Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights in South Tibet and Tawang, as well as human rights of Tibetan people in India


 * 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   Delete.  Gazi moff  09:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Human rights in South Tibet and Tawang, as well as human rights of Tibetan people in India
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has existed for 10 days and still has only one sentence of actual content, viz: In South Tibet, In Ladakh, India, instruction is in Urdu, with a high dropout rate from Tibetans, but India is never accused of cultural genocide against Tibetans." This sentence is plagiarised from the source provided. There seems to be very little chance that this article will develop into a useful discussion of human rights in one or more areas. Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 16:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This sentence and the title has been changed. Please read the page and the talk page first. --虞海 (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * keep,malicious deleting.Someone just want to cover the historic genocide.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 07:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can you show us any relaible sources that state that a genoicide is taking place or has taken place in the areas under question? Thanks--Deepak D'Souza 17:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   —Voidvector (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   —Voidvector (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The tone of the article is all wrong. 1st sentence "In this section, we'll mainly talk about cultural genocide in these place", makes me laugh. --Voidvector (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. as per Voidvector. Tone of the article is like that of 'lecture notes' :) --GDibyendu (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The existing content is no good, and I don't see this title working. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: as per WP:NONSENSE and WP:SOAPBOX --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 17:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note. I've get many information from my South Tibet friend. I didn't write anything because he didn't give me references. Later, I'll have him help me to write something. He wants to do so, too. But he dosen't know this place, right now. --虞海 (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deepak D'Souza: it's not WP:NONSENSE because it's still a in-writing stub. Feel free to edit it. Also, it does not fit the definition of WP:NONSENSE. --虞海 (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Show another article which starts with "In this section, we'll mainly talk about"
 * Show another article which uses "as well as" in the title
 * Show proof of Human Rights violation against Tibetans in India. --GDibyendu (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For the 3rd, it's in Article-[1] in HR in ... (also, I'm finding more); for the 2nd one, it's needless; for the 1st one, it's inessential. --虞海 (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note. I'm not afraid if it's deleted. I'm afraid if it's deleted and when I get enough information and rewrite it people delete it directly. --虞海 (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The obvious "lol" factor would be allegations of India discriminating against tibetans in Ladakh. Apart from the fact that it is unsourced, not all Buddhists in India are Tibetan, that missionairy religions are generally at fault against Buddhism in Arunachal not the government and so many things but mostly its unsourced and hoaxish.Pectoretalk 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is sourced since the day I started this article, also what's lol? I saw many symbol like this in the Internet but still now I don't get its mean. Use English, please? Where's "mostly its unsourced and hoaxish"? --虞海 (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure I know not all Buddhists in India are Tibetan Buddhists, but this article is talk about Tibetan people or "Arunachal Pradesh or South Tibet and Tawang" people. --虞海 (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - It is clear that this article is written in a slanted viewpoint. The national language of J&K state is Urdu because Tibetians don't form a majority of the population of the state. However, Tibetians are allowed to use their native language if they are comfortable with it. There's no restriction imposed on using a language in India, although it isn't the official language. And even so, does this qualify to be classified as "cultural genocide"? Cultural genocide is a term used to describe the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation! Moreover, the article's only reference is one sentence from a whole article, and nothing else. And on what basis does the editor write "we'll mainly talk about cultural genocide in these place, not normal human rights, since this is the most serious one in these places". Original research? I mean, come on, this article looks more like a joke to me who's started by somebody who's against India. I laughed when I saw: Ancient times: "Since it's too ancient, there's not enough information". Moreover the heading "Arunachal Pradesh under Indian occupation" seems to talk about Ladakh, which is in Kashmir and not Arunachal. If the author thinks he can find proper citations to create a full article, he should just write it once and for all (at least to an appropriate level), and not leave it in bits and pieces for weeks while sourcing information. I suggest the user start a sandbox for this and only create the article once it's proper. Till then I suggest we delete this nonsense. S3000  ☎  07:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Most of this I've writen in talk page. There I stated why it's not an anti-India article.
 * Others:
 * "seems to talk about Ladakh, which is in Kashmir and not Arunachal": it's because the title of this article is "Human rights in Arunachal Pradesh or South Tibet and Tawang, as well as human rights of Tibetan people in India" and this is under the title "Other's situation". --虞海 (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because you just changed it. S3000  ☎  07:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you can see the history of the article: it's before you write this vote. --虞海 (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note The article has been improved, please read it before vote it. --虞海 (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, you are editing others responses and deleting or striking out words in this debate. That's surely not a civil thing to do. --GDibyendu (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete, I striked out. I saw other Wikipedian do it. --虞海 (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It still comes under "Arunachal Pradesh under Indian occupation", which is not related! S3000  ☎  08:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please refer it. Since I didn't see it. --虞海 (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And please do not strike out my messages. It's not civil. I look forward to you undoing those edits. S3000  ☎  08:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why it's not civil? It's a talk page not an article. I saw many strike-line in Wikipedia! Everyone can express their opinion here. --虞海 (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Striking out one's own words is common. Striking someone else's is refactoring and is not acceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It didn't says refactoring is banned or not civil, for doing it does NOT change other's opinion. --虞海 (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Unsourced biased nonsense, now tagged as such. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2008 (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.