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 Hindutva pseudoscience has been redirected to Hindutva propaganda by the creator of article. Aksi_great (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindutva pseudoscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete - There was a clear consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_pseudoscience but it was rejected because the nominator was a sock of a banned user. That aside, the logic used to AFD it still holds Namely:

• The term gets A whoppin 0 google hits
• The term is a neologism, not used in the referenced work
• The article was supposedly "created under pressure and harassment from our Hindutva troll(s)" by Dbachmann (talk · contribs) (a rather funny epithet to describe those criticizing this user who obviously is above wikipedia policy)
• Synthesis of sources to push a point
• Violates WP:RS, WP:ATT, WP:NEO, WP:OR Bakaman 19:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman 19:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (slight revision of my previous comment) as an attack page, and certainly without any redirects. This criticism could be merged as appropriate into the actual article pages on the various subjects (actually, it is there on all of them already). I am on good terms with some of the eds. who created this article or support it, and hope to remain so. But they made a mistake; the mistake impairs their good repute; and they would serve their cause best by agreeing to the deletion of this article. Whatever one might think of some of the hypotheses discussed, it would still not be right to use WP to express personal views--and certainly not in an article deliberately so oriented and so titled. This is the very model of a POV fork, of the most blatant kind. (Subtler POV forks use subtler titles). It illustrates perfectly the importance of NPOV. Renaming is possible, but something like "Hinduvtva pseudoscience controversy" would not help much. Many other subjects on and off WP have shown that the best way of refuting what one thinks nonsense is to let it be expressed freely. If one thinks it merely wrong, that's handled by balanced presentation. DGG 19:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a) Google with [+Hindutva +pseudoscience] gets 566 hits: not all that many but certainly not none.

b) Nanda and Sokal both make a serious presentation of the mix of postmodernism, pseudoscience and religion that is being pressed into service, apparently with political aims. There does appear to be a real and current phenomeonon (and one that seems to discredit both science and genuine religious believers).

c) There also appear to be clear examples of heavy promotion of one or two Indian scientists on Wikipedia; and occasional claims for discoveries in mathematics that stretch credibility somewhat. For myself, I feel that outrageous claims are disrespectful towards the early mathematician, and possibly towards religious pioneers also.

It is not easy, however, to see an easy solution. I'll have a look at the entries for the BNP, Christian fundamentalism, Dawkins and Reductionism and maybe change my mind. Davy p 23:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD is not about "hindutva"+"pseudoscience", rather "Hindutva pseudoscience", a nonexistent, and cruftlike term.Bakaman 03:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"out of India theory gets four hits on google scholar[1]. I expect you to submit that article to Afd as a simple show of good faith before you argue any further here. dab (𒁳) 11:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. The term "pseudoscience" is associated with "Hindutva" in a number of scholarly works, including some cited in the article. I don't find any examples of the phrase "Hindutva pseudoscience"; but what's important is that a number of scholars have written about a phenomenon of ideologically/religiously motivated re-writing of Indian prehistory associated with the Hindutva movement. The WP reader might be better served, however, if this material was in Hindutva; if not, this article should be a spin-off of Hindutva in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, bad faith resubmission (by Bakaman, who is very close to an rfar these days). Valid topic, concerns of imbalance (cite your acedemic sources!) and title (suggest a move!) nonwithstanding. speedy keep in fact, there is simply no way a well-referenced article will be deleted (as opposed to merged or moved), quite regardless of afd vote ballot-stuffing by ideological tag-teams. dab (𒁳) 08:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. I stated the same in previous AfD. To Akhilleus and Davy p, please read this [2]. The case here is exactly Original Research. Let us wait for the term "Hindutva pseudoscience" to be accepted as something academic, and not jump on the wagon.--Scheibenzahl 09:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hindutva propaganda", which is a redirect to the article under discussion here, gets 572 hits on google scholar. If there was any good faith involved here, people would make suggestions for moving and/or merging. If any good faith was involved here, there would have been attempts to debate concerns on talk. As it is, this is just painfully obvious politically motivated trolling by lobbyist editors. dab (𒁳) 09:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article. I argue that there can be no shadow of a doubt at this point that it is a well-sourced discussion of genuine pseudoscience now. speedy close per WP:IDONTLIKEIT please, bring move suggestions to talk. "Synthesis of published material" or "selection bias" in this case means "selecting" academic sources and ignoring blog postings and crank authors, which is just what we do on Wikipedia. I don't know if Scheibenzahl is aware of this, but Bakaman knows this perfectly well, and it is not possible to assume good faith here. dab (𒁳) 10:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Bad faith resubmission, obvious filibustering to prevent encyclopedic treatment of the pseudoscholarship underlying the contamination of a number of other articles by a bunch of POV-pushers. rudra 10:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, now that it has been moved to Hindutva propaganda and expanded. My merge and delete vote in the previous AfD was because of "Hindutva pseudoscience" in the title and a little content that could easily fit into Hindutva. The content of the article is legit, but it has a POVish tone, which makes it look like an essay/original research -- this needs to be fixed. I would request dab to delete the redirect "Hindutva pseudoscience" -- it's neologism (if dab doesn't delete it, it should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion). utcursch | talk 12:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • no, I maintain Hindutva pseudoscience is a legitimate term. The collocation is a straightforward title, and it is nitpicking to allege that the "term" doesn't exist when ample evidence has been presented that Hindutva propaganda is classified as pseudoscience. This is a mere matter of choosing a concise title. An obsessively correct title would be pseudo-scientific currents in Hindutva propaganda, and we can yet move things there, but without the bad faith attacks on the article as such, this wouldn't even be an issue. Of course the article takes a "pov" opposed to the pseudoscientific literature. You may or may not be surprised to learn that our Creation science, Dowsing, Bible code and Ancient astronaut theories do precisely the same. It is "cultural relativism" or "political correctness" gone terribly wrong to assume that Indian pseudoscience should be treated less rigorously because, after all, "it is cultural" (viz., because you think the poor Indians don't know any better: they do, but they have their cranks and madmen just like people do in the west). dab (𒁳) 13:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only on Wikipedia you can comapare these:[3][4][5]

[6] with [7], and still look like a knowledgeable person. Coining a term is not "nit picking", and blaiming others of bad faith shows only bad faith on your side, because you think any one who opposes this term is "Hindutva"-vadi.--Scheibenzahl 10:09, 27 March 2007 (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.