306:. The nominator and his friends are engaged in a cover-up operation as far as I can see. Apparently, they do not want Hindu acts of terrorism brought to light. From the academic review of the book, we note: "For anyone who has not been following the news about Hindutva terrorist attacks, the sheer number and wide geographical distribution of these attacks is astonishing, and indicates, as the author suggests, a turn from communal pogroms to terror attacks as the favoured strategy for “the reactionary political project of building fascism”. It is apparent that at least in the 21st century, Hindutva terror has been far more active in India than Islamist terror." Knowledge should not bend to fascism and terrorism.
978:: This is clearly created for its shock value and does not contribute much academically as it appears to be just a collection of references from other pages and few reliable sources. Some in list have actually been referred by international experts to opposite conclusions than mentioned in the article. This article hence appears nothing more than a list of alleged acts and not really a legitimate article. The term itself has been coined by Chidambaram and Sharad Pawar as a political ploy to defame Hindu nationalism and Hindutva political parties. Voting for Deletion of this article as this seems to only promote the creation of Congress party's appeasement politics for political gains --
2216:"Off the mark" ? Great argument, it has been said several time during the discussion that you will be able to find not just 2 but event 200 sources where this phrase is mentioned. This is not really helpful unless those resources explain the phenomenon deal with the subject directly. As explained by TFD (in the diff provided) this source fails to deal with the subject properly. You have failed to explain why the source are helpful. All you are able to do is a google search and provide the number of hits of sources which has the phrase. This is not really helpful. -
404:. Majority of scholars define these acts as riots and not terrorism. Riots are riots, terrorism is terrorism. As far as fascism is concerned, it requires an Authoritarian system - one that is certainly not being supported by the said groups. Common Law (supported by these groups), religious liberty (supported by these groups) is not a sign of fascism. Of course, by having common law for every citizen in the country is somehow fascism, I am afraid that most western coutries including US and Euro countries are the same.--
2108:
Counterterrorism: New
Perspectives" edited by Daniela Pisoiu pp. 192-3. These two sources "cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept" as requested by other editors. This should be more than enough to satisfy that requirement. Whether I am a new editor at Knowledge is immaterial. I am not new at life, research, debate, or human interaction. The request for deletion of this subject is unwarranted, as are threats of taking me to ANI.
1771:
mentioned in the article have reached their conclusion, the whole article seems to be some list of allegations and there is no detailed explanation in place on wikipedia even after so many years after the article creation. It can be because the editors did not work on the article or because there is nothing much to cover. A lot of editors here are confused between terrorism, communal violence and single handed assassinations. This phrase is a Neo, as mentioned at
1399:
its non-religious nature and to identify an alleged terror oraganisation and activities of some saffron clad people. They may or may not be Hindu, they may or may not be
Hindutva ideologues. They might as well be Buddhists. I would really want it to be renamed as Hindu terrorism, but keeping in mind the sensitivity, required neutral viewpoint of this issue and the widespread use and familiarity of the word, the word Saffron should stay.
1515:
synthesis and leaves a large open field for misinterpretation" according to you, but they are still there because the existence of that theory is a fact, whether the theory is real or not forms the content of the article. The existence of this word in itself is a fact and this article describes the usage, relevance and history of this term, whether the word as a phenomena is real or not forms the content of this article. The phrase
1880:. Very less portion of the article actually deal with the term "saffron terror". I roughly checked all the links before the allegation section and less than half of the sources uses the term "saffron terror". Even most of those sources don't discuss the term, rather they discuss the phenomena, which makes this neologism unnotable. The phenomena is rather more notable, but a page move will be required to a better title. --
1779:. This is what is being done in many of the arguments above, with the number of hits and other things. A few others seems to be suggesting synonyms for the phrase and want to liberally use other sources which constitutes OR and other editors who are trying to link it with "Hindu Terrorism" or a religious motivated terrorism should try to understand the subject, it very much gives an impression that there is a
1859:
would be (a) that once the page is brought up to NPOV/RS standards it will have insufficient content beyond a dictionary definition, or (b) that there is an obvious target for merge and redirect. I see some comments that have touched on each of these, but I hope someone can either summarize one or both of these positions or otherwise point me to where I may be overlooking or misreading. --—
1344:
Gods and threatened repeatedly against the entire country). This article at its very least should mention that it's an allegedly political term and elaborate on that if so desired. this should not be a laundry list of alleged attacks some of which are not even referred to as terrorist acts and some are known linked to other groups. It only adds to sensationalizing the term --
1278:
source for 'Saffron
Terrorism') uses that as the section heading and there are thousands of secondary sources on that particular substantiation. I think the good faith opinions on both sides can meet in the middle for the article being titled 'Hindu Terrorism' (which already redirects here) which is certainly notable and less problematic than 'Saffron Terrorism'. Peace.
499:, you said that the lead suggests that "individuals with hindu religion belief" are being accused. So, you want your favourite organisations to look good and you want hindu religion to look good. You want this article gone so that you can continue your denial. So, this is a politically motivated AfD. It is not done in the best interests of Knowledge.
2246:
reality. According to rule of law, unless one is proved guilty, one should be considered as innocent and more importantly should not be used as political tools. You simply cannot add an article on wikipedia based on some wild allegations especially when it defames a community. तेजा శ్రీనివాస్ 14:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
1922:
To clarify: I vote Delete for an article about the term "Saffron terror". But I am probably neutral if the article is renamed and the new article make it clear that it is about concept not the term. The alleged/non-alleged concept of saffron/hindutava terror has been discussed in enough in media and
1858:
given the available sources. That's not to say the article as it is should stay as it is, of course -- just that I don't think deletion is the way to solve problems with the article. That said, I feel like I may misunderstand some of the delete arguments. The most convincing non-keep arguments to me
1468:
You perhaps mention the exact problem with the article as you find "saffron" not a monopoly with
Hinduism, which i have noted in the nomination is leading to synthesis and leaves a large open field for misinterpretation and the information you stated that "some media" used this word "saffron terror"
470:
or make it famous. again note that the books stated by you "Godse's
Children: Hindutva Terror in India by Subhash Gatade " itself looks like a stitched work of many historical events, note that the book is released on 2011. when Gandhi was killed nowhere was it called hindu terror during the period
1277:
Unaffiliated editor. The title 'Saffron terrorism' fails the Neo requirements (until a secondary source spends a page on a neologism then it isn't notable--no secondary source does, so...). But 'Hindu
Terrorism' is certainly a notable topic. The Matusitz book (that is the most substantive secondary
2050:
As I have mentioned above, your personal research of google search doesn't matter, it would only matter when those hits have explained the phenomenon in detail, also I did not mention that you are pushing your POV, commenting that I am pushing my POV doesn't really help here. You comment shows the
1903:
enough sources that discuss the term to meet GNG for the article itself. Even if that were not true, you agree that most of the sources do discuss the phenomenon, which suggests that there is enough material for an article on the subject, whether with this name or a different one. So it seems like
1398:
There is no reason as to why this page must be deleted. I do not think that it should even be renamed because firstly, Saffron is a colour, it is neither an ideology, nor a religion. It is a colour which happened to have a religious or ideological significance. Saffron terror was merely chosen for
2245:
NONE of them are proved. It is widely believed that this is a part of a structured campaign to tarnish political rivals. None believe these conspiracy theories(Yes, I did called them) other than leftists(who dominate "intellectual" space in India(This explains notability)) who anyway lost grip on
2134:
Again we are not talking about how many times the WP:NEO word apeared in your google search, nor are we looking to create a new word in dictionary by making it famous, please refer to previous comments the books and sourced mentioned by you is already been discussed, nobody is thereatning you nor
2065:
Notability is clearly at issue here, and this is notable. Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight. Someone is apparently offended that this article exists, and wants to see it disappear. I am disconnected from this culturally, nationally, and religiously. The POV that I am pushing is that
1343:
had used the terrorist adjective to the groups. They have however used The term right wing Hindu nationalist that include fringe rogue elements. Such elements exist in all Right or Left wing groups or parties in India (case in point Akbar Owaisi in AIMIM - who has incited crowds by defaming Hindu
1514:
We are not a panel to decide about the consequences of a given information. We are archivists, we archive any information about a particular word of phenomena which exists, allegedly or in reality. There are wikipedia articles about conspiracy theories, doesn't those conspiracy theories lead "to
1776:
An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is
1358:
The article shows that the term "saffron terror" comes from journalistic sources. Neither of the cited articles mention any political origins for the term. If you want to claim that the term was political, you need to substantiate it by providing political sources that predate the journalistic
1770:
The question is not about who created this term? Even if
Congress party had created this phrase, it is hardly a reason for the deletion of this article. However I can make one observation from the article, the phrase was widely used during the regime of one political party. None of the events
2161:
requires. I provided two such; Kautilya provided a couple; ScrapIron produced some; Neil produced some. Those of you voting "delete" have not provided a convincing rebuttal to any of these. When I confronted you with the EPW source, your only problem was that it was a "magazine," followed by
1720:
What about the list of terrorists that was released by the Home
Ministry after Shinde's Saffron terror remark, now they were not allegations, were they? How else then the Home Ministry can reveal their names. They were either convicted or absconding. Now you would say, the list had too few
2107:
Actually, I did provide a source, but here are two others - which specifically deal with the "the phenomenon in detail" as you have requested. "Symbolism in
Terrorism: Motivation, Communication, and Behavior" By Jonathan Matusitz. Chapter 8 is dedicated to this phenomenon. Also, "Arguing
1014:
Heck No. I have commented and have followed this page when I was reading other related pages. Do you not even care to look at talk page? Should I level the same charge when you and
AsceticRose came out of nowhere when I was being edit warred by vanamonde? Please stop making such baseless
2092:
where number of vote counts. Your bold lettered keep doesn't make much difference. Also keep up with your personal comments, you would be soon finding yourself at ANI or some other place. However it is amazing to know that someone who is fairly new to wikipedia makes such a good comment
1338:
I agree. The term saffron terror had only been started by congress in early 2000s for political gains and latched on by biased sources. What has been labeled the so called terror groups are only labeled for political and religious gains. No reliable scholarly source that is
646:
Nonsense; EPW is an excellent academic journal, and Frontline is non-academic but certainly has rigourous editorial oversight. What part of "reliable and secondary" do they not satisfy? Besides, you seem to be equating "research" with "opinion," which is ridiculous.
929:
The term is used by mainstream newspaper and publications. There are sufficient number of citations in the article to support that. And the term has been, it seems, in use at least since 2002. Kautilya3 has discussed the notability in detail in his keep voting
1802:
Just because the terror incidents by Saffron terrorists are less now, this article cannot be deleted. All the incidents mentioned in the article and few other incidents (a simple Google search will help) are a clear outcome of Saffron Terrorism. Multiple
775:
778:
1420:, no malice intended, no intentional hurting of feeling, it is just plain hard facts. In short, either put up or shut up. Whether the word in itself is meaningless or not is another issue worth discussing and can be added as criticisms to the
1473:
neologism does not give right to the word "saffron terrorism " be made famous as it lacks secondary sources, I do not understand eventhough your analysis is correct you are putting this under keep ? . and this article has nothing to do with
687:
690:
1403:
Hindus do not have a monopoly of the term Saffron, Hindu, Hindutva just like the way Muslims do not have the monopoly over the term Jihad and Islam. It can be used in anyway one feels like for they are just words. The media used the phrase
1549:
to "Hindu terrorism", since this is a real and important phenomenon, and both terms are used by scholarly sources (links provided above by others, but a cursory look at google books or google scholar will demonstrate as much).
465:
puts it there is only statment of the word in all the newspaper article and has very few or nil secoundary sources describing or critically analysing it. currently the article is stitched up to as to give weight to the word
332:; they have zero academic record and their specialization is 'Islamic Books' not history. The writer, Ghatade is an engineer by training and a political activist and amateur journalist; there are zero articles published in
191:
1519:
is not a neologism because the phrase is being used for more than 12 years now and is quite a popular word. I would like to divert this discussion to the talk page so, ping me in the talk page if you wish to
1805:
attempts haave been made to delete this article. But it has survived. Go through the Talk page and see why earlier attempts to delete this article were not successful. Those reasons are still applicable.
226:, serious lack of secondary source for the term "saffron terror" , most of the references cited are from news and mostly "alleged". also the article uses general term of "alleged" without any consent to
1427:
This article has the potential to be better through addition and citation of more reliable sources, proper editing and adding of pictures. This article can certainly not be made better through deletion.
607:
Both of these are in widespread use as RS across the 'pedia. More can be provided if necessary; but last I checked, two sources satisfied the criteria for "multiple." This meets GNG very comfortably.
1831:
attempt was made to delete this article, the result was "no consensus". I think you did not even cared to do your homework before making this comment. Google search will not help, get the source. -
1173:
Sitush has deliberately stayed away from this AfD. To drag him in here is in bad taste. Do you realize you are being too noisy in here? Why don't you relax and let people do their thinking?
355:
One would naturally expect an 'Islamic' publisher to publish books about terrorism that targets Muslims. That doesn't automatically make them "unreliable." Subhash Gatade has published in
1068:, if you're going to notify individual editors, be prepared to provide a reason as to why you notified those editors and not others. Further allegations of canvassing should be made at
471:
of the event, if some author calls it hindu terror after 60 years of the event in one of his book and not even notable enough will not give due weight to in wikipedia. and doubt on its
2034:
1320:", All we have are scattered references to use of the term and we do not know if all the speakers are referring to the same thing. And do not rename or save as a re-direct.
144:
1899:, I'm not sure I understand you, because it seems like you are arguing for a rename, but you're voting delete. Yes, the sources in that article need cleaning up, but there
661:
I have not questioned the degree of excellence of EPW journal , the "research" in the general is on the "opinons" of the people and am not equating a research to a opinion
185:
886:
572:- According to the guideline that AP linked so conveniently, the term needs to be discussed, and not just used, by multiple reliable secondary sources. Here they are;
780:
the book just only uses the word without any description ones! out of again 350 odd pages, I do not believe this can be used to make the word ready for a dictonary
906:
866:
824:
The word dictionary was used in indirect meaning suggesting it (saffron terror) has very little mention in the sources qouted and nothing to do with dictionary use
1228:
is only meant to discuss the inclusion and exclusion of a particular subject, That's it. Get your arguments straight! (see also, comment above left by User:NeilN)
90:
83:
2198:
Again off the mark. My point was that GNG requires two sources, by and large; several more than that have been provided. Therefore, you need to demostrate that
1988:
It has been discussed above why just a passing reference is not enough, providing source for statements like "sourced, and a widely used term" will help here. -
846:
1478:
nor Hinduism vs Islam, please keep the topic away from the article as I do also see that your are mentioning that "we call it ...." .who are the we ?
2019:
Flying mentions are really not enough for proving notability. There are thousands of terms that are more popular and more notable than this one.
238:. and finally confusing lines used with prooving and disprooving in the same line as the total output (final meaning) is amounting to Synthesis
1124:
Confused with a number of other political party and pages where terrorism was a subject. Although he has still edited a few related pages like
2135:
condemning your point of view, if you do not see the reason, you would not like to read the reason why it has been nominated thats your take
1043:
Hmm. despite reading the comments and links to talk page edits, you do not want to believe. So apparently simply saying so was not enough. --
151:
1312:
I cannot see any articles about the topic in scholarly sources. There are not even sources that say something like "it is a term used by
758:
Yes, that is probably the case. It needs improvement but not in the way of here-is-saffron-terror(ists)-list-according-to-wiki-editors. --
286:
This is a ridiculous AfD that should be rejected without any consideration. The term "saffron terror" produces about 50,000 google hits
380:
All Jaffrelot has written in his life is about anti Hindu nationalism including while during his studies. So I would not count him as
117:
112:
121:
1453:
1449:
304:
104:
17:
2088:
I rest my case with the admin who will take the decision, I have no intention of changing your vote since all of us know that
1602:
Blades, that argument is totally irrelevant, and you know it. If the Terrorism in India page doesn't have it, then put it in.
1029:
Well, that the nominator has canvassed you is a fact. If you would have come here of your own accord, you may simply say so.
261:
206:
1566:
This has nothing to do with religion, the acts are not driven by religious zeal but allegedly driven by ideological zeal. -
173:
356:
472:
292:. The notability of the subject is not in doubt. There is a 300 page book on the subject, cited in the Bibliography of
1283:
2162:
something quite incoherent and off topic. You've produced something similar here. The sources are reliable, and they
1809:
I suggest the afd tag be removed from this article and more details are added to this page like any other Terror page
2283:
1325:
40:
632:
and are from magazine and a newpaper also themselves refering to newsarticle which are again opinions of others
167:
2263:
2225:
2211:
2193:
2175:
2144:
2117:
2102:
2079:
2060:
2045:
2028:
2014:
1997:
1981:
1964:
1934:
1917:
1891:
1868:
1840:
1820:
1792:
1744:
1730:
1708:
1694:
1661:
1639:
1611:
1597:
1575:
1559:
1529:
1487:
1436:
1388:
1368:
1353:
1329:
1304:
1287:
1269:
1252:
1240:
1196:
1182:
1168:
1141:
1119:
1105:
1081:
1052:
1038:
1024:
1007:
987:
960:
939:
918:
898:
878:
858:
833:
811:
789:
764:
751:
722:
701:
670:
656:
641:
616:
562:
533:
508:
484:
447:
413:
371:
346:
315:
278:
247:
163:
67:
2089:
1279:
1129:
324:
Shouldn't we wait for Christophe to complete his book? The other book is published by Pharos, check their
1260:
Not sure I'm seeing the nom's logic here. The topic is valid and should be included in the encyclopedia.
2279:
2259:
2221:
2207:
2189:
2171:
2113:
2098:
2075:
2056:
2041:
2024:
2010:
1993:
1977:
1960:
1913:
1836:
1788:
1740:
1704:
1657:
1607:
1593:
1571:
1384:
1300:
1137:
1101:
956:
718:
652:
612:
558:
36:
290:
2070:- regardless of how many times individuals with a personal bias try to discount the value of my vote.
287:
230:, and a mixture of linking the meaning of saffron in national flag to terrorist activites is a clear
213:
2140:
1816:
1726:
1690:
1635:
1525:
1483:
1445:
1432:
1321:
1249:
935:
829:
785:
666:
637:
553:, we should not promote any kind of political propaganda. The "alleged" speculations have no weight.
496:, you said that a key sentence in the lead "demeans organisations." In this comment on the talk page
480:
427:
300:
243:
947:
No one is questioning the notability here (at leat not me), this AFD should discuss the issues like
2217:
2185:
2094:
2052:
1989:
1861:
1832:
1784:
1567:
1364:
1349:
1235:
1191:
1178:
1163:
1115:
1048:
1034:
1020:
1003:
983:
952:
759:
739:
528:
504:
462:
443:
409:
367:
341:
311:
273:
199:
108:
63:
461:
Please keep your emotions at check , divide the article from your emotional attachments to it, as
1645:
1585:
1263:
1685:
deals with this in detail by explaining the origin, the usage and its familiarity in the public.
1064:"I have commented and have followed this page when I was reading other related pages" is clear.
329:
2149:
ScrapIron's comments are quite justifiable. Reliable sources have been provided that not only
2002:
Pushing your POV onto my comment does not change my vote. The sources are more than adequate.
1928:
1885:
1678:
1674:
1555:
1475:
1417:
914:
894:
874:
854:
629:
426:
means that scholars are free to study whatever subjects interest them. A cursory look at the
360:
227:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2278:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2036:
and 23 articles in The Indian Express say otherwise. It is far more than a "flying mention."
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2255:
2203:
2167:
2109:
2085:
2071:
2037:
2020:
2006:
1973:
1956:
1909:
1736:
1715:
1700:
1668:
1653:
1625:
1618:
1603:
1589:
1470:
1380:
1296:
1133:
1097:
975:
971:
948:
733:
714:
648:
608:
554:
550:
467:
423:
257:
179:
2136:
1812:
1722:
1686:
1631:
1521:
1509:
1479:
1441:
1428:
1065:
931:
825:
781:
713:
you are probably correct, what you think about the circumstances that have lead this AFD?
662:
633:
524:
476:
401:
239:
235:
234:. Usage of many groups with mere alligation, taking newspaper as sources is amounting to
1682:
1516:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1360:
1345:
1340:
1229:
1174:
1111:
1061:
1057:
1044:
1030:
1016:
999:
979:
777:
from 350 odd pages it is mentioned ones and that too the book is still a new print and
500:
439:
405:
397:
381:
363:
307:
293:
260:: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable
100:
73:
362:. The cited book has been reviewed in the journal as well, as I mentioned previously.
297:
2158:
1877:
1855:
1851:
1780:
1772:
1225:
1221:
1187:
1069:
799:
686:
promoting political propaganda. The term has been described in newspapers and books.
231:
223:
53:
1896:
1551:
910:
890:
870:
850:
393:
389:
385:
138:
1644:
We add only convictions not just a few allegations. Thinkmath's recent change on
303:, a world-leading authority on Hindu nationalism, is being written as we speak:
2033:
Over 50,000 Google hits, including an article in the Times of India this year
1807:
I am not sure why this article is being targetted so many times for deletion.
1073:
803:
771:
743:
710:
693:
1972:
This is notable, sourced, and a widely used term deserving of its own entry.
576:
Gittinger, Juli (10 September 2011). "Saffron Terror: Splinter or Symptom?".
1162:
is also canvassing, no? But why look there because he is in your support? --
1125:
337:
1150:
on the article talk page discussion related to this AfD before Shrikanthv
325:
435:
431:
1923:
maybe notable. Although, I do not believe that any such terror exist.--
1092:
He's not. He's just notified since he was heavily involved with this
493:
I believe "emotions" are exactly what brought you here. In this edit
2166:
the topic in question; there really isn't anything more to be said.
2184:, I don't think there is a need for the same rebuttal every time. -
527:
and discuss content, take your complaints to ANI if you mean it. --
340:(national dailies) by him. He is not a historian or academician. --
1580:
Just like TFD has said on talk(page) of this AFD, if there is any
2202:
are not up to the mark before your votes can be taken seriously.
2272:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1421:
628:
Please note both the sources (above mentioned) are amounting to
1469:
is also right as stated by me in nomination this is leading to
519:
on your talk page about personal attacks by another editor for
333:
392:. But regardless, when you are defining a certain term, mere
2180:
The source provided by ScrapIron has already been discussed
2066:
this belongs, per Knowledge guidelines. My vote remains at
289:
and "hindutva terror", which is a synonym, produces 26,000
1699:
Conviction is not same as the small list few allegations.
1154:
a neutral one line for participation on his talk page and
2254:
discussion moved to user talk as irrelevant to this page.
1224:. We have talk pages to discuss contents of the article.
1295:
at least in the short term per AbstractIllusions above.
2181:
1673:
Ha! What a turncoat! Then by the same token why should
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
997:
520:
516:
497:
494:
134:
130:
126:
198:
1777:
explicitly prohibited by the original research policy
1677:
stay, all the terror event mentioned are enough for
682:- Accurately and neutrally describing the term is
359:, a scholarly journal, on a wide range of topics:
1110:Would you care to show us where he was involved?
430:page indicates that his interests are wider than
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2286:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1950:to Hindu extremism or something on the lines of
1379:I have moved one of the comment to talk page.
887:list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions
907:list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions
867:list of Language-related deletion discussions
212:
8:
905:Note: This debate has been included in the
885:Note: This debate has been included in the
865:Note: This debate has been included in the
845:Note: This debate has been included in the
1072:if need be as little will be done here. --
904:
884:
864:
847:list of India-related deletion discussions
844:
268:the term or concept, not books and papers
589:Swami, Praveen (2002). "Saffron Terror".
2086:substantiate your claims with any source
2051:depth of your research on the subject -
1588:? There is no mention of this new term.
798:"Ready for a dictionary" is not part of
1648:is probably enough for recognizing any
475:except for use in wikipedia reference.
88:
81:
388:. Same for Ghatade who is not even a
7:
296:and reviewed in an academic journal
91:Articles for deletion/Saffron terror
84:Articles for deletion/Saffron Terror
1584:, then why it hasn't been added to
438:politics and caste-based politics.
80:
1220:-BECAUSE subject simply meets the
24:
1946:per all the reasoning above, but
1222:Knowledge's standard of inclusion
1850:- To me this appears to satisfy
1652:, a whole page is undue weight.
1630:No problem, I have added it now.
1248:For all the reasons given above.
264:, such as books and papers, say
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
996:This user has been cavnassed.
396:is not enough, you would need
1:
2264:06:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
2226:11:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
2212:08:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
2194:08:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
2176:08:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
2145:06:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
2118:19:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
2103:18:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
2080:18:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
2061:18:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
2046:16:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
2029:15:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
2015:15:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
1998:15:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
1982:13:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
1965:06:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
1952:<insert religion here: -->
1935:05:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
1918:05:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
1892:05:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
1869:23:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
1841:15:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
1821:15:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
1793:10:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
1745:14:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
1731:14:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
1709:09:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
1695:09:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
1662:08:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
1640:08:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
1612:08:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
1598:07:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
1576:07:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
1560:17:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
1530:12:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
1488:06:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
1437:16:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
1389:05:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
1369:12:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
1354:00:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
1330:17:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
1305:17:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
1288:16:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
1270:05:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
1253:05:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
1241:11:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
1197:13:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
1183:12:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
1169:12:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
1142:12:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
1120:12:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
1106:11:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
1082:02:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
1053:00:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
1039:00:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
1025:23:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
1008:11:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
988:09:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
961:17:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
940:17:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
919:15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
899:15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
879:15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
859:15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
834:08:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
812:07:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
790:07:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
765:15:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
752:14:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
723:14:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
702:14:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
671:08:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
657:07:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
642:07:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
617:14:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
578:Economic and Political Weekly
563:11:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
534:01:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
509:23:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
485:11:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
448:09:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
414:03:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
372:12:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
357:Economic and Political Weekly
347:11:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
316:11:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
279:10:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
248:10:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
68:15:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
1904:your argument is suggesting
434:. He has also written about
1908:Or am I reading you wrong?
1359:sources. Do you have any?
422:This is clearly nonsense.
2303:
1781:serious lack of competence
2084:Since you have failed to
2275:Please do not modify it.
1424:section of the article.
32:Please do not modify it.
2090:this is not a democracy
738:I opened a new section
1408:, they chose the word
1130:Naroda Patiya massacre
299:, and another book by
79:AfDs for this article:
1735:You have the report?
1454:few or no other edits
1412:and hence we call it
384:although he may be a
1456:outside this topic.
1158:. By your standard,
521:mindless accusations
515:Kautilya3, you were
428:Christophe Jaffrelot
301:Christophe Jaffrelot
2153:the term, but also
774:pecular mention in
463:User:AmritasyaPutra
1646:Terrorism in India
1586:Terrorism in India
1156:India Notice board
2266:
1681:. The content of
1679:Islamic terrorism
1675:Islamic terrorism
1476:Islamic terrorism
1457:
1418:Islamic terrorism
1280:AbstractIllusions
921:
901:
881:
861:
432:Hindu nationalism
262:secondary sources
54:non-admin closure
2294:
2277:
2253:
1926:
1883:
1866:
1864:
1827:Previously only
1719:
1672:
1629:
1622:
1513:
1439:
1268:
1266:
1238:
1232:
1194:
1166:
1078:
808:
762:
748:
737:
698:
598:
585:
551:Knowledge:GOSSIP
531:
424:Academic freedom
344:
276:
222:Clearly against
217:
216:
202:
154:
142:
124:
60:
34:
2302:
2301:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2284:deletion review
2273:
1933:
1924:
1890:
1881:
1862:
1860:
1713:
1666:
1623:
1616:
1507:
1416:, same is with
1264:
1261:
1250:VictoriaGrayson
1236:
1230:
1192:
1164:
1076:
806:
760:
746:
731:
696:
588:
575:
529:
400:. Additionally
342:
274:
159:
150:
115:
99:
96:
77:
58:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2300:
2298:
2289:
2288:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2248:
2247:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
1985:
1984:
1967:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1927:
1884:
1871:
1863:Rhododendrites
1844:
1843:
1824:
1823:
1796:
1795:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1683:Saffron terror
1650:Saffron terror
1563:
1562:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1517:Saffron terror
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1414:Saffron terror
1410:Saffron terror
1406:Saffron terror
1401:
1400:
1392:
1391:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1333:
1332:
1307:
1290:
1272:
1255:
1243:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1193:AmritasyaPutra
1165:AmritasyaPutra
1146:Sdmarathe had
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1055:
1015:accusations.--
991:
990:
964:
963:
942:
923:
922:
902:
882:
862:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
793:
792:
761:AmritasyaPutra
755:
754:
726:
725:
705:
704:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
622:
621:
620:
619:
602:
601:
600:
599:
586:
566:
565:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
530:AmritasyaPutra
488:
487:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
417:
416:
377:
376:
375:
374:
350:
349:
343:AmritasyaPutra
319:
318:
294:saffron terror
281:
275:AmritasyaPutra
220:
219:
156:
101:Saffron terror
95:
94:
93:
87:
86:
78:
76:
74:Saffron terror
71:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2299:
2287:
2285:
2281:
2276:
2270:
2265:
2261:
2257:
2252:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2244:
2241:
2240:
2227:
2223:
2219:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2209:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2191:
2187:
2183:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2173:
2169:
2165:
2160:
2157:the term, as
2156:
2152:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2133:
2119:
2115:
2111:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2100:
2096:
2091:
2087:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2077:
2073:
2069:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2012:
2008:
2005:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1986:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1968:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1949:
1945:
1942:
1936:
1932:
1931:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1902:
1898:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1889:
1888:
1879:
1875:
1872:
1870:
1865:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1846:
1845:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1825:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1801:
1798:
1797:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1769:
1766:
1765:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1717:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1670:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1627:
1620:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1564:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1548:
1544:
1541:
1540:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1518:
1511:
1506:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1472:
1467:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1425:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1397:
1394:
1393:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1377:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1342:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1308:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1291:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1276:
1273:
1271:
1267:
1265:FreeRangeFrog
1259:
1256:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1244:
1242:
1239:
1233:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1216:
1215:
1198:
1195:
1189:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1167:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1056:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1005:
1001:
998:
995:
994:
993:
992:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
969:
966:
965:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
943:
941:
937:
933:
928:
925:
924:
920:
916:
912:
908:
903:
900:
896:
892:
888:
883:
880:
876:
872:
868:
863:
860:
856:
852:
848:
843:
842:
835:
831:
827:
823:
822:
813:
810:
809:
801:
797:
796:
795:
794:
791:
787:
783:
779:
776:
773:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
763:
757:
756:
753:
750:
749:
741:
735:
730:
729:
728:
727:
724:
720:
716:
712:
709:
708:
707:
706:
703:
700:
699:
691:
688:
685:
681:
678:
672:
668:
664:
660:
659:
658:
654:
650:
645:
644:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
624:
623:
618:
614:
610:
606:
605:
604:
603:
596:
592:
587:
583:
579:
574:
573:
571:
568:
567:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
545:
544:
535:
532:
526:
522:
518:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
506:
502:
498:
495:
492:
491:
490:
489:
486:
482:
478:
474:
469:
464:
460:
457:
456:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
420:
419:
418:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
378:
373:
369:
365:
361:
358:
354:
353:
352:
351:
348:
345:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
322:
321:
320:
317:
313:
309:
305:
302:
298:
295:
291:
288:
285:
282:
280:
277:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
252:
251:
250:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
215:
211:
208:
205:
201:
197:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
165:
162:
161:Find sources:
157:
153:
149:
146:
140:
136:
132:
128:
123:
119:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
97:
92:
89:
85:
82:
75:
72:
70:
69:
65:
61:
55:
51:
50:No consensus.
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2274:
2271:
2242:
2199:
2163:
2154:
2150:
2067:
2003:
1969:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1929:
1905:
1900:
1886:
1873:
1847:
1828:
1808:
1804:
1799:
1775:
1767:
1649:
1581:
1546:
1542:
1504:
1465:
1426:
1402:
1395:
1317:
1316:to describe
1313:
1309:
1292:
1274:
1257:
1245:
1217:
1093:
1074:
967:
944:
926:
804:
744:
694:
683:
679:
625:
594:
590:
581:
577:
569:
546:
458:
283:
272:the term. --
269:
265:
253:
221:
209:
203:
195:
188:
182:
176:
170:
160:
147:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
2256:Vanamonde93
2204:Vanamonde93
2200:all but one
2168:Vanamonde93
2110:ScrapIronIV
2072:ScrapIronIV
2068:Strong Keep
2038:ScrapIronIV
2021:Bladesmulti
2007:ScrapIronIV
2004:Strong Keep
1974:ScrapIronIV
1970:Strong Keep
1957:Rsrikanth05
1910:Vanamonde93
1737:Bladesmulti
1716:Bladesmulti
1701:Bladesmulti
1669:Bladesmulti
1654:Bladesmulti
1626:Bladesmulti
1619:Vanamonde93
1604:Vanamonde93
1590:Bladesmulti
1452:) has made
1381:Bladesmulti
1297:John Carter
1237:Let's talk!
1134:Bladesmulti
1098:Bladesmulti
1062:Sdmarathe's
734:Bladesmulti
715:Bladesmulti
649:Vanamonde93
609:Vanamonde93
555:Bladesmulti
186:free images
2137:Shrikanthv
1953:radicalism
1723:Thinkmaths
1687:Thinkmaths
1632:Thinkmaths
1522:Thinkmaths
1510:Shrikanthv
1480:Shrikanthv
1442:Thinkmaths
1429:Thinkmaths
1132:and more.
1066:Shrikanthv
1060:, I think
826:Shrikanthv
782:Shrikanthv
663:Shrikanthv
634:Shrikanthv
630:WP:OPINION
523:here. Be
477:Shrikanthv
473:notability
240:Shrikanthv
2280:talk page
1848:Weak Keep
1520:continue.
1471:WP:NOTNEO
1422:Criticism
1361:Kautilya3
1346:Sdmarathe
1231:Anupmehra
1175:Kautilya3
1160:this edit
1148:commented
1126:Shiv Sena
1112:Kautilya3
1058:Kautilya3
1045:Sdmarathe
1031:Kautilya3
1017:Sdmarathe
1000:Kautilya3
980:Sdmarathe
976:WP:NOTNEO
972:WP:NOTDIC
949:WP:NOTDIC
932:Dwaipayan
911:• Gene93k
891:• Gene93k
871:• Gene93k
851:• Gene93k
591:Frontline
501:Kautilya3
468:WP:NOTNEO
440:Kautilya3
406:Sdmarathe
364:Kautilya3
338:The Hindu
330:catalogue
308:Kautilya3
258:WP:NOTNEO
228:"alleged"
59:Aerospeed
37:talk page
2282:or in a
2218:sarvajna
2186:sarvajna
2095:sarvajna
2053:sarvajna
1990:sarvajna
1833:sarvajna
1785:sarvajna
1568:sarvajna
1450:contribs
953:sarvajna
930:above.--
436:Pakistan
402:WP:WINAD
270:that use
236:WP:GEVAL
145:View log
39:or in a
2164:discuss
2155:discuss
1925:Vigyani
1906:rename.
1897:Vigyani
1882:Vigyani
1552:Darouet
1466:comment
1341:WP:NPOV
945:Comment
626:Comment
549:- Per
459:Comment
398:WP:NPOV
382:WP:NPOV
326:website
192:WP refs
180:scholar
118:protect
113:history
2243:Delete
2159:WP:NEO
1948:rename
1878:WP:NEO
1874:Delete
1856:WP:GNG
1852:WP:NEO
1773:WP:NEO
1768:Delete
1721:names.
1582:terror
1547:rename
1310:Delete
1293:Rename
1275:Rename
1246:Delete
1226:WP:AFD
1152:posted
1070:WP:ANI
968:Delete
800:WP:NEO
547:Delete
517:warned
254:Delete
232:WP:SYN
224:WP:NEO
164:Google
122:delete
1813:Wasif
1545:, or
1505:reply
772:NeilN
711:NeilN
584:(37).
525:civil
394:WP:RS
390:WP:RS
386:WP:RS
266:about
207:JSTOR
168:books
152:Stats
139:views
131:watch
127:links
16:<
2260:talk
2222:talk
2208:talk
2190:talk
2182:here
2172:talk
2141:talk
2114:talk
2099:talk
2076:talk
2057:talk
2042:talk
2025:talk
2011:talk
1994:talk
1978:talk
1961:talk
1955:. --
1944:Keep
1930:talk
1914:talk
1887:talk
1876:per
1854:via
1837:talk
1817:talk
1800:Keep
1789:talk
1741:talk
1727:talk
1705:talk
1691:talk
1658:talk
1636:talk
1608:talk
1594:talk
1572:talk
1556:talk
1543:Keep
1526:talk
1484:talk
1446:talk
1433:talk
1396:Keep
1385:talk
1365:talk
1350:talk
1326:talk
1301:talk
1284:talk
1258:Keep
1218:Keep
1188:pot?
1179:talk
1138:talk
1116:talk
1102:talk
1094:page
1075:Neil
1049:talk
1035:talk
1021:talk
1004:talk
984:talk
974:and
970:Per
957:talk
936:talk
927:Keep
915:talk
895:talk
875:talk
855:talk
830:talk
805:Neil
802:. --
786:talk
745:Neil
742:. --
740:here
719:talk
695:Neil
680:Keep
667:talk
653:talk
638:talk
613:talk
597:(6).
570:Keep
559:talk
505:talk
481:talk
444:talk
410:talk
368:talk
328:and
312:talk
284:Keep
256:Per
244:talk
200:FENS
174:news
135:logs
109:talk
105:edit
64:Talk
2151:use
1901:are
1867:\\
1829:one
1783:. -
1322:TFD
684:not
336:or
334:TOI
214:TWL
143:– (
2262:)
2224:)
2210:)
2192:)
2174:)
2143:)
2116:)
2101:)
2078:)
2059:)
2044:)
2027:)
2013:)
1996:)
1980:)
1963:)
1916:)
1839:)
1819:)
1811:.
1791:)
1743:)
1729:)
1707:)
1693:)
1660:)
1638:)
1610:)
1596:)
1574:)
1558:)
1528:)
1486:)
1448:•
1440:—
1435:)
1387:)
1367:)
1352:)
1328:)
1303:)
1286:)
1190:--
1181:)
1140:)
1128:,
1118:)
1104:)
1096:.
1051:)
1037:)
1023:)
1006:)
986:)
959:)
938:)
917:)
909:.
897:)
889:.
877:)
869:.
857:)
849:.
832:)
788:)
721:)
692:--
689:,
669:)
655:)
640:)
615:)
595:19
593:.
582:46
580:.
561:)
507:)
483:)
446:)
412:)
370:)
314:)
246:)
194:)
137:|
133:|
129:|
125:|
120:|
116:|
111:|
107:|
66:)
56:)
2258:(
2220:(
2206:(
2188:(
2170:(
2139:(
2112:(
2097:(
2093:-
2074:(
2055:(
2040:(
2023:(
2009:(
1992:(
1976:(
1959:(
1912:(
1835:(
1815:(
1787:(
1739:(
1725:(
1718::
1714:@
1703:(
1689:(
1671::
1667:@
1656:(
1634:(
1628::
1624:@
1621::
1617:@
1606:(
1592:(
1570:(
1554:(
1550:-
1524:(
1512::
1508:@
1482:(
1444:(
1431:(
1383:(
1363:(
1348:(
1324:(
1318:y
1314:x
1299:(
1282:(
1262:§
1234:-
1177:(
1136:(
1114:(
1100:(
1077:N
1047:(
1033:(
1019:(
1002:(
982:(
955:(
951:-
934:(
913:(
893:(
873:(
853:(
828:(
807:N
784:(
747:N
736::
732:@
717:(
697:N
665:(
651:(
636:(
611:(
557:(
503:(
479:(
442:(
408:(
366:(
310:(
242:(
218:)
210:·
204:·
196:·
189:·
183:·
177:·
171:·
166:(
158:(
155:)
148:·
141:)
103:(
62:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.