Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hindu


 * 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 Lots of Keeps - This article is going to be kept anyway, there is no need to sit here examining each others' motives. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu
This article is based on a fictitious term Anti Hindu and its authors have tried to invent a term creating a parallel to Anti-Semitism - pls. note the (ism) ,Holocaust and possibly Islamophobia which are the terms with a lot of academic debate.An article by this name should be suitable for wiktionary being an adjective and not a noun.The issues discussed in this article could possibly be transferred to another article Persecution of Hindus, if they have not already been discussed there.An article like this is merely repetitive and maliciously put in to highlight a particular point of view Hindutva - the right wing Hindu religio- Xenophobe movement in India and increasingly abroad and should not be allowed a second to sit on the academic space of Wikipedia. TerryJ-Ho 00:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Note, The article lacks Reliable sources and these need to be clicked to verify their nature and if what they say is actually what has been referenced - removed on verifying the sources I am not saying the article lacks source but the article itself is denoting an adjective that is why it is used to qualify Prejudice (Anti-Hindu prejudice)in the very first sentence of the article.The term Anti-Hindu is therefore incapable of carrying the whole weight of the article.Do a dictionary search for Islamophobia,Anti SemitismAnti Hindu,You will find that both the former exist but not Anti-Hindu.I am equally against the terms Anti-Muslim being elevated to denote a movement or philosophy - which is the reason the term - fear of Muslims or Islamophobia is used to denote that state of mind or philosophy - similar is the case with Anti-Semitism.Anti-Jew does not denote a widespread philiosophy of hate towards Jews while Anti-Semitism does.The absence of a term denoting the fear of Hindus or hate of Hindus could be an indication that such a philosophy has not gained a wider ground even though in individual cases there would be definitely be people who are Anti-Hindus, in the similar way that there will be people who are Anti Buddhists,Christians or Muslims.The term Anti-Hindu does not exist in academic discourse the way it has been portrayed in this article and hence does not deserve to be used as a head for an article that discusses systematic prejudice against Hindus.TerryJ-Ho 03:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

''* Note on Note


 * The reason why this article is put for deletion is the fact that the term Anti-Hindu falls under the ambit of '''Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (along with some topics that would typically be found in an almanac).Hence, articles should consist of encyclopedic information about "notable" subjects.

Attacks on members of the Hindu minority
 * [Any article that simply defines a word, or short phrase, as you would find in a typical dictionary, and that can't be expanded into an encyclopedic entry, should be contributed to the Wiktionary sister project]' from Wikipedia's policies 
 * The Non-notability of this article or rather the term can be gathered from the fact that the definition of Anti Hindu does not come from any sources but is an invented one.Compare this to Islamophobia or Anti-Semitism who discuss the semantics and origins of the term in the very first paragraph.
 * IMHO - the terms Anti-Muslim,Anti-Christian,Anti-Jew and Anti-Hindu should all point to Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia whereas the academic terms Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia along with wider articles on Systematic bias against religions should exist on Wikipedia.
 * There is of course a large element of bias in this article as the concept is built upon Hindu Action Forum sources while the some examples are indeed built upon news sources but do they discuss the concept of Anti-Hindu or Anti-Hinduism or Anti-Hinduness?? Many of the articles from independent sources discuss persecution of Hindus and not biases against Hindus including the one from US State Department and Amnesty International's BANGLADESH


 * Scholarly use of the term anti-Hindu is here at the Infinity Foundation in Princeton:


 * http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/s_es/s_es_rosse_puzzle.htm

Hkelkar 15:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Rest of the article : The reason why this article is put for deletion is the fact that the term Anti-Hindu falls under the ambit of '''Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (along with some topics that would typically be found in an almanac).Hence, articles should consist of encyclopedic information about "notable" subjects.
 * Attutudes of bigotry against Hindus is a notable subject. I believe that trying to delete this article is a bad faith nom by this user in order to promulgate the "religio-Xenophobic" Islamist bias.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that the article has been around for months.Why, all of a sudden, this AfD?Particularly after TerryJ-Ho and his Muslim Guild buddies lost a mediation dispute regarding anti-Hindu prejudices of Tipu Sultan??Not a coincidence and a bad faith nom.Hkelkar 23:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * [Any article that simply defines a word, or short phrase, as you would find in a typical dictionary, and that can't be expanded into an encyclopedic entry, should be contributed to the Wiktionary sister project]' from Wikipedia's policies 
 * There could of course be an article on Systematic Prejudice against Hindu religion like any other religion.
 * This is it.But it's more than bias. It's a polemical hatred expressed in hoax books like Haqeeqat (protocols of Zion for Hindus) and others.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Non-notability of this article or rather the term can be gathered from the fact that the definition of Anti Hindu does not come from any sources but is an invented one.Compare this to Islamophobia or Anti-Semitism who discuss the semantics and origins of the term in the very first paragraph.
 * See links below for the notability of the term.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * IMHO - the terms Anti-Muslim,Anti-Christian,Anti-Jew and Anti-Hindu should all point to Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia whereas the academic terms Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia along with wider articles on Systematic bias against religions should exist on Wikipedia.
 * Well they don't, neither should this.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Attacks on members of the Hindu minority
 * There is of course a large element of bias in this article as the concept is built upon Hindu Action Forum sources while the some examples are indeed built upon news sources but do they discuss the concept of Anti-Hindu or Anti-Hinduism or Anti-Hinduness?? Many of the articles from independent sources discuss persecution of Hindus and not biases against Hindus including the one from US State Department and Amnesty International's BANGLADESH
 * They do discuss anti-Hindu views in addition to the persecution of Hindus.The refs discuss prejudices against Hindus that lead to persecution.The former is used as reference material.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Rest of the debate

 * Above is an expression of hypocrisy as TerryJ-Ho himself uses the term "anti-Muslim" rather liberally on wikipedia. See this edit summary.Hkelkar 03:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I challenge you to find more of such usage in my edits TerryJ-Ho 03:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Kelkar above is a serious charge you have put against me and shows the extent to which you resort to lies.Take my challenge..My usage of Anti-Muslim is as a qualifier in that link not as a philiosophy.TerryJ-Ho 04:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * About the rather laughable claim by TerryJ-Ho about "lacking reliable sources", go ahead, click the links and check for yourself.They are sourced just fine thank you. More bad faith assumptions from this user.Hkelkar 06:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah! You seem to get edgy when you get caught in an inconsistency. At least I will give you credit for trying to wiggle your way out of it with technicalities ^_^ .Hkelkar 04:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Or rather, you think your comments on this fora make you immune to the consequences of these charges TerryJ-Ho 06:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The term "anti-Hindu" used to denote views against Hindus exists in literature per this Anti-Hindu at Google Book Search
 * Plus, the term is qualified as an impersonal adjective, denoting views and comments rather than people.Hkelkar 03:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In your above link anti-Hindu movement,anti-Hindu animus,anti-Hindu propaganda,Indian Constitution is anti-Hindu,anti-Hindu attitudes,anti-Hindu feelings,anti-Hindu bias,anti-Hindu laws,propaganda word is not pro-Muslim, but anti-Hindu,anti-Hindu cast,anti-Hindu Zamindar all are qualifying words not Nouns themselves TerryJ-Ho 03:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that anti-semitism was originally used as an adjective only (Antisemitische Vorurtiele by Moritz Steinscneider). That was a "qualifier" too.Antisemitische==>antisemiticHkelkar 03:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is why a certain political current in India - playing on victimisation is trying to invent a word like this TerryJ-Ho 04:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is the very definition of WP:OR. Plus, are you implying that Jews invented anti-semitism to "play on victimisation" too???Sieg Heil Mein Fuherer!Hkelkar 04:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, they did not.Anti-Semitism came to be accepted on account of its own weight and the whole world witnessed it TerryJ-Ho 04:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And the whole world witnesses anti-Hindu bigotry, such as the US Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and others.Only anti-Hindus don;t witness it because they're the ones doing it:)Hkelkar 04:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an WP:OR your's Kelkar .Ain't?
 * Nope, look at the sources for anti-Hindu and the recognition by the Simon Wiesenthal Center.Hkelkar 04:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it only says what SWC says gives no source attesting what it says.On clicking the sources 7 link to Hindu America Foundation, 2 link to Indiacause.com, 2 link to Geocities, 1 to Tributeto Hinduism, 1 to Let India Develop
 * Please articulate your argument better.It makes absolutely no sense to me right now.All the HAF links are qualified as HAF links.HAF is an advocacy group like the Anti-Defamation League, which is allowed as a reliable source to explain their viewpoint (primary source) and to cite their activities etc. HAF is a notable and recognized group. Their partisanship may be a matter of debate, but they are reliable. Similarly, IndiaCause would not lie about the topics discussed as then they'd invite libel lawsuit. Thus, the facts are reliable.
 * The only worthwhile sources used are :1 educational on Wendy episode - scholarly interpretation whose comments on Hinduism were in academic perspective,few articles from rediff.com - editorial in nature.US State Department links mention the presecution of minorities in South Asian countries and are already covered in the Persecution of Hindus page.In short this is an interesting presentation of factoids and individual incidences.This page needs to go.Those who say the sources are fine and article is balanced need not look at the face value of the article - check the individual links.Most if not all are dubious TerryJ-Ho 06:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right. US Congress is dubious? What a sick joke. Plus, the HAF report is backed by Simon Weisenthal Center and acknowledged in the Washington times so it is backed up by reliable third parties and can be sourced just like ADL articles are sourced in anti-semitism article.All my sources satisfy WP:RS. Looks like Terry is getting increasingly more desperate from being voted down so unanimously.Hkelkar 06:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Martinp23/Desk AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/September 2006/Hkelkar .Hkelkar 00:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong and Speedy Keep:Bad faith move by TerryJ-Ho for a well-sourced article.Hkelkar 00:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Expanding above position:Not a single statement in the article is unsourced. Per precedent in anti-semitism,anti-Christian and anti-Muslim the article chronicles historical and modern anti-Hindu views and attitudes.This is a bad faith attempt by the user TerryJ-Ho to promulgate a bias that is rapidly becoming very burdensome for many wikipedia users.He has lost out to a mediation involving anti-Hindu attitudes held by another historical figure Tipu Sultan and I believe that he is merely venting frustration at this article here. Administrators please investigate this matter.Links to the mediation dispute is here:
 * Delete - Agreed with TerryJ-Ho. This information would all be appropriate in Persecution of Hindus. BhaiSaab talk 00:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:BhaiSaab was also part of the mediation which emerged in my favor and I question his motives here as well.Hkelkar 00:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hkelkar is a likely sockpuppet and I question his motives here as well. BhaiSaab talk 00:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The argument for moving anti-Hindu to Persecution of Hindus has been refuted in the talk page as the two articles discuss different topics (attitude vs action). Plus, below is a representatiom of reliable sources used in the article:

http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0412/features/index-print.shtml http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pat_quotes/hindus.htm http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71443.htm http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engASA130062001!Open http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2310359.stm

All of them are notable and describe anti-Hindu views and attitudes.Hkelkar 01:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Upgrading to Speedy Keep - The article is well written and well sourced. If this is deleted, we may as well AFD Anti-Semitism, Anti-Christian, and Anti-Muslim for the same "reasons". Torinir ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 01:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Apart from Anti-Semitism, the other two terms are not commonly used apart as an adjective and could possibly be removed. anti Muslim points to Islamophobia rather and is a commonly discussed term at the time.I have never come across a term Anti-Hindu used as a phenomenon TerryJ-Ho 01:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at the sources in the article that frequently mention the term.Islamophobia is a neologism.Hkelkar 01:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If we are discussing Anti-Hindu, why not discuss Pro-Hindu as a phenomenon and all the Pros and Anti's possible.Say for example Pro-Communism, Anti-Communism. These are not ideologies but point of views and any person in the world will always have one or the other attitude or none at all TerryJ-Ho 01:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Immaterial to the issue at hand. We are talking about anti-Hindu views and prejudices here.Hkelkar 01:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources that use "anti-Hindu" are referring to specific incidents, not a phenomenon. BhaiSaab talk 01:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Bigotry against Hindus are definitely a systemic phenomenon in many countries per the US congress report itself.Hkelkar 01:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Another point of note: Anti-religious activities are not reserved for one religion or another, even though it's more visible in the Jewish community. Systematic discrimination of others over their religious views will happen regardless of who is discriminating against whom. This is a significant part of religious fanaticism and it's been happening for centuries, and it still continues today to a lesser degree. Torinir ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 01:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Frankly I do not know how to react to this AfD. Personally I am so utterly disgusted I could retch. TerryJ-HO is deliberately conflating the issue of Hindu Nationalism with the hate and bigotry against millions of Hindus who have nothing to do with any goddamn nationalist movement.Many anti-semites also conflate the issue of anti-semitism with the issue of minority Jewish Fundamentalism, does that mean antisemitism should also be put up for AfD?This is utterly disgusting!Hkelkar 01:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well you've already reacted by soliciting six votes. BhaiSaab talk 01:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No different than what TerryJ-Ho has been doing.Plus, informing users is no crime.I do not know user:Torinir and have never met him before.Hkelkar 01:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One can expect you not to call the Hindu Nationalists as goddam on your after these edits but anyhow let us remain within the realm of discussion rather than out of it.TerryJ-Ho
 * Yes, the pettiness of this AfD is becoming eminently clear after the views of User:Martinp23 in the Tipu Sultan debate here addressed to my side of that debate.Hkelkar 02:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are bent on discussing issues that have no relevance here note that Martinp23 wrote these comments as your advocate and not as a judge.I would appreciate if you continued to comment on the article at hand and not the editors.TerryJ-Ho 02:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To use your own words:"They all are relevent as they put into perspective TerryJ-Ho's position" from here as anon ip 82.44.188.125.Hkelkar 02:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep I sense bad faith here. The topic is quite well documented in the article. It is a fact that some people/organizations treat Hindus with contempt due to their views on Hinduism. That is documented in this article.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 02:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I see nothing wrong in this well-cited, balanced article. --Incman|वार्ता 02:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 *  Speedy Keep  - The reasons cited by User:Terry Jo are not good enough to delete a well-referenced article like this one.-Bharatveer 03:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It is actually a valid term. See Anti-Hindu at Google Book Search. That said the terms use or misuse by Hindutva seems to be significant going by Google Scholar so there should be more mention of that.--T. Anthony 03:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is why I have been careful to avoid potentially partisan sources unless backed by reliable sources.Also bear in mind that anti-Hindus often hide their bigotry behind claims to oppose Hindutva (like the user who filed this AfD), so any claims of "Misuse of anti-Hindu by Hindutvaadis" need to be carefully sourced lest we don't let anti-Hindu prejudices enter the anti-Hindu article itself.This is similar to many haters of other religions who mask their hatred behind opposition to radical sects in the religion (anti-semites who claim opposition to Jewish nationalism, anti-Muslims who claim opposition to terrorism, anti-Christians claim opposition to Christian Fundamentalism etc.).Hkelkar 03:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh sure. That said I'm Catholic, but I'd concede some Catholics have used the term Anti-Catholicism in an improper or overly broad way. As has Anti-Semitism or what have you.--T. Anthony 03:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Read those Google Scholar links again Anti-Hindu never comes across as a philosophy but as an adjective "anti-Hindu movement,anti-Hindu animus,anti-Hindu propaganda,Indian Constitution is anti-Hindu,anti-Hindu attitudes,anti-Hindu feelings,anti-Hindu bias,anti-Hindu laws,propaganda word is not pro-Muslim, but anti-Hindu,anti-Hindu cast,anti-Hindu Zamindar...etc." TerryJ-Ho Nowhere does Anti-Hindu stand on its own.YOur link proves my own point.Thanks TerryJ-Ho 04:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You read all 240 articles at Google Scholar? I think you need something better to do with your time. Besides that I wasn't only going by Google Scholar.--T. Anthony 14:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep I'm amazed how a term that returns so many search results can be called fictious. D e lta Tango | Talk 03:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * All are qualifiers - anti-Hindu movement,anti-Hindu animus,anti-Hindu propaganda,Indian Constitution is anti-Hindu,anti-Hindu attitudes,anti-Hindu feelings,anti-Hindu bias,anti-Hindu laws,propaganda word is not pro-Muslim, but anti-Hindu,anti-Hindu cast,anti-Hindu Zamindar not a Noun TerryJ-Ho 04:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless the term is notable.Hkelkar 04:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I find nothing wrong in this well documented ,well-cited, balanced article. Per precedent in anti-semitism,anti-Christian and anti-Muslim .Le us have no double standards on wikipedia --Shyamsunder 17:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Anti-semitism is an academically accepted term, Anti-Muslim points to Islamophobia and Anti-Christian says in bold Anti-Christian Prejudice while Anti-Hindu is standalone.Or is it like they say in India "do the needful" TerryJ-Ho 04:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On it being kept we can rename it "Anti-Hindu sentiments" if necessary. You want it deleted because it didn't add an extra word?--T. Anthony 04:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this suggestion.Better rename it to anti-Hindu prejudices and redirect anti-Hindu to it (because many articles wikilink anti-Hindu).Hkelkar 04:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep.--nids(&#9794;) 05:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per Shyamsunder and Deepak. I advise the nominator to study the subject a bit more and not speak with prejudice and sarcasm. His comment about "do the needful" breaks WP:POINT. Sorry, I took his comment out of context. I apologize. Rama's arrow  06:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per above. It's a well-written, well-cited article. Ultra-Loser Talk 06:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep A well researched article covering a real problem. — Joshua Johaneman [[Image:Flag_of_New_York.svg|30px|]] 06:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Inline citations, well written, I see no reason to delete.
 * Keep A good article, which could stand to be a bit more NPOV, but definitely not deleted. Elijahmeeks 08:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   -- Mereda 10:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Bryan 10:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Wikipedia has also articles on anti-semitism, anti-muslim sentiment, anti-christian. --Bondego 10:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per comments above. Well-referenced, not necessarily neutral but that is a criteria for revision not deletion. --Antorjal 14:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - bad faith nom by Muslim users.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.  Bakaman Bakatalk  16:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per Bondego. But, it hints at original research(even though references are there), since this is a term not usd by the media or academia. --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count ) 18:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:Use of the term can be found by media/academia here: http://books.google.com/books?q=%22anti-hindu%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0Hkelkar 23:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It brings together collection of unrelated events and classifies them under term coined here. I see very, very disturbing trend to create "anti-everything" articles on Wikipedia. If this gets free I expect to have Anti-Andorraism one day. Pavel Vozenilek 19:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are 1 billion plus Hindus, you are taking this out of context like the Muslim Guild above.Bakaman Bakatalk 19:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Move - "Anti-Hindu" reads as a discriptor. Perhaps Anti-Hindu prejudice should be used, as the analog of Anti-Christian redirects to; or Anti-Hinduism; or another title that is clearly a subject.  I believe that the content is worthy of keeping.  ENeville 21:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep Per all the above. · XP  · 21:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Move per ENeville above. I dont want to say it, but I hadnt heard this phrase before I came on WP, and that makes me suspicious, especially since I hear it on WP all the time now. Be that as it may, I think that prejudice against all faiths deserves an article on WP. So,a move. Hornplease 23:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See book links above for the use of the term in media and academia.Hkelkar 23:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * About hornplease:Look at his edit history to see a pattern...Hkelkar 23:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * err... what pattern? could you be more explicit, please? Could the fact that you have been asked to justify your edits on a few pages have caused you to make that statement? Remember, any edit you make, you should be prepared to defend without losing your temper.
 * I did look at the links, which is why I voted move. The use of the term in the media is largely limited to rightwing groups. I think we have to be very careful about such terms, like extraordinary rendition or islamofascism. That's all Hornplease 23:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * C. C. Yang, K.C. Ho, Kluver, Yang,Glenn J. Ames,William F Fisher,John Leonard etc. are "right wing"? Laughable! False propaganda again.Hkelkar 23:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please be civil. That was a remarkably incivil statement, and a violation of WP:AGF. The names you mention are based on a superficial reading of the results. For example, the Yang, Ho, Kuver and Yang edited book is a collection of essays, in which one by Muthu Selvan uses the term in the context placing the motivation of flame wars on Hindu newsgroups. Note that you could equally well have mentioned Sumit Sarkar, who also uses "anti-Hindu", and is hardly rightwing. The point is not irrelevant that the term is used as a single adjective. Consider the following representative quote from Ashok Kapur "The British India government was acting on anti-Congress, anti-Hindu and

anti-majority rule premises." This hardly suggests that the term is in widespread use. Please note that I do not object to the content of the article, but the name strikes me as something of a neologism. Also, dont lose your shirt. If you have put work into editing the article, and your edits are sourced and NPOV, the work will not be lost. Hornplease 00:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I find the reason for delete funny. I never heard of Jimbo Wales during my life, so does that mean he doesnt exist? Bakaman Bakatalk 00:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didnt vote delete. I merely noted that I was 'suspicious' of the use of a term that I, even after having observed these debates in the real world, had not seen before. That suspicion crystallised on reading the linked results. Please note that I have not disagreed with the content of the article, only, mildly, with the article title. I find it extraordinary that it should provoke such anger. Hornplease 01:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you here. I don't see how it being renamed "Anti-Hindu prejudice" would be worthy of a fight. I'd think renaming Anti-Catholicism to "Anti-Catholic prejudice" would be unnecessary, but not worth fighting over. Only issue is that moving it is a separate issue, this is more of a delete/keep discussion. Although possibly rename could start being an option as it is with categories.--T. Anthony 14:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The article is very well written. There is absolutely no reason why it should be deleted. Syiem 05:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong and obvious keep per most above. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 contribs 00:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.