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. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 18:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Century (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)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And the sources are either out-of-date or do not indicate notability at all. Most of the sources say nothing about the term "Indian Century" except for sources that are not independent, such as the "Rediff India Abroad" source being an Indian source, and therefore not independent of the subject. The article is better off being a redirect to Asian Century since it's obviously not enough to be a standalone topic by itself. All the sources either fail to mention the term "Indian Century" at all, are by Indian authors and not independent, or are dependent on the Chinese Century as well and not enough to be a standalone.

It also looks like Synthesis and original research, as one of the citations is about being a basketball superpower. And the references in an entire section also mention nothing related to an 'Indian Century', at all. Xharm (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock of Supersaiyen312[reply]

• Withdrawn I also withdraw my deletion nomination of Indian Century. If someone else wants to nominate it, then go ahead, but I withdraw it. So please close the discussion now as withdrawn. Xharm (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[1][reply]

In that case, I'll vouch for this AfD since the discussion is still ongoing and we're still having a consensus as to what the outcome of this article ought to be. Having nominated the article twice in the past, I'll take responsibility as the nominator this time too. Mar4d (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep and close Nominator doesn't even have an idea. WP:WIKILAWYER. Every third party source is considered as an independent source as long as it is representing a non-primary source, even though the nominator has failed to figure out the usage of the term outside these sources, he should know that WP:RS has nothing to do with the nationality of the source. AfD is not for cleanup. Contrary to nominator's claim that this URL is used as a source is also misleading, it is not even added anywhere in the whole article. "External links" are not sources, but the links that are related with the subject of the article. Nomination is not just riddled with faults, it's a massive failure of WP:BEFORE. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename -- The article (also Asian Century and Chinese Century) fail WP:CRYSTAL. Since about the 1980s (or even later)India and China have experienced great growth, but that is only 30 or so years ago. WE have noi idea what may happen in the other 2/3rd of a century. Quite clearly both countries have undergone industrialisation and urbanisation on a scale similar to UK in the Industrial Revolution and Germany 1860-1914. If anything a title such as "the emergence of India as a great power" might cover the content and make a useful article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:BEFORE should have been done. [2], [3], [4]. The notion that we cannot use a reliable source published in a country to write about the country is absurd and not based in policy (try removing American sources from articles about the United States). It would be helpful if someone could find coverage of Paul Krugman's "The Indian Century: Opportunities and Challenges" speech made this week. [5] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep -Sources are out-of date or do not indicate notability? Really! WP:Notability is not temporary. If there really are some WP:OR, Edit the article and WP:FIXIT. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. See also, WP:BEFORE. I do not mean to invoke OSE here, but by nominator argument we really should have no article on Earth. This is just ridiculous. I'm sorry if my words read rude. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Redacted sock comments]

• Comment When the first source cited in the article, supposedly referring to "the possibility that the 21st century will be dominated by India" actually turns out to be referring to the period 1914-2014, [6] it doesn't exactly inspire confidence. AndyTheGrump (talk} 04:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Replaced. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - replaced with a source that uses the phrase 'Indian century' once, and then goes on to discuss China in depth. [7] Though no longer a completely bogus source, it reeks of desperation, and if that is the best you've got, I have to suggest that the article title at least needs revising. How about "The Indian Century if the Chinese don't beat them to it"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really the best source, "India Century" is also a common term. For Indian Century, I have found another source"Indian+century" that describes both India and China and their development, and the author ends his statement, claiming that in the longer run, 21st century can be a Indian century. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this both ways: we can broaden the scope to include both centuries if needed to add some historical context to the projection for 21st C based on failed 20th C projections, or just replace the source. It's not really damning or relevant for the AfD. V not truth. Widefox; talk 11:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. Source examples include:

• ‘India’s decade could pave way for an Indian century’. Hindustan Times.
• 21st century is going to be Indian century: Alagappan. OneIndia.
• Real India: A Historian's Cautions on "The Indian Century". Huffington Post.
• Is this the Indian century?. The Guardian.
• Is it the dawn of the Indian century, asks Wharton forum. India Abroad.
• Action: the Indian Century and China-India relations. SBS.

– NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge There seem to be a bunch of these articles including Asian Century, Pacific Century, Chinese Century, BRICS, &c. Doing these by individual country seems too speculative and prone to soapy boosterism, as we have here. Merge it into a more general article where a balanced overview will be more likely to result. Andrew D. (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge into Asian Century per WP:CRYSTAL. It's a purely speculative concept that isn't going to become a reality any time soon and is probably as much meaningful as a Brazilian Century or for that matter a Somali Century. We may as well have articles like The end of Earth and the Reign of the Martians. Just because a couple of sources speculate a concept that is itself nothing more than speculation (I say this after having thoroughly reviewed sources available on the topic) does not translate into being notable enough for a standalone article. Mar4d (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Mar4d Knowing that you had proposed the 2 previous AfD and this one was proposed by a blocked trolling sock, it was always a massive failure of WP:BEFORE. Term is by far very notable, and well used in academia, that's how it passes WP:GNG, not that we would need to evaluate your personal astrology. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Andrew D. 'Soapy boosterism' seems to sum it up nicely. We don't need a POV fork on every possible country predicted to be the next superpower. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note the nominator has been blocked as a sock of Supersaiyen312. [8] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Andrew D. and TheGrump 'Soapy boosterism' - I like it. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some scholars have mentioned the term and that's it, there's nothing substantial about the term like the origin or the debates and criticisms about the term. There is nothing to merge since all the contents are already present in the existing articles like Potential superpowers, Asian century and BRICS. This article should be deleted straightaway. Xinjiang guy (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)— Xinjiang guy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. Looks like synth and crystal ball. (It's also embarrassing. This is just not a topic for an encyclopedia.) Srnec (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Srnec: How it is "synth" when each of the sources are supporting the provided statement without WP:OR? How it is crystallball when it is used as a term for the future projection, based on the past and current performance rather than the original research? How it is not encyclopedic when it is actually covered by a fair amount of WP:RS? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Because statements like "According to scholars, media sources and economic historian Angus Maddison in his book The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, the polities of India constituted the largest economy in the world from ca. 1 CE to 1000 CE" have nothing to do with the concept of an Indian Century. And others like "It is also often referred as South Asia's natural hegemon because of its overwhelming dominance of the region in all aspects – political, economic, military, cultural, and demographic", which says nothing about India being to this century what Britain was to the 19th or America to the 20th. Regional hegemony has nothing inherently to do with "the possibility that the 21st century will be dominated by India". The term around which the article is built is for pundits and for scholars' offhand remarks in their introductions. It is a rhetorical question ("Will the 21st century by the Indian century?") and not an encyclopedic topic. Srnec (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Srnec: You don't have to cherry pick a few lines for making a WP:POINT. Synth applies only when the information is not supported by the provided source. These statements are related with the subject, I can find that there are a few sources that refer to both, the tally of economical history and the term Indian/India Century. If you have some actual concern, you are always allowed to bring such sources to the article. You are talking about the quality of the content which was not even asked for. Read my question again, I didn't asked you to review this article, I asked you to address that how it fails WP:CRYSTAL, how it is WP:SYNTH and how it is not encyclopedic when it has been covered by so many in academia. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• SYNTH does not required any OR. It is an improper synthesis because it synthesises various sourced statements to give an impression that is not reliably sourced. For example, the final two statements in the article—"Many industries are established in the country due to investments in technology and in the professionalisation of manpower, in addition to its tradition of Exact Sciences. However, several problems such as economic, political, and social problems need to be overcome to be considered a superpower."—have nothing apparently to do with a present or future Indian century. Sources like Colonial Power, Colonial Texts: India in the Modern British Novel (1997) cannot possibly tell us anything about a future Indian Century that isn't non-notable speculation. Newspapers make bad sources—unreliable sources would be the Wikipedian term—for speculation about the next 75+ years. Srnec (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You are still talking about the quality of the content and not about the policies that you had mentioned in your !vote, and how they are an important part for this particular AfD. Now if you are looking for the sources that would mention, "Industries", "superpower" etc. and also the term India Century, you simply add any other source, like → [9]. Finding faults in the sources cannot be established as a criteria for deletion. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• [Redacted sock comments]
• OccultZone we dealt with the sockpuppetry issue disrupting the AfD, that disruption has been replaced by you disrupting the AfD with badgering of comments you disagree with. I'm asking you to please stop badgering those who disagree with your opinion and allow the AfD to conclude in a calm, mellow, orderly fashion. Remember, disruptive and argumentative posts dissuade those who agree with you just as much as they dissuade those who disagree with you from commenting on AfDs. I would also ask that you allow administrators to adjudicate on what is and isn't a topic ban violation and leave them to remove any material that should be removed. Thanks, Nick (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You are allowed to reply those comments that you disagree with. There are always two sides, (1) You can convince others, (2) You can be convinced. If your argument is not policy based and if it is against the obvious consensus or if it is misrepresenting any of the related essence, then it is surely disruptive. I am replying to only a few comments, not actually all. Whether it violated his TBAN or not, it is no more pertinent, I have now removed those comments because they were made by a blocked sock. Check WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Redacted sock comments]

I can understand the concern expressed, it's sensible if you refrain from commenting further here, given there's some military content in the article, but I don't believe it's sufficient to remove your existing comment. Hope that's acceptable. Nick (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Redacted sock comments]

• Delete: in addition to the reasons posted above, there is a lack of WP:NPOV (I am referring to the "Criticism" section of Asian Century, which this article contains none of). Primefac (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: per NorthAmerica1000. Votes opposed to keep are not talking about the general notability guideline and the subject meets it. SamuelDay1 (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "It takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage." NorthAmerica1000's sources do not amount to more. Srnec (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep & Procedural Close Keep: I checked two sources, they were WP:RS. Passes GNG. While I have sympathy for merging as there may be many notable projections, a merge can be done separately away from this AfD crash. That aside, let's not conflate WP:V-truth.
  • Comment to closer AfD by blocked sock, adopted 2nd nom's (User:Mar4d's) vote needs striking. Widefox; talk 10:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an absolute trainwreck of an AFD. On one hand you have a blocked sock who's nominating it and then someone else picking up the nomination after the withdraw. On the otherhand you see that WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed and there are some clear reliable sources that push this past WP:GNG. Those who are !voting merge and delete are citing the quality of the sources instead of the policies those sources are satisfying. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:46, 24 January 2015 (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.