Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India bashing


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

India bashing
I suspect substantially similar articles could be written about any country or organization (e.g. U.S.-bashing, Thailand-bashing, U.N.-bashing, Boy Scouts-bashing, Baby-bashing etc.) As it stands, the article lacks sources and seems un-encyclopedic ("...is a favorite pastime of naysayers, and doomsday predictors"). It's an interesting subject, but the writeup could be much better. Anirvan 02:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Someones POV essay. --Ezeu 02:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I think its more than just a POV its a phenomenon, like say thats not been talked about much under one-title. BTW its a wiki, so if you think its un-encyclo' then gohead and show your Harvard-Eton skills. ;-) If you have time delete it as well, frankly I dont care.--பராசக்தி 02:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nonencyclopedic, factless, i.e., only commonalities. If replace "India" by "Pakistan", one will get equally good Pakistan basihing artciel.
 * We do have a whole category:Anti-national sentiment, but may Allah forgive the creator of this article. Mukadderat 02:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Per WP:DEL, that an article is POV or needs a lot of improvement is not reason enough to delete it. That being said, this article doesn't seem to contain any salvageable content. --Chaser (T, C, e) 03:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT a soapbox.--Jersey Devil 03:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is an ad hoc afd material.Bharatveer 04:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is really devoid of content describing the significance or encyclopedic interest, and looks almost template like, i.e. one could easily substitute any other country for India here and have pretty much the same thing. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. While Google quickly confirms that this term is used by editorialists for e.g. The Times of India, I see little chance that an article on a controversial topic which hopelessly violates WP:NPOV in its initial version will have much chance of being neutralized into a useful article. ---CH 07:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopedic +Hexagon1 (talk) [[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|30px]] 08:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - Nick C 09:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a POV rant. J I P  | Talk 09:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, albeit with a rename. If we have Anti-Americanism, we should have this, though to keeps things consistent it would be good to turn it into a redirect to Anti-Indianism.  The content needs work, but the topic itself is not inherently unencyclopedic.  There are 200-ish countries in the world, and Wikipedia, not being paper, is big enough to accomodate one article per country on external criticism of that country.  Vizjim 10:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete strong POV and very unencyclopedic --Girish 15:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Essay. Indians seem to post more than their shareof nationalistic rants on Wikipedia. Hawkestone 15:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * DELETE as per Girish; Hawkestone. -HubHikari 15:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork and truly unencyclopedic. --Ter e nce Ong 04:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation. May be an interesting topic, but current prose is useless. Andjam 12:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unencyclopedic. --Ragib 06:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic and full or OR, POV.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 07:43, 22 May 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.

Ok guys gohead & delete it. Im nomore editing politics its just being a waste of my time.--பராசக்தி 07:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)