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 no consensus. After discounting the opinions by RaviC and CorrectKnowledge, which do not cite a policy-based argument for deletion, we have no consensus about whether this should be kept, dabbed, merged or deleted.  Sandstein  10:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Taliban[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NEO With only 3 hits on Gscholar, one of which says "BJP did not turn out to be a Hindu Taliban" Only 1623 hits on Gbooks, most of which appear to be wikipedia clones, and just 15,100 hits on a Google search shows this term is not notable at all. In fact the sources which do use the term have it within scare quotes.[1][2] so it also fails on POV title Darkness Shines (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Consensus in the previous AfD shows that this is a notable topic and the content of the article speaks for itself. Mar4d (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looking at the previous AFD makes one wonder if those commenting looked at the sources?[3] No mention of Hindu Taliban here. Nor in these sources used in the article[4][5]this one is about a film[6][7][8][9] I really cannot be arsed to check the rest, but if this article survives the AFD then it will need serious triming. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of book results plus online hits is hardly "only." If anything, the article needs further expansion. Mar4d (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LMFAO as the kids say. How do you get "thousands" from 1623 hits on google books? Most of which I already said seem to be Wiki clones? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me but 1,623 is a quantity that falls well within the thousands. Anyway, the extensive online coverage in addition to book results on this subject contradicts the crux of your argument. Mar4d (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as no doubt all those 15,100 are fully independent, not Wiki clones and are RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you've been counting and personally checking all 15,100 results. That is truly remarkable. *Applause* :) Mar4d (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all as that is your job, you voted keep so please provide the third party reliable sources which discuss this in detail. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge There is an article Saffron terror that deals with Hindu fundamentalism already. During previous AFD of this article safron terror article was not created, and the latter got more into prominence. Taliban is an army present in afghanistan and pakistan, taliban is not an adjective term, and in this context it is used as equivalent to fundamentalism. Best is to merge this article to Safron terror article. I want to point out that Christian Taliban and American Taliban are already redirects. Agentowaway (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Taliban is a term describing religious fundamentalism. Saffron terror describes political acts allegedly linked to and inspired by Hindutva. Both have different meanings.Naveed (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have gone through the sources. Apart from a few mentions of the term, none of the sources (those included in the article or that can be found from extensive google searches) explain the term extensively or in context. My opinion from the searching and analysis is that this a non-notable term thrown around (with a lot of POV pushing even in google search results.) and has no chance for improvement unless some new notable event occurs centering around the term.

P.S. With the kind of POV pushing I see in this article, I am not willing to extend good faith for the offline sources, and I am sorry for that. If this "term" is so notable, then the editors who feel it should be kept, can bring reliable online sources here and am willing to reconsider this vote in case I am proved wrong. Suraj T 14:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or turn it into a disambiguation page like Christian Taliban. Hindu Taliban is a neologism that is not very frequently used in sources. However, when it is used it can variously refer to Hindu right[10][11], Hindu traditionalists like Sri Ram Sena[12] and Saffron Terror (couldn't find anything but I am taking this on AGF). Disambiguations are cheap and in this case could be helpful to an unacquainted reader. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 16:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sifting through links in the article shows that information is balanced and well-referenced from a variety of press sources. I have also done an online search and can see alot of further news sources which show that Hindu Taliban is notably and commonly used neologism. i am changing to Keep from my previous delete vote. These articles are good too and might help: Catholics fear 'Hindu Taliban' The Australian, Delhi looks powerless before ‘Indian Taliban’ The Dawn, Attack on women at a bar in India raises fears of 'Hindu Taliban' Los Angeles Times etc. and many more online. Lyk4 (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you fid not read WP:NEO? "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Darkness Shines (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually your second reference does not mention Hindu Taliban at all. The first and third demonstrate why it needs to be deleted. The first ref is predicting that the elections "could result result in a Hindu-style "Talibanisation"" and the third one goes on about Hindu conservatives and an accusation of "bid by Hindu fundamentalists to "Talibanize" India". Both of these references demonstrate why using neologisms like "Hindu Taliban" should not get separate article. These terms do not get significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and when they are mentioned in opinion pieces, they are loosely used by authors to refer to diverse concepts creating an article from which would require synthesis. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: More time could be spent on productive articles, instead users on both sides waste time edit warring on divisive articles like this. --RaviC (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2013 (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.