying propaganda is central to a former ruling party in India is quite harsh, no matter who you are.
2. If this article is kept, it will allow the creation of other "XYZ propaganda" articles. Possible which may be created is Indophobic propaganda, [[Islamofascist in opposition to this one. And here is something interesting. What does everyone here think of the Nazi propaganda article? Does it suffer the same problems of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV? I doubt anyone here approves of Nazism here but the WP:NPOV policy states all views have to be represented equally, no matter how evil they are. The French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire once said, <quote>I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it</quote>
3. I encourage both sides to simply state their reason for deletion/keeping rather than accuse the other side of stupidity. It doesn't matter whether the "other side" is stupid and politically motivated. Neither The people voting delete are all zealots nor The people voting keep have an anti-Indian agenda are sufficient arguments. It is best just to say I believe the article should be kept/deleted because it (/doesn't) adheres to Wiki's policies of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Leave it there. Any additional information is unneeded and probably not relevant to the discussion.

At the moment I am leaning towards a Merge to Hindutva, though still likely to change, mainly because I believe the term "propaganda" is too subjective. Propaganda is defined as providing misleading information to influence the opinion of people but what is misleading depends entirely on one's point of view. Similarly, I believe all propaganda articles should be deleted including Nazi propaganda unless the idealogical group which believes that it is propaganda is explicitly stated throughout the article. Here it is Western academics and scholars who support the AMT and dismiss Vedic Science as pseudoscience. Thank you, lets leave our emotions aside in this discussion. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A appreciate the concern over wanton "XYZ propaganda" articles. But the precedent is already in place anyway, with articles like Nazi propaganda and Soviet propaganda. This is similar to "persecution of XYZ" or "criticism of XYZ": A certain amount of vigilantism is required to prevent the creation of unwarranted articles. One example would be Historical persecution by Jews, which, it was argued, was "not pov" because we have Historical Persecution by Christians and Historical persecution by Muslims. But, it simply turned out that there was practically no material that fit the article title. Thus, deletion of "persecution by X" or "Y propaganda" must have a case by case basis. The article under discussion here presents plenty of academic sources that document the rise of "Hindutva pseudoarchaeology" since the 1990s, so that there can be no doubt that this article is valid. Other creations like anti-Hindu propaganda would need to meet similar standards of an academic basis. Surely, such an article cannot be justified by citing the propaganda/counter-propaganda machine itself. But if the phenomenon is substantiated by Cambridge, Rutgers, and Routledge publications, there can simply be no debate over article validity. Before we harp on the question of titling too much, note that I have moved the article and was reverted by AMbroodEY for taking away his pretext for calling for deletion. dab (𒁳) 13:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda and Soviet propaganda are not valid analogies here. Both 'Nazi' and 'Soviet' are well defined entities. And there, the propaganda stemmed from the establishment. That it was propaganda is also well attested. Not just esoteric academic journals but every single newspaper and magazine and tabloid and TV channel has called it 'propaganda'. That said, an article about it in an encyclopedia should be balanced and present both/all sides.

otoh, here, neither is 'Hindutva' itself unambiguously defined nor has it been established or demonstrated beyond doubt that it is propaganda. And I cant imagine that it ever will be. For, if it is propaganda that Kak and Frawley are upto, they're doing a very bad job. Nobody outside academic circles even knows their names.

Further comments here Sarvagnya 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A sad state of affairs; one which is being skilfully remedied by those using Wikipedia to vote 'delete' on this article, and 'keep' for Nicholas Kazanas. Hornplease

• Keep, Some parts can be toned down but overall the article is referenced and factual more than opinionated. Those asking for a merge or delete on grounds of incorporating this as criticism in other articles should first attempt to do so. The fact is that the same team of "delete" proponents would block that ( and have done so in the past). Haphar 08:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To: Sarvagnya: Present historical evidence cannot preclude the possibility that new evidence may be found tomorrow. So your shrill pitch of fantastic nonsense can only be seen as stupid and misplaced bravado stemming from curling up nice and cosy behind 'scholarship'. Since I can't copy edit your English (on a talk page), let me just say that "preclude" means "to remove the possibility (of an event, etc.) occurring (OED)," so it is enough to say, "... cannot preclude that new evidence could be found tomorrow," or more correctly, "... preclude the event of new evidence being found tomorrow." Also, "might" is generally preferred over "may" when referring to events of such uncertainty. Given your poorly crafted first sentence, I will be more understanding with your pleonasm-ridden second sentence, which another editor might interpret as a personal attack. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

aah.. semantic cruft. as usual. should have known the moment you voted in support of a ridiculous call to close the afd. Nichalp, saravask, ragib and now dab. You've got yourself covered. Good for you. Sarvagnya 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but improve, and rename. The title is PoV, and should be changed to something more neutral (and "Hindutva and pseudo-scholarship" won't do either). The article has adquate sources for the most part, and the attempt to delete it is clearly itself PoV and in bad faith, as are many of the reasons given in keep votes. This AfD should really have been speedily closed, I think. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. I am tired of voting against all these hate article sprouting regularly from the usual fountainhead of anti-Hindu propaganda machine. Count my standing vote against all such venomous articles, for all time to come. Sisodia 22:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • the only hate I can see here is that of the rag-tag band of nationalist pov-pushers preferring to troll AfD over doing actual work and constructive editing. Count the single-topic or dozen-edits editors voting "delete". Then count the same voting keep/merge/rename. Enough said. dab (𒁳) 11:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. as per the nominator Shyamsunder 12:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. as per nom Sbhushan 01:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. This article violates NPOV as far as I can tell. There is no attempt at making a balanced presentation. Witzel's scholarship in areas outside of Sanskrit (which is what he has studied) has been disputed on many forums. Further, many statements are made w/o citations. Yet when corrections are made, they are often reverted because they also are not cited... Kkm5848 02:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This user has ten edits excluding this one, all but two at the article under discussion. Hornplease 21:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep/and other options interesting article and is sourced. For all those concerns raised by some of the delete voters: Rename if neccessary to have a better title and Work on the article to make it NPOV. As far as the merge discussion concerned, I don't think that AfDs are healthy environnements to discuss it, and should be handled in the talk pages of article concerned. However, if things come to a standstill then AfD can rule on a merge (I am assuming that is the case here). I am not against a merge since the article seems to confuse criticism of Hindutva with Hindutva propaganda - the only true "propaganda exposé" I could make out was the last section (about education). In that context, it can be renamed or merged - it just depends on if the editors will be able distingiush criticism (which belongs in the main article) with "propaganda" (act of proliferating the ideology and the tactics used to achieve that end).. It would be better if the regular editors could iron it out between themselves - however a delete seems unnecessary. Baristarim 03:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because the article is well referenced and provides some details, among others, about the history of the emergence of the Aryan Invasion Theory in modern India. The references given are accurate, and display the complex interweaving of politics and history that gave rise to an ideological movement. TwoHorned 15:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Confounding the uninformed eh? There is nothing i repeat no evidence except Witzel's shrill rants to link the revisionist scholarship with Hindutva parties. You guys cant even define Hindutva. AIT or historical revisionism dont even figure in Hindutva ideology per se. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 19:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case the support of NAIT by many Hindutva proponents is just accidental, true, "well informed" ? Many VOI publications are devoted to "revisionism" from Elst to Danino and others. It would be difficult for you to deny that. TwoHorned 12:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- This article is a collection of quotes and text tangential to the subject. I could hardly find any so called propaganda and the history is vague. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Hindutva under criticism section. Unlike Nazi propaganda or Communist propaganda the so called Hindutva propaganda is not an established fact of life in India or abroad to be notable enough to have its own article yet. Only time will tell. RaveenS 21:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment At last, a notability claim. Could you back that up even slightly please?
    • Comment First sign your name or anon IP after your comment, second I am the one saying it is not notable, if you think it is then you prove me wrong that's how these discussions ago. ThanksRaveenS 12:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment First, sorry, that was me. Forgot to sign. Second: Errr- no, if you're making a claim that it's non-notable, you'd have to back that up with some reasoning or have it ignored. Hornplease 19:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Eradicate and annihilate. Anarya 04:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a Special Purpose ID, created only for voting on this article's deletion :-Anarya's contributions. Haphar 07:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Daleks are back ! TwoHorned 13:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - as per nom. Anwar 13:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with Hindutva per Rama's Arrow and Ageo — Lost^(talk) 16:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Rename as Hindutva propagnda and pseudoscience. There does seem to me to be a certain amount of misuse of 'religious ideas' in order to achieve political ends; as documented by Sokal, Nanda et. al.. The article doesn't seem to me to be insulting towards Hindu beliefs - on the contrary it explains some aspects of misuse. (After reading about and recognising the political mis-use, my interest in Hinduism has been restored.) Given that the pseudoscience is unlikely to go away in the near future, and pops up in other articles, it makes sense to have an article which explains how and why this notable strain of pseudoscience comes about. Davy p 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote bank politics, Haphar? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.73.145.231 (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Well at least I do not hide behind anonymous id's , and did not see you comment on the vote bank politics here. Selective highlighting to twist things ? Haphar 08:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote bank politics? No, actually. Rather an opinion formed after coming across examples of the pseudoscience, which I think may seriously mislead some poor souls and which is a discredit to India, and after carefully reading what critics such as Sokal and Nanda have to say. Davy p 19:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Lots of POV, and Original Research present by the flow of the article. The structure is questionable aswell. Cosmos416 13:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I finally got a chance to read the article. It does need work, and I tend to agree with the remarks of user:Davy p, user:Baristarim user:Haphar, and user:Mel Etitis; however, I am perplexed about one thing: the first time any text was added to the article was on 26 March at 17:38 UTC. Less than 4 hours later it was tagged for deletion by a user who turned out to be a sock of banned user user:Hkelkar. No sooner had the sock been exposed and the tag taken off than it was nominated again for deletion (this time) by user:Bakasuprman. It was nominated yet again (for a third time in the present AfD) by user:AMbroodEY on March 30. In other words, the current AfD began less than 4 days after (effective) creation of the article. Does an editor not get any time to work on the text before the vultures start wheeling for a feeding frenzy? This can't be good for Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand after submission of so many proofs, you are not satisfied. This is ridiculous.

Diwakar123 08:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category discussion debates

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_18#Category:Indian_immigrants_to_Canada
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_21#Category:Assamese_people
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_21#Category:Bengali_People
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_21#Category:Sportsman_of_Assam

[edit] Template discussion debates

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Indonesia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

• adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
• removing closed AFDs.
• removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

• tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Indonesia}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Indonesia}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

[edit] Indonesia

[edit] Iran

[edit] Arabs of Khuzestan

Arabs of Khuzestan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is mostly rehash of content from Khuzestan, History of Khuzestan, and Politics of Khuzestan. Rest is WP:OR and/or unsourced. Furthermore one should note that there are no similar articles on Wikipedia and the article title is WP:POV for a number of reasons, including the fact that Arabs are found in other places in Iran as well, including Bandar Abbas, Tehran, Mashhad, and Isfahan. Considering Arab citizens of Israel, one must apply the same standards here: Iranian Arabs or Arab citizens of Iran. All census reports from Iran consider Arabs together nationally (3% of national population), not as separate ethnic groups as this article implies. There is no evidence that Khuzestani Arabs are a "distinct" ethnic group from other Arabs in Iran. Their culture is similar to Arabs in Iraq and to some extent the Persian Gulf states. But the current title is not well written and lacks sources for the rest of the information that is not taken from other articles already mentioned. If not deletion, then at the very least redirect to Demographics of Iran. Khorshid 22:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose There is no reason why this article cannot exist and the title is hardly POV, any more than the alternative suggested (Iranian Arabs) is POV. Arabs in Khuzestan are distinct from Bandar Abbas (although some of these Arabs have been forcibly moved to other parts of Iran due to forced relocation by the Shah regime and the Islamic Republic regime), in terms of their tribal structures and language. There is a problem here and that is that content that was due to be merged into the article from other articles has been blocked. This would have benefitted the article by showing the distinctiveness of Arab tribes and their history in this province. I put it in the talk page some months ago [28], but other editors refused to discuss the content with me despite an effort at mediation that I agreed to but Khorshid refused. But this article will go because there is a body of editors that votes the same way and enforces content changes by stacking 3RRs. This is the case with all Iran-related articles. Whenever I have offered any evidence, even from academics, it is immediately dismissed by these editors.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I have already explained why the article should not exist - Iran's Arab population can be detailed in a neutrally titled article such as Iranian Arabs or Arab citizens of Iran, which is what the Israel article has: Arab citizens of Israel. The same standards should apply to citizens of Iran. Do not level accusations at other editors - your reveals the root of all the problems in Iran's Khuzestan articles. Most editors here are interested in WP:NPOV. You, however, have been pushing a nationalist political agenda, which again your block log shows. The only "academics" you have cited is one professor from Shaw University in Canada who makes outrageous claims that have no acceptance among scholars anywhere. Yusef Azizi Bani-Torof who you constantly cite is not even an academic but a journalist. Give it a rest. There is no justification for this article or the controversial separatist and nationalist agenda you have been pushing for all this time. Wikipedia is not a battleground to wage such campaigns, do you understand? Khorshid 23:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In addition, we don't and can't have articles for every single Persian, Azeri, and Kurdish ethnic group in Iran. For instance there are literally dozens and dozens of Persian ethnic groups in Iran! It is outrageous to have articles from them, from Tehrani, Isfahani, Shirazi, Mashhadi, etc etc. We have one article on Persians here, one article on Kurds (there are also dozens of Kurdish-speaking groups), one on Azeris, one on Mazandaranis, one on Baluch, and so on. We can't have articles for every single local group and dialect in the world, it would be a nightmare! Khorshid 23:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If you want to put me on trial, then do so. If you want a discussion on this article, then stick to the point. You don't even believe that Arabs are an ethnic group![29] The fact is that you have refused to discuss the introduction of more information to the page and refused mediation, so it has sat in the talk page and has now been archived out by you. Many of my 3RR violations are simply frustrated attempts to introduce even minor changes. Why? Because my user name is Ahwaz and not the Farsi spelling Ahvaz and this simple difference in spelling turned a whole load of people against me from the very beginning. Even some of the most non-contentious edits - right down to correcting English spelling and grammar mistakes - are immediately removed. But, I don't know why you feel the need to discuss this with me now when you have refused to for months.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • BTW the same exact Arab tribes (like Bani Kaab and Bani Tamim, two of the biggest) in Khuzestan also exist in Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, they come from Arabia! So much for your "distinct" theory. Khorshid 23:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I am half-Arab (and half-Kurd) myself genius, so don't start with the "Persian chauvinist" routine. I have never denied that Arabs are not an ethnic group. But "Khuzestani Arabs" are not an ethnic group - they are no different from their cousins in Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf Arab states such as Bahrain and UAE (except Iranian Arabs speak Persian!) Again, your block history proves your POV and your attempts to transform Wikipedia into an ethnic battleground. The fact that I am advocating for an article on Iranian Arabs or Arab citizens of Iran puts your accusations to shame. Khorshid 23:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I have not even mentioned the term Persian chauvinist. Where have I ever called you a Persian chauvinist? In contrast, you have called me a separatist simply for defending the existence of an article entitled Arabs of Khuzestan, which was created in May 2005 by a member of the Iranian Wikipedians team called SouthernComfort - an ethnic Persian who comes from Khuzestan, who has now retired from Wikipedia - and which I only began editing in January 2006, long after Zereshk, another Iranian Wikipedian who never contested the article's title. So why is it, after nearly two years of editing by various people, you decide that this is a POV article title?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • What others have done or what others ignore is not my business. So far many Iranian editors have more interest in Azerbaijan and Turkish matters than Khuzestan (or Kurdish articles). But anyway thats not my concern. I have already explained the points of concern, which you ignore. BTW do not use terms like "Iranian Wikipedians team" - there is no such "team". Like I said, Wikipedia is not a battleground of ethnicities, races, ideologies, whatever. If you think it is, you should leave because there is no tolerance for this stuff. I suggest you look what happened to the Armenian and Azerbaijanis who were constantly in conflict at the ArbCom. Khorshid 00:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Given the fact that I withheld content from this article because of your objections and put it into the talk page for discussion, which you refused to participate in, indicates that I am not the one imposing a POV but have attempted to seek an agreement. I've tried engaging in dialogue with you and agreed to a mediation offer from a neutral party, but you have refused. Now you want to delete an article which has existed for nearly two years and has had participation from Iranian editors, who have never raised the argument that the article title is inappropriate or POV.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Your block log speaks otherwise about your so-called "diplomacy". I have already explained the problems. Do you want me to explain again? If Iranians don't raise objections, what the hell does that do with anything or have any concern for me? This has nothing to do with what Iranians object to or don't object to, this is about factuality and neutrality. There is no such thing as a "Khuzestani Arab" ethnic group. They are Arabs, plain and simple. Is this difficult to understand for you or what? Stop wasting my time. And articles have existed for three years and then been deleted. There is no "statute of limitation" here - if an article is bad or wrong and people ignore it, that doesn't mean it should stay because its been around for years. Thats a joke. Most Iranian editors don't seem to be interested in Arab issues, I guess, so they either don't care or don't know enough about this matter. To admins: What is obvious to me is that User:Ahwaz (see outrageous block history) is attempting to close this AfD with no consensus by hammering the same objection again and again. Wikipedia is NOT a discussion forum. Please take into account my points that no other such articles exist on Wikipedia. Khorshid 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I'd request that editors assess the existence of this article, rather than making it a trial of me personally. As I have said, many others have edited this article, including Iranian editors who created the article in the first place. So, it is not an article created by Arab separatists to support an Arab separatist agenda, or it would have been deleted by now. It is not a POV fork. Any editorial problems should be dealt with on the talk page - something that Khorshid refused to do when I pasted merge sections from another article into the talk page for discussion.
            • Additionally, the argument that all Arabs are just Arabs is not true, as Arabs are varied in their tribal, religious, national, linguistic, geographical, historical and racial profile. It is not "plain and simple". Arab identity is complex and Arabs in Khuzestan are distinct from Arabs in other parts of Iran, unless they have migrated to another by of Iran either voluntarily or by force.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
              • You have never sourced any of your claims. Instead you rely on anti-Semitic "scholars" like Nasser Pourpirar, who you have constantly praised (editors please check history of Arabs of Khuzestan for evidence). Arabs in Khuzestan belong to the same tribes as Arabs in Iraq and the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. Stop repeating the same thing again and again. It won't work. Khorshid 01:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
                • I must say, this is a gross distortion in order to discredit me. In a discussion, I quoted from a document. In another part of that document, there was a quote from this man. To claim that I have quoted him, let alone praised him, is just wrong. It seems this entire AfD is turning into a personal attack rather than a debate on the article.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Well, it seems to me that there is a serious problem of editor disagreement here. The subject itself is likely to be buried in the face of such an ongoing dispute. Mister.Manticore 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately User:Ahwaz is very good at diverting discussion with his unsourced claims, so this may result in no consensus. See his block history. However, my points have been made. It is POV to have this kind of article for Iran, while Israel, Turkey, and the Arab countries themselves (which have various dialect groups of Arabic) have only one article - if that - about the Arabic-speaking populations. That is what the closing admin should take into account, the POV nature of the article title, the mess that the article is, and the constant hauranging by Ahwaz, who repeats the same objection again and again. If anything he should be blocked again for two months this time for wasting my time. In a way I am foolish for continuing to reply to him, but I'd like to make sure the closing admin realises who he/she is dealing with. Most countries keep this information at Demographic of [country]. Instead, we have this POV nationalism. Again, Wikipedia is not a political battleground. Furthermore, there are no sources at all to distinguish Khuzestani Arabs from other Arab groups. Khorshid 01:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It takes two to get into a fight, and speaking for myself, I don't care to sort out the dispute between the two of you, but it is obvious that there is an ongoing dispute, and that's not healthy for Wikipedia. If you believe this user is disruptive, try WP:DR instead of AfD. And as far as the subject itself goes, I don't see a problem with it. If somebody wants to make articles about other ethnic sub-groups in other countries, I am not inherently opposed. They need only provide reliable sources. And yes, examples those sorts of pages do exist. See Irish Americans in New York City for one. Not a great page, but the subject itself is acceptable. Just like this one. Mister.Manticore 01:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Show me one reliable source in the article. Like I said, I have already made my points. It is true it takes two to get into a "fight", but I am not going to allow this user to make baseless accusations against me without responding to them. You clearly do not know much about the subject matter, and that is why I have to respond to such accusations, lest people think he is making a legitimate point. This user has a long history of creating problems - if you want to ignore that, fine. But don't make accusations yourself. Again, I have stated before clearly that no reliable sources have been provided! You ignore my statement. That is abusive. Read my comments carefully. Khorshid 01:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • And BTW, WP:OR is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please read the policy carefully. If another article exists that is WP:OR, that does not mean others should follow. We need to focus on encyclopedia building, not crap. Khorshid 01:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • BTW that article on Irish Americans in NYC is just a list! It should be moved to List of Irish Americans in New York City! For heavens sake, at least come up with a better example to prove your ill-conceived point! There is not even a single mention of a Khuzestani Arab in this article, since we already have a list of Iranian Arabs at Famous Iranian Arabs. Again, an article on Iranian Arabs is justifiable, one on Khuzestani Arabs, that has barely any properly sourced content, is not. One that is being defended by a user who has been blocked numerous times, the last time for a month! We do not accodomate abusive and troublesome users here. If you want to back that sort of person up, go for it, but remember what you're doing. Khorshid 01:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Ahem, I'm not taking about the other user, I'm not backing him up, nor am I attacking you, but I'm concerned that the obvious problems between the two of you are detracting from any discussion of the subject itself. Which they are. You can worry about responsibility if you want, I'm not. I'm saying there is a problem between editors here. And hey, I don't think Irish Americans in New York City is a good article, right now, but I think the subject itself is quite valid. Sources could be provided for it (there are books documenting the history of the Irish in New York City. See for example: [30]. And there are pages on individual neighborhoods in NYC, from Chinatown, Manhattan to Hell's Kitchen and more. Given that this Arabic group is real, I see no reason not to have an article. Or at least some coverage. If you want to cover them under some other article, that might be worth discussing, but this isn't the forum to do that. Sorry. Mister.Manticore 03:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Why do you insist on changing the subject again??? We are not talking about neighbourhoods. We are talking about an ethnic group. There is no such thing as a "Khuzestani Arab" ethnic group. They are Iranian Arabs who live in the Khuzestan Province. Are you suggesting we also create articles for each and every Persian group in Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Mashhad, Abadan, Ahvaz, Yazd, Kerman, on and on and on and on and on??? Christ. Khorshid 18:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I already said, I have no objection to providing information on any ethnic subgroup on which reliable sources exist. And if you don't see the connection between a neighborhood and an ethnic subgroup, well, I'm not sure how else to explain it. If it's ok to cover a few blocks in NYC, it's ok to cover the ethnic groups of a population of a province in Iran. As I see it, there's no real reason not to cover these subjects. Mister.Manticore 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Close - take no action; this seems like an editorial debate that you guys need to work out for yourself. AFD is not exactly the place to take this up. --24.68.187.88 01:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC) — User:24.68.187.88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep the sources listed refer to it as a specific group. DGG 04:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What sources?? The article barely has any! As Mardavich points out below, there are no "specific" Arab groups - should we also create articles for "Anglo-Saxons of New York", "Jews of New York", "Jews of Los Angeles", "Persians of Los Angeles", "Persians of California", "Persians of Toronto", "Kurds of Toronto", "Jews of Montreal", "Mexicans of Calfornia", "Mexicans of New Mexico", "Germans of Illinois", "Dutch of Pennsylvania", etc etc??? Are you kidding me or what? Khorshid 18:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Iranian Arabs. We don't have "Azeris of Ardabil" or "Arabs of Jerusalem" articles, we have Azeris in Iran or Israeli Arabs, same standard should be applied here. --Mardavich 09:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "Arabs of Khuzestan" is a horribly POV title, and as I suggested even if the article was to be kept Iranian Arabs (the best choice) or even Iranian Arabs in Khuzestan would be better (not a good choice considering the lack of information in this article alone). Though to conform with other Wikipedia articles, Iranian Arabs is best. Do you think there would be support in the Israel articles for Arabs of Tel Aviv or Arabs of Haifa??? If this article is kept, then we should definitely create articles for every Israeli city and township that has a significant Arab population. Same holds true for United States - we should create Arabs of Michigan, and for France, Arabs of Paris, and the UK, Arabs of England as well as Pakistanis of England and Indians of England, and so on. We have to be fair. Khorshid 18:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You are most certainly welcome to work on any of those articles which you have an interest in, and can provide reasonable sources for. I for one, would welcome more coverage of immigrant populations in England. Category:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom is bit sparse. (And every Israeli city and Township should have an article, and that article should cover the Arabic population there if there is meaningful information on it, whether or not that should be spun off? Probably not, but that's because the size of the article itself isn't likely to be a problem.). Mister.Manticore 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete and Redirect to Iranian Arabs or Arab citizens of Iran. I agree with Mardavich . I am sure there are some differences between different arab groups but the same can be said about any other group in Iran and many other countries as well.Not all the persian people of Iran live a life exactly similar to each other. Each little town has its own tradition, food, etc. Same thing can be said about Italian people, French people, Germans, chineese, etc. The only rational way is to go based on language as do most sources such as CIA [31] CIA obviously does not distinguish between different Arab groups in Iran. when it says 3% of Iranians are Arab, it means all the Arabs so obviously they are close enough to be considered ONE GROUP. Also I agree with Khorshid who says the title is POV. these people dont live in a country called khuzestan, they live in a country called Iran and why shouldnt the title reflect that? I think it would be a good idea to follow the example of other ethnic groups in Iran. I can not understand how ahwaz can claim that Iranian Arab is POV? what part of it is POV? that they are Iranian? or that they are Arab? what is POV in calling the Arab citizens of Iran as such?Gol 19:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Unlike other Arab groups in Iran, Arabs in Khuzestan had a degree of political autonomy until 1925, when the region was known as Arabistan. The local ruler was Sheikh Khazal, who led the tribes of Khuzestan in alliance with some local Bakhtiari tribes. Arabs in other parts of Iran, eg Bandar Abbas, were never a part of this and even have different tribes, origins and dialect. Consequently, the culture and origins of the Arabs of Khuzestan deserves an article. Khorshid claims there is a lack of sources, but this is no reason to delete an article. The quality of an article does not determine whether it should exist. As for Arabs of Paris, British Pakistanis, etc articles, why not? There is no rule against this. If there is a notable ethnic group in a region with a distinct history, then there should be an encyclopaedic article. Incidentally, there are articles on different Persian ethnic groups (Bakhtiari, Lurs), which I think deserve more attention.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

actually lack of proper sources is a very very strong reason for removing an article, it is usually the first and most important reason.Gol 20:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Nothing you just wrote has any source or attribution. There are no sources to substantiate the claim that Khuzestani Arabs form a distinct ethnic group. They are Arabs. The real issue at hand is the fact that Ahwaz seems to want to avoid articles that state the facts, e.g. that Khuzestani Arabs are indeed Iranian Arabs. This is Wikipedia - please read WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. Khuzestani Arabs are Iranian Arabs. Khorshid 19:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep seems at least partially sourced (the deletionists should feel free to delete those parts which aren't) but it seems that this ethno-linguistic group really exists, that there are multiple independent sources to that effect. Keeping this does not mean that there will or should be all the Foos in Fooland articles because simply many of those groups aren't notable per se. Here, I think that case to keep has been made "nothing but net". Carlossuarez46 19:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A quick note on terminology: apparently the languages used by the Arabs of Bandar Abbas and those of Khuzestan are not the same (see the Ethnologue report), so regardless of whether the Iranian government lumps all Arabs together or not (like the Turkish government doesn't recognize that there are any Kurds) is something to mention in the article but does not negate the appropriateness for a separate article on the separate groups. Carlossuarez46 19:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

CIA puts all Iranian Arabs together as well. Also the comparision with the kurds in Turkey is completely wrong. the huge difference between Kurds and Turks are not even comparable to small differnece between two Arab groups in Iran who both speak Arabic but different dialect( not languages but dialect) kurdish is not a dialect of turkish or vice versa. they are two different languages from different families. There is no similarites between these two issues. Gol 20:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about Carlos? Arabs speak Arabic - this is basic. Arabs in Khuzestan speak what is called a Mesopotamian dialect while Bandari Arabs speak the Gulf dialect. Every Arab in every region speaks a different dialect, but its still Arabic. Persians in Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, etc all speak different dialects of Persian, but its still Persian. That doesn't make them different ethnic groups. Seriously you should do more reading on this subject before jumping to such ridiculous conclusions. Wikipedia is not here to pander to nationalism and separatism. An article on Iranian Arabs will have enough room to deal with both Khuzestani Arabs and Bandari Arabs. The sourced content of the current article is minimal and is basically just population figures, some of which are for Iran's total Arab population. And as Gol says, comparing Iranian Arabs to Kurds in Turkey is nonsense. Iranian government doesn't deny anything about the existence of its Arab population - but Khuzestani Arabs and Bandari Arabs are not "distinct" ethnic groups. They're Arabs, just as the Iranian government doesn't differentiate between Persians from Tehran, Shiraz, Isfahan, etc. Is that difficult to understand??? Furthermore please keep your personal opinions and politicking out of this discussion. Cheers, Khorshid 02:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but rename Redirect to Arabs of Iran or another similar title --Rayis 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• strong Keep but maybe move, of course this needs an article, but it seems its title must be something like "Iranian Arabs" or "Arabs of Iran" or ...--Pejman47 20:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per user:Mardavich. Excessive, needs to be redirected to Iranian Arabs and probably add some of the info there. - Fedayee 21:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject deserves an article. Should be improved rather than deleted.Biophys 03:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you even read the above discussion at all? The subject of Arabs in Iran deserves an article, yes, and I agree, but that is for Iranian Arabs or Arabs in Iran, just as there is Arab citizens of Israel and Arabs in Turkey. The current article and its title is POV, mostly unsourced and taken from other Wikipedia articles, and what is sourced is just population figures. Also note that this is not a vote but a discussion about whether this particular article merits inclusion in Wikipedia or not, and it does not for reasons I've explained again and again. Iranian Arabs < fine - Arabs of Iran < fine - Arab citizens of Iran < fine - but the current article is promoting a fringe view that Khuzestani Arabs constitute a distinct ethnic group from all other Arabs. That is simply not true and there is no evidence to back that up whatsoever. Wikipedia is not here to indulge original research and this article (and the inclusion of a terribly revisionist article by Yusef Bani Torof) is in direct violation of this policy. Khorshid 04:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge any meaningful content to Iranian Arabs. I agree with Khorshid that there is way too much of rehashing of info from other articles.. I believe the subject will be covered under Iranian Arabs more healthily.. Baristarim 04:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect Iranian Arabs is more correct ! The word "Arab" shows a language group, the word "Iranian" shows a historical entity that contains different ethnic and linguistic groups. If we use the "Arabs of Iran " , that may mean the KSA citizens inside Iran , but Iranian-Arabs is clear ...Alborz Fallah 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why delete and redirect/merge? Why not just change the name of the article to whatever you choose and work to extend the content? There doesn't seem to be anything to merge this article into, as there is nothing in Wikipedia on Arabs from other parts of Iran. "Delete and merge" implies to me that the content is moved into another article - so why not save the effort and simply rename the current article? "Delete and redirect" seems like support for deleting the article content and redirecting to the current "Iranian Arabs" page, which contains very little. Is this what people want? Is it the case that they want the current content on Ahwazi Arabs to be part of a larger article on Arabs in Iran or that they want the article itself, with all its content, deleted. I think those who voted need to be clearer in order to establish any result to this AfD.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per Alborz Fallah and Mardavich. --alidoostzadeh 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect, Artaxiad 17:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (or redirect) and merge with Iranian Arabs per nom, Baristarim, and Alborz Fallah. As stated by others, the history section is taken directly from other Wikipedia articles, with the population section the only properly sourced area. The rest is unsourced. Going through the older discussions of the article, as well as at Talk:Khuzestan Province, it seems that the Arab population of Khuzestan is quite diverse, and includes refugees and immigrants from Iraq as well as those originating from the Gulf Arab states such as Bahrain. In the end, all Arabs share a similar cultural and linguistic foundation, thus as Baristarim correctly states, a general article on Iranian Arabs is the best and most neutral course of action. All ethnic groups in the world, every single one, have diversities among themselves, such as regional dialects. But if we look at articles such as Arabs, English people, German people, French people, Persian people, and so forth, such categorizations do not occur. The issue at hand here is that of national citizenship and demography, which an article on Iranian Arabs would correctly and neutrally address. metaspheres 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You're incorrect. There are articles on many German ethnic groups, ranging from Pennsylvania Dutch to Transylvanian Saxons. See Ethnic German for more. The French? Well, there's the obvious Cajun and Acadian articles. And there are ethnic groups in France with articles like the Bretons, with the Cornish, Manx, and others in England. There's no shortage of articles describing ethnic subgroups in Wikipedia, and I fail to see how you've made a real argument as to why this one shouldn't exist. If a group isn't real, or recognized by anyone, that's one thing, but given that nobody here has claimed there aren't Arabs in this province of Iran, I don't see that would be an issue. Mister.Manticore 19:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Bretons are a Celtic ethnic group in France, Acadians are French-speakers who settled in New France centuries ago and have no connection to France except language, thus cannot be considered "French". Same with the Pennsylvania Dutch and so on. These aren't ethnic subgroups, as they have no modern connections to their root ethnicities. I have explained that Arabs in Khuzestan don't form a homogenous "tribe" or "ethnic group" - the fact that there are refugees and immigrants from Iraq and immigrants from the Gulf states speaks a great deal to this. What sources are included with the article demonstrate that many Arabs in Khuzestan speak the very same dialect of Arabic as their brethren in Iraq, striking another blow for your unusual WP:OR theory. But just as you ignore Khorshid's points, you ignore mine. Please, don't waste my time. This is one of the reasons I rarely edit Wikipedia anymore - people constantly jabbering away with the intention to waste time and drone on. metaspheres 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Yet the Bretons are a distinct group of people, not just generic Celts, as the Khuzestan Arabs are a distinct Arabic ethnic group in Iran. Small differences. Besides, I mentioned Cajuns and Acadians for a reason. There are two related groups there, not to mention, the French of Quebec who they could be merged into if, for some reason the consensus were to have a single article. But wait, there's not. Not to mention you completely ignored Ethnic German which provides many articles on German subgroups that are hardly different from the coverage in this page. BTW, what theory are you talking about? I have no theory about this or any other group. They exist, if there are reliable sources on them, then like any other ethnic subgroup, an article can cover them. Or are you claiming there aren't Arabs in Khuzestan, or that sources [32] can't be found on them? Mister.Manticore 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note, the existence of this article doesn't in any way mean you can't make Iranian Arabs, in fact, if you do have a genuine concern that the ethnic group overall in Iran isn't being covered, it's exactly what you should do. But there is no need to use deletion before you do that. Mister.Manticore 19:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I and others have suggested merging whatever sourced content is here (very little at that) into Iranian Arabs. Your opposition to this is strange, to say the least. We don't have room or time for POV jabbering here. You and others have shown no reliable sources to back up your claims that Khuzestan's Arabs form a distinct, homogenous ethnic group. This is because they're not. It's clearly a diverse population. Whatever provincial identity exists seems to be shared by all the inhabitants, rather than any specific ethnic groups. As I said, the discussions in the various articles are interesting. In the end, your unusual theories and comparisons are purely WP:OR and have no place in this encyclopedia. Please stop. metaspheres 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I think you don't realize something, but that to me, you are the one who is coming across as POV. Maybe you should leave off attacking other users, and concentrate on the issues at hand? Besides, if you wanted to propose a merge, you should have gone to WP:PM instead. Mister.Manticore 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment No evidence has been displayed showing that Khuzestani Arabs are a "distinct" ethnic group. I also have to mention that Manticore's accusations to the other editor, accusing him of denying the existence of Arabs in the region was purely out of bad faith, as the editor in question has not at all denied the existence of Arabs in Iran. The point that everyone is trying to make here, but being ignored, is that Khuzestani Arabs are not a distinct ethnic group and there is no evidence to justify such a theory of "original research". I say again my statement that "Khuzestani Arabs are Iranian Arabs". A Google search shows that "Iranian Arabs" is almost always connected with the Arabs of Iran, including in Khuzestan: [33] I think there are some bad faith editors trying to divert the discussion away from the real points being made here and instead levelling accusations against those who are advocating deletion and/or merging. The fact is that the article has no real content. I suggest to the closing admin to closely inspect my arguments and that of others, since we have pointed out the problems, while Manticore simply resorts to straw man arguments and bad faith accusations. Wikipedia is not a political conference, it is not a soapbox for nationalisms or any -ism, it is not a battleground of ideas, ethnicities, nationalities. The fact is that Iranian Arabs is the proper article for this subject. This article is mostly WP:OR as it postulates a fringe theory that Arabs in Khuzestan constitute their own ethnic group separate from other Arabs, when in fact, this is not true. They are Iranian Arabs, and they are found outside of Khuzestan in Tehran and other cities. People like Manticore have no knowledge or education in Iranian matters and yet desire to impose their view on cultures and nations with which they have no education about. This is called colonialism and Eurocentricism and it is repulsive. To the closing admin: Hold the Iran articles to same standards as Israel and other nations: just as there is Arab citizens of Israel instead of "Palestinians", let us have Iranian Arabs, the proper and correct term, instead of the WP:OR "Arabs of Khuzestan" which is being used by these users to postulate the existence of a "distinct" Arab ethnic group. There would be no tolerance if such gimmickery were used to postulate such theories in reference to Persian and Kurdish groups. Please, let us not make room for double standards. Regards, Khorshid 00:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment It is interesting that Khorshid has pre-empted any decision by removing the disambiguation on the Iranian Arabs page in preparation for a merger.[34] Yet some here are arguing for the status quo and others are arguing for deletion and redirection. It seems that Khorshid's enthusiasm has over-taken him. Again.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fereydoon Family

Fereydoon Family (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I don't think we should have articles about every professors in the world._→AzaToth 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete nothing on this page or his own website to indicate he's any more interesting than any other nanotechnologist - although they're few and far between enough that that in itself may be notable... - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable RaveenS 21:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough. Siba 01:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep First of all, we do not have articles about all professors, only the notable ones. Full professors holding named chairs at major research universities, and Emory is one, are almost always considered notable. They generally publish a good deal. The article lists six books is way more than the average for a scientist. (The most heavily cited one has been cited 284 times!) The main publication work of a scientist is in journal papers, and he has published 161 papers; the most heavily cited of them was cited 547 times. (I have added the top 10 to the article) . This is notability by the specialized criteria of WP:PROF, by the general notability guidelines, and common sense.

He has met much stricter criteria than we can use here--the successive promotion review boards, the grant boards, and the many peer reviews for publications. His peers have decided on the notability, and we record it.

Funny: half the notable scientist bios we see here have been nominated because of sometimes outrageous self-advertising, which detracts from their real accomplishments; half are excessively modest, and get here because they don not display them. I think it careless to nominate a senior academic for deletion without at least checking Google Scholar; though not very accurate, it would have shown about 200 results, many with hundreds of citations. The appropriate action upon seeing this article would have been an "expand" tag. DGG 01:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Named professor at important university, papers with 500+ citations, fellow of a major society, any one of which alone would be enough for a clear pass for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein 06:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations_of_apartheid

Allegations_of_apartheid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Clear violation of WP:SYNT. Contains quite a bit of OR. In addition, much of the article's content is duplicated elsewhere. Jtrainor 23:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. If you had said "nothing but OR", you might have had a point, but AFD isn't part of the cleanup process. "Contains quite a bit of OR"? {{sofixit}}. --Calton | Talk 23:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Calton.--Urthogie 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete OR collection of practically unrelated events under umbrella of a broad term, ignoring any context. Magnet for vandals and warriors. Unmaintainable, potential to grow w/o limit every time when someone somewhere says the work apartheid. Classical example of the problem with OR on WP. Pavel Vozenilek 07:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep not all WP:OR. Some of it is sourced.--Sefringle 01:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I just looked at the Canada section, but unfortunately those concerns about the Indian reserves are well-known and at least that section is valid. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is important human rights issue. Most sections are valid.Biophys 03:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pavel. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of allegations and accusations. Also in violation of WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Let's get back to building an encyclopedia. We should send a clear message to all those who would use Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote their personal opinions, political ideologies, nationalist movements, etc etc. We have too much of this nonsense already here. Wikipedia is not a political conference. Khorshid 04:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I completely second Khorshid's assessment. If there are any individual concerns, the standard country structure allows "Human rights in X" articles, and they can be covered there. If there is any meaningful content, merge them under those articles. Such articles really leave the door open for all sorts of POV-pushing and OR. It is time that Wikipedia got more serious covering subjects - every country has "HR in X", develop fully anything that pertains to that country there. Baristarim 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - We can make individual articles for countries with real allegations against them, but this 'hub' is completely unnecessary. The Behnam 10:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, sandbox the salvageable material and merge to many articles What happened was this.
  1. Now banned User:Homeontherange and other leftist editors created Allegations of Israeli apartheid, a page that was reliant on a neologism to dissect an issue that was already well covered elsewhere. The article seems in my mind to be a violation of WP:POINT, inherently POV and an unhelpful propagandistic use of the term apartheid. Though the editors have done their best to neutralise it since.
  2. Naturally, Israeli focussed editors were unimpressed, and scoured the net for other uses of the term in relation to other nations. And found them. Hence the creation of Allegations of apartheid by Israeli focussed editors, which placed Israel merely as one of many nations attacked by the pejorative. One of the countries most linked to the term was Cuba due to its tourist policies of the 90s (exclusive hotels etc), which also happened to be one of Homeontherange's preferred nations.
  3. Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba was carefully created by Israeli focussed editors, essentially as response to the Allegations of Israeli apartheid. This naturally ticked off unrelated Cuba focussed editors who believed that it was a violation of WP:POINT and the material should be merged into Tourism in Cuba. A merge resisted by the Israeli editors for reasons that are best explained in point 2.
  4. Seeing as it had seemingly become acceptable standard practice to throw accusations around on article mainspace providing they were sourced, Cuba related editors went over to Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America and added a whole load of verifiable accusations to that page. And the knock on effect was that U.S. focussed editors have repeatedly demanded its removal in turn. Which they shouldn't be able to do because the standard had already been set by previous articles.

So, either we end this nonsense and merge all of these articles into neutrally titled pages that cover these issues in an encyclopedic manner, or we keep all of them them. At present I vote for unilateral disarmament, and call for editors to get back to creating good articles of the kind one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Here are the related articles/forks. If I have left any out, then please notify.

• Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka. Merge into politics/human rights of Sri Lanka etc
• Allegations of State terrorism by United States. Merge into Cuba United States relations etc and the many related pages.
• List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state delete, the term has no agreed definition and thus it is just a list of anything that comes to mind.
• Allegations of apartheid delete
• Allegations of Israeli apartheid merge into Human rights in Israel etc
• Allegations of Islamic apartheid merge into Criticism of Islam, Sex segregation in Islam etc
• Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba merge into Tourism in Cuba
• Allegations of Brazilian apartheid delete, just useless.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 12:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Zleitzen does give a fair history of the article, but I can't agree that this crime against humanity is just something to split off into various human rights in country X articles. Genocide gets its own article , as does Genocides in history, so I'm not sure why (little-a) apartheid (which could as easily be called Apartheids in history) shouldn't as well. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hopelessly POV and unencyclopedic to the extreme. If anything can be salvaged, move into the appropriate articles as suggested above, but honestly, this sort of thing is probably documented in such articles already. Editors should not have to waste their time with this tripe. There are far more articles out there that are in need of work and attention. metaspheres 20:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japan

[edit] Categories

• Add categories here using the {{cl|CATEGORY}} template

[edit] Proposed deletion

• Add PROD articles here
• Japan/Anniversaries/January/January 27 "Non-encyclopedic content, likely created when the author intended to create Portal:Japan/Anniversaries/January/January 27"

[edit] Articles for deletion

[edit] Eikaiwa managers

Eikaiwa managers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is POV/OR unencyclopedic content. Current article is pseudo-slander. No real article can be formed on this articles topic. Page on Eikaiwa exists and can contain any encyclopedic information on Eikaiwa management. ZayZayEM 03:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Soapbox, fails WP:ATT. Information of this sort can probably be found in WP:RS (IIRC, at one point the US State Department published warnings about English cram schools in Korea), but it doesn't really belong on separate "Criticisms of"-style pages like this. cab 10:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. cab 10:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete As soon as possible. This kind of article makes wikipedia look like a joke. MightyAtom 12:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Neier 11:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ourei Harada

Ourei Harada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be notable. Prodded and de-prodded. Picaroon 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I see no assertion of notability. Not every performer qualifies for an article.--Anthony.bradbury 21:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 00:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a popular gravure (bikini) idol in Japan and in the US. The article needs to be fleshed out, but I see no reason for deletion.Haddub 19:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  If she is, good, then the article should be kept. But we need the text to say this and the sources to back that text up. Picaroon 02:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Harada Ourei is a very notable gravure idol. Many products concerning her are available on J-list[35], cd-japan[36] and other websites where they sell extremely well. She has a proportionate amount of English speaking fans via the internet, which can be assumed from doing a google search on her name[37]. Many popular blogs have posted articles about her, like JapanSugoi [38].

On another note, this is my first edit. Ninja337 16:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep The person in question, Ourei Harada, is indeed notable and has some media attention in Japan and some overseas countries. However, the article needs to source the notability claim! Poeloq 09:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] Korea

[edit] Kim Jong-il in popular culture

Kim Jong-il in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research, article has no sources or references. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Although I'm not disputing that it's an interesting subject, I don't really see how this article could be reasonably improved without turning it into a random collection of trivia and pop culture references. -- Seed 2.0 00:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- Kiersta 00:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment nearly all articles in the category Category:Representations of people in popular culture lack any sources, so rather than afd-ing them (which would seem to indicate that such sources do not exist) let's tag them and see what happens? Carlossuarez46 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lebanon

[edit] Reda Wahid

Reda Wahid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Possible a hoax, or very few information to show notability Matthew_hk tc 14:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 14:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Likely hoax, and even if it isn't there's no club called Agios Tyxonas in the top four divisions in Cyprus. Oldelpaso 14:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Oldelpaso. Bridgeplayer 15:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above, not at all notable. Also - Lebanese Cypriot??? Tangerines 17:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else; no notability. Acalamari 23:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malaysia

[edit] Automatic delete candidates

(PROD-tagged) pages, culled from Category:Proposed deletion

Dated: February 27, 2007

• Hussain Baksh Malang

[edit] Pakistan

[edit] Ongoing deletion debates

[edit] Articles for deletion

[edit] Closed AfD discussions

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imelda Concepcion

[edit] Sri Lanka

[edit] Taiwan