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 - numerous claims that the article has problems with original research and/or synthesis are not supplied with any supporting evidence, and appear to be largely or entirely baseless. Similarly, the case that it's an attack page is not well argued or supported. Conversely, it's not well demonstrated that the term is independently notable, and thus a merge may be in order (but it's not well shown that it's not, either). Numbers are pretty evenly split. WilyD 07:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Murdabad (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)

Mainly on the grounds of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The article documents a phrase that is occasionally used in India but then attempts to string together disparate uses of the phrase into a something meaningful (I'm looking at this version). That stringing together is best left to competent reliable sources, preferably ones that have been subject to peer review. There is also the possibility that the article was created in retaliation to another article (see this comment from the article creator). However, that is only a minor reason for deletion. regentspark (comment) 14:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The article has been heavily edited by an neutral editor, so that clarifies any possible issues. I would like to bring this in notice that the previous nomination was a clear case of hounding, as the page was completely orphan at the time of renomination. I tried to get the nominator's comments on this, but he ha been ignoring to answer my question. There has been no RfC or any other relevant discussion on any page, so this second nomination receives a speedy close. At last, on should remember that Wikipedia is not censored, and not the right place to show off your sentiments. Also please comment on the subjected article, not the possibility of creation of the Indian counterpart. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification to RegentsPark's comments - That statement was in reply to the argument that the phrase is not notable. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by Fowler&fowler Can you guys give me some time? The slogan has little to do with its use, at the drop of a hat, in India by illiterate professional radicals of the Hindu right. It has importance to the Partition of India and to the violence (especially the anti-Muslim violence in the Punjab) that accompanied it. It obviously needs to be rewritten with the correct historical perspective. I've removed all the garbage about Sarbjit Singh etc, likely added by some Wiki-arriviste POV warriors from India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete: the article is full of synthesis and was created as a retaliatory article to my creation of Pakistan Zindabad as I said at the last AFD. Further more the content of the article is not encyclopedic independently and might serve some purpose as a part of Anti-Pakistan sentiment. The creation of this article also opens a pandora's box to create Hindustan Murdabad, America Murdabad and Israel Murdabad articles which have more sources and coverage even in the current news. Such articles will not form good encyclopedic content, instead the mention of the terms should be made in the anti country articles with context. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making ludicrous arguments. How many academic sources can you find that attest to Hindustan Murdabad, America Murdabad? Please see the new version of the page I'm working on. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than there are for this one ofcourse, but that is for another day. This sets a battle ground precedent without adding any encyclopedic value. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hilarious to read topGun's skewed arguments across the article he is into. The article sounds neutral and sourced but not enough content to make an independent page. Anu Raj (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete it should be deleted per Attack page.The article is obvious violation of the wiki rules.Justice007 (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You too. Read the new version of the page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, flush it away. Trival original research and synthesis that would be better in a place like a trash bin than on Wikipedia. As pointed out in the previous AfD, the English language can accomodate gazillions of such "down with XYZ" phrases used by people for whatever they dislike and you can create an article on it. As opposed to national slogans, which are actually notable because they find usage among a nationality of people, anti-national slogans are trivial phrases. This is not encyclopedic content, it needs to go. Mar4d (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How is that OR or Synthesis? See the current revision before commenting. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d, I'm amazed that someone like you of all people is being so touchy. Wikipedia has a long tradition of such pages. See for example: Lists_of_disparaging_terms. Sure, they may have been originally created by mischief makers, but the best way to combat it is to source them right. What do you find wrong with the current version as edited by me? Give me specifics, not generalities. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler, the current version is mainly about the Sikh reaction to direct action day. The slogan itself is tangential to the article (as written). Remove the reference to the slogan and the remaining text would be an independent article on the Sikh action (whatever it is called). --regentspark (comment) 18:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, It may appear that way as I've just begun, but the slogan is an inextricable (if ugly) part of the history of the partition. I've answered you in more detail on my talk page. As the Wikipedia page Slogan says, "a chanted slogan may serve more as social expression of unified purpose, than as communication to an intended audience." It is that purpose that I'm attempting to delineate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the massive improvements by Fowler&fowler, who I must say has done excellent work on the article. Plenty of mentions on both Gbooks and Gnews to expand the article, such as this. When the Leopold Cafe reopened after the terrorist attacks in 2008 the waiting crowd shouted slogans such as "Bharat Mata Ki Jai," "Vande Matram" and "Pakistan Murdabad".[1] Darkness Shines (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: The article was improved by Fowler, and now appears to be neutral. I don't see any good reason for it to be deleted. If Pakistan Zindabad has a place in Wikipedia, then so does Pakistan Murdabad. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 05:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as trivial WP:SYNTH, still per my argumentation at the first AfD [2]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: agree with Joyson, no good reason for deletion. This artcile can exists along with Pakistan Zindabad --sarvajna (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete this article it is not notable and synthesis of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.214.21 (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC) This IP has been blocked as a sock of Highstakes00 Darkness Shines (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article in its current form is neutral, with good references and has historic notability. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 15:54, July 21, 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This is a reluctant "keep," but much pondered one. The article was originally just a listing of various routine, unthinking, examples of the slogan's use, especially in India by its legion of political demonstrators who will chant anything for a little tea money. In that form it was not only not notable, but also likely an attack page. (Soon to complete my sixth year on Wikipedia, I'm amazed at how much Indian editors still, especially the newer ones, like to take a dig at Pakistan. And, yes the Indians do it much more than the Pakistanis do vice-versa.) Given all this, I was about to routinely vote "delete," when my eye caught the name "Tara Singh Malhotra," which I had never seen before. Perplexed that such a well-known slogan was first raised by someone so unknown, I clicked on the link only to discover that it was really Master Tara Singh, the famous Sikh leader and representative of the Sikh community in the partition talks. I then went through the sources and I have now completely rewritten the article. I can't say that the article is entirely free of synthesis, but there are enough well-known historians attesting to the meanings of the phrase that I feel a page is warranted. It might take more time to flesh it out properly (and for this reason I've left the lengthy quotes in for now), but I strongly feel that there is enough scholarly material already there to fly in the face of a deletion. The scholarly sources overwhelming attest to mainly one meaning: that of a slogan which along with other provocations set off a major cycle of violence during the Partition of India. Consequently, that is the only interpretation which is encyclopedic. All other events of its use, be they demonstrations in India or in Balochistan or in Kashmir, do not make the slogan a notable stand-alone topic. If I find various people inserting newspaper titbits about the slogan's contemporary use, I will not only be removing them, but if they persist, will personally nominate it here again for deletion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll also like to note that this article in it's current form is a quote farm which is another reason to delete it. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. The article, as written, would make a nice section in an article titled Sikhs and the partition of India but has little to do with the phrase itself. The entire article can be succinctly expressed by the single sentence "Pakistan Murdabad was an anti-Pakistan slogan used by the Sikhs at the time of the partition of India". --regentspark (comment) 11:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree (something I very rarely do with the cogent arguments of RegentsPark). It wasn't just an anti-Pakistani slogan, but the slogan which sparked off major waves of ethnic rioting and killing in 1947. The quotes of Stanley Wolpert and Penderel Moon make that amply clear. The quotes of partition expert Ian Talbot says that even more clearly. An article about a phrase, especially one made notable in a specific historical or political context, does not have to be about the phrase only (i.e. a linguistic analysis of the phrase). Examples abound: Read my lips: No new taxes, Just watch me, Jai Jawan Jai Kisan, Garibi Hatao, India Shining, The lady's not for turning, etc. The reliable sources (and there are many) regard it as notable, not just another routine feature of the violence that accompanied the partition. In that regard, the phrase is much more notable than "Pakistan Zindabad," for which you will be hard pressed to find any reliable sources, especially historical ones, attesting to anything more than perfunctory use. (I have just taken a look at that page, and I shall shortly run my red pen through that too.) I want to make it clear again that I haven't paraphrased this page properly yet, because I want the evidence to be easily available. Many sources (Wolpert, Anita Inder Singh, Talbot) are not available on Google books (at least not in anything more than a snippet view). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler, I agree that your sources show that the phrase was used by Sikhs during the partition riots, but the reality is that it was not central to the riots. Your text is about the Sikhs, partition, and partition violence rather than about the slogan. At best, this would be a one sentence addition to an article on the Sikhs and Partition ("Sikh leader Master Tara Singh used the slogan "Pakistan Murdabad" to rally Sikhs behind the cause of an independent Sikh nation and the slogan was chanted by Sikhs rioting against muslims" or something like that), and, perhaps, a one sentencer about how the slogan was an anti-Pakistan slogan raised during the time of India's partition (in Anti-Pakistan sentiments. The rest has nothing to do with the slogan itself. By writing this as an independent article you're raising the slogan to a level of independent existence which it simply does not have. "Read my lips" is a very different thing since it is well ensconced in popular culture as are the other examples that you give. Pakistan Murdabad just doesn't have the same presence (the anti-Pakistani phrase of choice used in India today is quite different). I have no comment on Pakistan Zindabad (which should probably go as well, but that's another story). --regentspark (comment) 15:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see this. Well, we may have to agree to disagree. While I wouldn't say that the slogan was central to the partition riots in the Punjab, I believe it was an important feature of the riots. See the Time Magazine article from March 1947 titled "Foreign Notes: Zindabad & Murdabad." The article specifically speaks to the Sikhs not accepting the founding slogan of Pakistan and countering it with ones of their own. I don't know what is the current anti-Pakistan slogan in India, but why does a slogan have to be current? It can be a historical (and historically notable) slogan, and indeed the lead begins with " ... was an incendiary Hindi-Urdu slogan ...." I have now added a short etymology section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is is gradually achieving the shape of a good encyclopedia entry, thanks to Fowler. Yes, it has loads of quotes, but that's just the beginning. The slogan itself has great historical significance, as does "Pakistan Zindabad" (which has both historical and current significance). --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is somewhat better and more neutral now. TheStrikeΣagle 16:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete this is clearly a attack on a nation's pride and his feelings it should be flush away from wikipedia because this article will allow other users to write this kind of rubbish articles against other nations of the world... and if Pakistan Murdabad has a place on Wikipedia then so does Hindustan Murdabad... anti-India slogans were used by sikh during KHALISTAN TEHREEK (Khalistan Zindabad Hindustan Murdabad), & anti-India slogans used in Kashmir, in Gujrat and on many other occasions like (India Murdabad, and many of them was very dirty slogans sprayed on all the 13 bogies of Samjhauta Express... this is just for ex. like this there are hundreds of slogans against other countries as well... all i want to say this kind of articles have absolutely no encyclopedic value even against any country of this world... all you can gain through this kind of beastly articles is nothing but hate for urself and for this site... Peace out...  Tariq.Imran  ^Talk 17:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would great appreciate if you can control your sentiments. You are most free to create any one of the above articles if you feel that they meet the inclusion criteria. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reply is heated, as for the obviously contentious topic, but I don't think you got his point. He has essentially backed up my point about battle ground editing. Even if we put that aside for a moment so as not to get into an argument, he's right that creating such articles will result in counter parts being created while none of them (including this are really notable independently). The all belong to anti cultural sentiment articles. The article has apparently no benefits and alot of reasons to incite disruption, that's a fairly big concern for the article's existence. I'll also note that the closer should consider the valid arguments from the previous AFD which was closed due to the contentious debate in closing statement. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article in current is not worthy to keep. The content revolves around the partition events relating to pre-partition days in Punjab Province (British India) instead of the actual subject (slogan). Content from multiple sources is put in a way that amounts to synthesis. Besides most of the sources just give a passing mention of slogan, so it also fails WP:GNG. Any useful content can be added to Anti-Pakistan sentiment. --SMS ^Talk 09:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, you are neither correct nor consistent. Stanley Wolpert says very clearly, "Master Tara Singh who set Punjab ablaze with his cry of 'Pakistan Murdabad!'" Partition expert Ian Talbot says that this episode is conventionally thought to have set off the carnage of the next four months. The Time magazine article, after all, is titled, "Foreign News: Zindabad & Murdabad." That is not passing mention. You are not being consistent because you have voted "keep" for a pathetically sourced sickly article "Pakistan Zindabad." The sources here are impeccable. I'm afraid Pakistani editors, who apparently regard this slogan as an insult to their national ethos, have to stop being so touchy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Suppressing my views about the editor by ignoring ad hominem comment above) Wolpert is actually talking about the pre-partition events and while doing that mentions what you quoted above, the subject of the para quoted in the article is not the slogan. Ian never mentions about the slogan (as far as the quoted text in article is concerned). Lastly about the Time magazine article quote, it again talks mainly about the riots. --SMS ^Talk 11:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a slogan that set off (i.e. was the catalyst for) the worst violence in modern South Asian history. Well, let's see ... (italics mine)

• Stanley Wolpert says, "ignited the powder keg of repressed violence that set the Punjab ablaze with his cry of "Pakistan Murdabad" ("Death to Pakistan")
• Penderel Moon say, "The Sikh leader, Master Tara Singh, raised the slogan 'Pakistan Murdabad"¹ and brandishing a sword shouted 'Raj Karega Khalsa'. This foolhardy bravado brought at once its own nemesis. It touched off violent communal rioting throughout the province in which Hindus and Sikhs were far the worst sufferers. The first outbreak took place in Lahore on March 4th immediately after Master Tara Singh's ill-timed vauntings.
• Ian Talbot says, "This action is conventionally regarded as the catalyst for the violent demonstrations and riots that engulfed the Punjab.
• Lawrence James says, "The Sikhs rejected Muslim domination and answered Jinnah's newly-coined slogan Pakistan Zindabad! (Long Live Pakistan) with Pakistan Murdabad! (Death to Pakistan). By late spring, the Punjab was wracked by massacres, counter-massacres, looting and arson.
• Eric Pullin says, "Meanwhile, having boxed himself in politically, Tara Singh resorted to demagoguery. On March 11, he sought to mobilize Sikhs to "fight" for a homeland of "pure Sikhs" with the blood-chilling cry "Pakistan Murdabad" ("death to Pakistan"). In March, Muslim gangs turned Tara Singh's words against him and massacred thousands of Sikhs in the Rawalpindi region.
• The Time magazine article, "Foreign News: Zindabad & Murdabad" says, "The bearded, sword-carrying Sikhs sided with the Hindus, eventually exceeded them in uncompromising denunciation of the Moslem cry for Pakistan (a separate Moslem state). ... The issue was purely and simply Pakistan. The Moslems shouted "Pakistan Zindabad!" (Up with Pakistan!). The Hindus and Sikhs answered back: "Pakistan Murdabad!" (Death to Pakistan!). Then the knives began to flash."
• If you're going to disingenuously nitpick here (suggesting that the sources casually mention the phrase as a part of the larger topic of the partition) and at the same time condone the state of the sickly article, Pakistan Zindabad, where not a single source is problem-free, then something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  And I say it again after reading the above smokescreen copied from the article (that everyone reads before commenting here) that most of the sources give a passing mention of the slogan and mainly talk about the riots and pre-partition events in Punjab. Besides please read WP:ADHOM and WP:OTHERSTUFF. --SMS ^Talk 12:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mention? The source Civil Wars of the World, published by ABC-CLIO, and read widely in American colleges, even has the phrase in its glossary, see here. It says "Pakistan Murdabad: Death to Pakistan, a phrase used by Master Tara Singh and his followers." All the other terms in the glossary, by the way, already have Wikipedia pages: Azad Kashmir, goonda, gurudwara, hartal, jatha, Khalistan ... Significantly, it does not have "Pakistan Zindabad," which as I have already indicated is historically not as notable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't know inclusion in glossary of such a widely read book means that the term is thoroughly discussed in the source and is eligible for inclusion as an article in Wikipedia, that is something new to me. Probably it will be helpful if you mention the same argument for deletion of Pakistan Zindabad at its AfD. --SMS ^Talk 13:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your transparent sarcasm seems to be flying in the face of all the holier-than-thou Wikilawering you were engaging in upstairs. The glossary quote was meant to indicate that in that source it was not just a passing mention, which you were keen to establish earlier, (but have now quickly forgotten, flitting conveniently to some other off-topic objection), but a notable term that they expect people to know about. You can keep droning on here, but this will be my last reply to you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is improved and well sourced now. A definite Keep. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improved? It's a quote farm now! --lTopGunl (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have left the quotes in, as I've already indicated, so that facilely and vacuously opposing editors, such as you, don't keep asking me to supply the sources. Do you seriously think I can't paraphrase the relevant parts of those quotes? Be warned that gratuitous grandstanding here will only redouble my resolve to see this article through. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the comments to edits instead of you accusing editors for wikilawyering and in my case "opposing?" Respond to valid comments on their own merits instead. The article does not nearly look like one from an encyclopedia. Whether or not the merits of this article suggest a "keep" (which I quite oppose that they do), the article was created on battle ground editing and this will only add fuel to the fire. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it will add fuel to the fire, is not my problem. I am working on an article about a term that is historically notable, and a wide variety of sources, from among the best known historians and writers of South Asia, attest to that notability. You know, now, why the quotes have been temporarily left in, so stop repeatedly adding the garbage about "quotes farm." It is the second time you've mentioned it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'm not a part of the usual India-Pakistan sniping on Wikipedia. In case you don't know, I remain the biggest contributor to the History of Pakistan page. My version of that history (see here, for example) was gradually replaced by a history that emphasizes post partition developments (under pressure from POV warriors from India who couldn't countenance Pakistan going back any more than 1940 (Lahore resolution of the League)). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PPS And under pressure from some POV warriors from Pakistan too who couldn't countenance the history of Pakistan going back any further than Mohammad bin Qasim! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wiki dr mahmad was the largest contributor per my checks, staying clear off from the "credits".. whoever was the contributor, I don't think that's relevant. You don't have to justify your credentials as editors do not become reliable sources if they are regulars, your comments can talk for themselves. As for the content comment, I agree to disagree, I don't think the notability is justified by (as SMS puts it) synthesis. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if we agree to disagree then stop droning on repetitively about the "quotes farm" when you know why it is there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was for the other editor who possibly missed it. Meant to engage him in that discussion, not you. Your opinion is abundantly clear. I guess now his replies will already be addressed when/if he reads this. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should have also responded earlier to your "resolve" being in proportion with to the opposition you receive here, see WP:WIN. Take a break and think it out, there's no need to get offended by comments on the content you added. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2012 (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.