Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India Basher

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 of the debate was: Delete. Prodego ^talk 02:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India Basher

Delete seems to be a neologism and inherently WP:POV. Ultimately unencyclopedic. See similar page that was recently deleted: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/India_bashing. Prod and Prod2 were removed after edit which did not substantially improve the article. Gw e rnol 00:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep

"India Basher" has been a commonly used term, which has been in use for several decades. You can check for it using google.

These politicians have indeed been "India bashers". All those with neutral points of view will agree. You can read about their India-related activities in the newpapers as well as official government records, some of them on the web. You can also find documents authored by them on the web.

The insurgancies by the separationists, supported by them, have had a great impact on the people of the affected regions.

This article is unrelated to the deleted article. --Cardreader 00:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 135 unique hits on google. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, someone's axe to grind. Doesn't even qualify as OR. Pavel Vozenilek 02:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If India bashing got the boot so should this. Balso Snell 02:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is the same as the "Indian bashing" article which was already deleted.--Jersey Devil 02:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism, jargon dicdef, POV appears to be primary purpose. I think Cardreader mistakes the reason for the delete vote: it's not related to whether the people listed in the article are worthy of our contempt but whether the subject matter meets minimal criteria for inclusion in WP. It does not. (Sorry forgot to sign this earlier Ande B 03:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. So people supporting human rights for minorities are "India Bashers". Interesting. If you don't agree you're presumably an India Basher too. --Lambiam ^Talk 03:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you explain what you mean by "people supporting human rights for minorities"? I think you are opposing the article based on your personal perspective.--Cardreader 15:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I favour deletion is that the page is recreation of deleted material as well as (IMHO) an attack page. Both are actually ground for speedy deletion (CSD G5, CSD A6). --Lambiam ^Talk 19:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism, POV fork. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my vote to keep, article rewritten in an encyclopaedic tone as well as article has expanded a lot, but a rename would be better. --Ter e nc e Ong 01:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This article is much more significant than the existing Anti-Catalanism, Anti-Turkism, Serbophobia, Polonophobia, Lusophobia and many others. The "India bashers" listed have had great impact, affecting hundreds of thousands. A movement like Khalistan would have been funny, if it had not resulted in killing of newspaper editors, politicians, ordinary individuals and not to mention a prime minister. The "India bashers" were among the most important supporters of this movement.--Whitesurf 03:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The people listed in the article may be notable. The topic of the article, however, is not encyclopedic for the many reasons described above. Primarily it is a slang definition and the WP is not a dictionary or political glossary. The definition belongs elsewhere. Ande B 03:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ande B. Article does not appear to be neutral. --Starionwolf 05:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ande B's reasoning. IMHO, the rest of the geopolitical-phobia articles should go too. Rockpocket ^-talk- 07:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ande B. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 10:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ande B. Paddles 10:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious POV pushing, and as per Pavel above, this doesn't even rise to the bar of OR. --Deville (Talk) 12:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the Wikipedia concept of "neutral point of view" is being misused here. Having a "neutral point of view" does not mean that facts that are non-palatable to some are to be excluded from Wikipedia. The views of the "India basers" mentioned in the article are well documented and well known. They have influenced government policies and had significant impact internationally. --Cardreader 15:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view --Cardreader 15:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ande B. - Nick C (Review Me!) 13:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep factual and significant article. It needs to be expanded.--Bandyopadhyay 14:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a POV fork to me. Are we going to have an "X basher" for every possible variant of X? Delete ++Lar: t/c 16:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (Oh, and perhaps Anti-Catalanism, Anti-Turkism, Serbophobia, Polonophobia, Lusophobia and many others, need to get deleted too without clear establishment of notability.) ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Lar. ( Wow, just read Lusophobia - it should be deleted. ) Shenme 18:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as unencyclopediaic neologism – Gurch 18:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly nothing but a protologism and a list of people the creator feels it fits. I've never heard it and it's not explained in any depth. DougOfDoom ^talk 19:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The term "India Basher" has been in use for decades in this exact sense. Please see the top three references. It has been in use even before internet bacame a major medium. There are a lot of articles in an encyclopedia that many well-educated individuals have never heard of. That is what encyclopedias are for. Someone who has a PhD in philosophy many not have heard of Runge-Kutta methods, that does not mean this topic should not be in an encyclopedia. This is a developing article, please allow time for it to develop.--Cardreader 21:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardreader, The primary problem with the article as it is now envisioned is that it is definitional in nature and WP is not a dictionary. A previous incarnation of this article was deleted for similar reasons. This does not mean that the information is necessarily inaccurate, only that it belongs elsewhere or needs to be reformulated. Perhaps an article entitled something along the lines of Current political and social disputes in India could cover the material in which you have an interest while avoiding the mere definitional nature of the current one. Such an article would provide a place for descriptions of many serious disputes that need appropriate coverage in an encyclopedia. Just an idea. Ande B 23:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism, POV fork. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 21:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If an article needs to be written about anti-India sentiments, this is not one, it is very POV and unencyclopedic as is. HighInBC 00:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom 69.40.243.98 01:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Crazynas 06:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic nationalist essay Osomec 18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While those unfamiliar with developments in India may not see the need for such an article, it is a valuable article. It is factual, I have seen many related reports. The role of Dan Burton and Jesse Helms is well documented. It is indeed specifically about India, but that should not warrant its exclusion from an encyclopedia, one sixth of the world's population lives there. --ISKapoor 22:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as original prodder and per all above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep should rename to Bias aginast in India in media or something like that.--Dangerous-Boy 02:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Initial reaction was strong delete, but then, the question is, will we agree to do the same with: Anti-Americanism, Anti-Australian sentiment, Polonophobia, Anti-Bosniak sentiment, Anti-German sentiment, Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-Croatian sentiment, Anti-Europeanism, Anti-Sovietism, Anti-Canadianism, Anti-Italianism, Anti-Slavism, Anti-Hellenism, Russophobia, Sinophobia, Francophobia, Anglophobia, Afrophobia, Anti-American sentiment in various countries, Anti-European sentiment in various countries, Anti-French sentiment in the United States, Anti-Catalanism, Anti-Turkism, Serbophobia, Polonophobia, Lusophobia, etc. Certainly all these articles are of similar nature to Indophobia or India Bashing. The current contents of the article, of course are utterly useless and unencyclopedic. deeptrivia (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to deeptrivia: I understand your question here but we have only this one article to vote on at the moment. If you find the above listed articles to be candidates for deletion, then set them for an AfD and we can see what happens. From what I have read (I could be wrong, of course) WP has decided to not be bound by precedent in making decisions on disputes. At first this appreach bothered me then I realized it brought a necessary measure of fairness and flexibility while helping to prevent the admins (all of whom are volunteers like you and I) from painting themselves or later admins into a corner. The policy also averts needlessly legalistic arguments that can be quite pointless, particularly when WP dispute resolution is still in a nascent stage of development and Admins are not consistently available. I have seen some WP projects that attempt to regularize or standardize the editorial and organizational approaches to be taken regarding certain topics or areas of interest. Perhaps that might be something you would be interested in trying. Good luck. Ande B 03:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not OR .It can be either renamed or merged into another suitable article.Bharatveer 03:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep The article is currently OR and non-encyclopedic. But unless all the phobias and anti-isms stated above by Deep are listed for deletion this shouldn't either. If someone who is bold is willing to turn this article into an encyclopedic entry, (this article does have potential) then I'll give my full support. Gizza^Chat ^© 07:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article lacks context or explanations (e.g. why is the label "India basher" limited primarily to US/UK politicians critical of aspects of Indian state policy? when did the term first first come into use?), and suffers from excess POV content not needed to explain the neologism (e.g. repeated valorization of Indian democracy). Per Gizza, I'd switch my vote to a keep if this could be entirely rewritten from the perspective of Indian media studies, rather than a nationalistic rant. Anirvan 07:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When did the term first first come into use?: That would need some research. In print, it definitely goes back to Jesse Helms' 1982 invitation to Dr. Chauhan. When India declared a state of mourning on the death of Winston Churchill in 1965, it was recalled that he was a critic of Indian National Congress, Gandhi and India as a new democracy, but I believe the term "India Basher" was not used then.

Comment: why is the label "India basher" limited primarily to US/UK politicians? Probably because they have had the most impact on India.--ISKapoor 18:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that any Western figure who expresses an opinion that is contrary to the national interests of India gets to be called an India Basher, irrespective of how rational the justification for that opinion. That does not appear to be the same thing as Indophobia, which would be defined as "excessive" or "unreasonable" fear or dislike of India based on "prejudice, hatred or discrimination". As such it appears an arbitrary, pejorative - and unencyclopaedic - label. Rockpocket 19:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV-fork per Lar and establish consensus on other such forks curently existing on Wikipedia. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article needs improvement but there is no logical reason to delete it. - Holy Ganga ^talk 10:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic. Either move to Wikitionary as a definition or delete. No more a concept than [COUNTRYNAME] bashing, where [COUNTRYNAME] is any country in the world! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep; It is widely known that India is the subject of bashing. However, it should be retitled. Raj2004 01:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has been expanded somewhat and is now much better. It still needs additions and improvements, but it is now an informative article and has links to several sources.--Vikramsingh 01:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename "India Basher" was not used in any of the sources I looked through via the page. Maybe US Anti-India Sentiment. Not sure.... Sethie 01:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of above. Silly article. Fertile ground for conspiracy theories. Anwar 06:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For those who may not be familiar with the records of Edolphus Towns and Dan Burton, I have added quotes taken from the US Congressional Records.--Vikramsingh 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The content may be valid but India basher is not a valid topic. I agree with Sethie that perhaps it could be renamed to anti-India politics or something more appropriate. or inserted into politics articles of the involved countries. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 15:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No question about it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologistic title, POV-ish, OR-ish. btw, I don't see an AFD tag on it. Somebody removed? couldn't make out from a cursory glance from page history --Gurubrahma 10:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sukh. ImpuMozhi 16:06, 1 June 2006 (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.