The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOWBALL. Rewriting requests should be brought to the article's talk page. BorgQueen (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Taliban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Hindu Taliban violates WP policies of Wikipedia:No original research & Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Bharatveer (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It is a notable political neologism in the similar line of American Taliban. The entire article is well-sourced. Nom's rationale WP:OR and WP:NPOV is misguided and false explanation. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per WP:OR & WP:SYNTH.-Bharatveer (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You already nominated the article. You don't get to weigh in several times. Punkmorten (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: same logic as Otolemur crassicaudatus.--GDibyendu (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —-- Tinu Cherian - 09:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —-- Tinu Cherian - 09:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The term is often used and certainly a notable political term. Strictly speaking, it cannot even be termed as "neologism" as it definitely is accepeted by the mainstream media. The article is well sourced and does not, in any way, represents OR or NPOV. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge? Can this article be merged with American Taliban to create a "Usage of the term Taliban to identify other organisations," either as a separate article or sub-section in Taliban? Its a term that can and possibly will be used for extremist groups just about anywhere. I don't like the idea of having separate articles simply to identify the common connotation of the term "Taliban" for extremist groups by country and religion. S h i v a (Visnu) 10:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea. It sounds sound. Although, the Hindu taliban thing can go better with a Hindu militancy. (i already have some links that won't fit into this but they would the other) Lihaas (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Although I don't see much of original research, wondering if this meets the notability norms. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 10:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to debunk the entry, but just trying to get things sorted, before I can give my opinion. The following are my concerns:

• Substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability
• News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own

Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 11:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of the term is provided in the very first sentence "Hindu Taliban is a term sometimes used by tolerant or "secular" Hindus to describe the supporters of the Hindutva movement" with reference India: A Global Studies Handbook by Fritz Blackwell which explicitly states that the term is in use. Yes, the term has substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. The article describes the usage of the term, it is used by notable people (Praful Bidwai, Tunku Varadarajan, Kuldip Nayar, Govind Nihalani, Ashok Row Kavi, Amberish K Diwanji) in notable publications (Dawn, NYT, Frontline, Rediff). All of them use it to describe Hindutva groups like Shiv Sena, RSS, VHP and their attitude towards religion, minority communities, freedom for the artist (M.F. Husain), public kiss, religious violence, homosexuality etc. IMO the coverage the term received in references like these [1][2][3][4][5] is substantial coverage. The article is also not one-sided, it has a Criticism section with three reliable source India Today, NYT and Outlook. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per above discussion. Defenetely not Original research or POV. Notability seems to be established and as User Otolemur crassicaudatus pointed it is well balanced too. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 12:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - NY, Rediff, India Today - original research? really laughable. The entire article is well-referenced & meet other notability guidelines too. Could the nominator comment on which part it is failing NOR? --Googlean ^Results 11:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: Well sourced article. Nomination for AFD as OR and NPOV smacks of POV pushing. Toddst1 (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The style is non-encyclopaedic in places, but on the whole it is written well and cites good sources. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is not original research, but is very well cited. It does not violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in any way. Please explain how if you think it does. 59.164.187.149 (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 59.164.187.149 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment This IP is probably the same person as Special:Contributions/59.164.105.254, Special:Contributions/59.164.100.127 and Special:Contributions/59.164.186.29. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the contribs and editing patterns, the above statement by Otolemur seems correct -- Tinu Cherian - 06:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Hindutva per WP:NOT#DICT. Encyclopedia articles, as opposed to dictionary defintions, are supposed to be about concepts, not words or phrases. As this article says in its first sentence its title is simply another word for a concept on which Wikipedia already has an article. A note can be added to the Hindutva article to say that this is an alternative name used by the movement's opponents, and any other encyclopedic information can also be merged. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge While the article may not be up to par just yet (it has been growing in standard though, no doubt), it can be approved. In seeing Wikipedia's guidelines for deletion, one will not that it should not be considered so if there are other recourses. An improvement on its own can work. there are many other articles not notable. But perhaps it can be better to suited to a sub-section of Hindi military, radicalism, fundamentalism, or something of this sort. Obviously the term Taliban in this context is a neologism as it doesn't quite fit the meaning of the word "taliban." But that is no ground to remove various sourced statement in this regard, that even mention the term. Lihaas (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and early close since this AfD is holding up the DYK nomination. The article is well sourced with diverse sources over years. The sufficient content to stand on its own. The merge urge can be solved by using {{Main|Hindu Taliban}} in any merge target article. -- Suntag ☼ 20:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Major rewrite and merge to Hindutva - Can anyone say POV? The term has references, but the entire article reads like an editorial. There is no actual explanation of the term, but ample space seems to be taken up in quoting large tracts of texts that use the term, even going so far as to use the term being talked about to describe people in the article: "Hussain faces danger to his life because of fatwas from the Hindu Taliban.[7]". Since when did Hindus issue fatwas? --vi5in^[talk] 04:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.