Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian century


 * 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. v/r - TP 21:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Indian century

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non notable neologism and not enough sources discussing the subject. Most of it is speculation, which also makes this a crystal concept and a definition of WP:FRINGE. There is nothing in this article that cannot be covered at the list of Potential superpowers article.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 04:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Potential superpowers which has considerably more info on India as a potential superpower than this article does. The subject overlaps with other articles, and therefore doesn't need a stand-alone article.  The phrase "Indian century" is not nearly as common as "Chinese century" or "American century" but there are some legitimate uses of the phrase which suggest the topic wouldn't be totally un-notable if it wasn't covered elsewhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Asian Century. Keep A search in Google books returns many references of the term 1, 2,3, 4 -- Anbu121  ( talk me ) 20:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The first three sources mention the term only once and have nothing else meaningful related to it's usage. WP:GOOGLE is not a valid argument, especially since I have already done a search and the results are close to nothing (the ones you listed above which give only a passing mention are in fact the main ones that show up). As I've said, there is nothing here that cannot be discussed on the Potential superpowers article. Also, your fourth link is from the Gyan Publishing House, which is WP:SPS, notorious for plagiarism and has been declared non WP:RS per WP:MF and WP:RSN.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 06:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources found by Anbu121, more than enough sources for a standalone article. Facts, not fiction (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources are useless, while the last one (Gyan Publishing House) is junk per community consensus at WP:RSN and WP:MF.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 06:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cambridge University Press. Palgrave Macmillan.] Wiley Rowman & Littlefield. Anthem Press. Taylor & Francis. These are academic sources, hardly "useless" Facts, not fiction (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And it is hardly surprising that your sources surpass the uselessness of the previous ones. Not one of those have anything insightful about the term or its usage and one is just an index page. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm having a tough time believing that this was not just a random copy-paste of whatever you could find on the web containing these two words.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 06:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – The term/neologism appears to have enough usage to warrant a Wikipedia article. Examples include:, ,, , , , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 03:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The first few sources you quote, I have already discussed above. As with the others, they have the same problem - only trivial, passing coverage. Nothing special enough to warrant an article on this WP:NEO.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 08:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Several academic papers cite India as Emerging Superpower, which is synonymous with the term Indian Century. Maybe the problem is in this article its title. Hallel (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ..which is synonymous with the term Indian Century is a WP:SYNTHESIS argument. Those sources would actually be useful on the other article. This article, in its current form, should be deleted as it serves no purpose.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 23:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If being called an emerging superpower makes it your century, you'd better start calling it the Brazilian Century, then. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely! Using the precedent laid here, the last thing we need is whole heap of other fork articles proclaiming this a century of this and that. What a mess! See my AfD statement, this is a textbook definition of WP:CRYSTAL and I have thus far failed to be enlightened by arguments of those from the keep camp.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 06:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete/Redirect to Asian Century unless a body of more focused sources can be found. Whatever sources mention it do so in passing. It is notable perhaps enough for a paragraph on Asian Century, but not enough for a standalone article. CMD (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - arguments calling for its retention appear to be largely based on WP:SYNTH arguments and passing mentions. WP:NEO without sufficiently citable sources to make an article worthy of inclusion. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SYNTH, WP:NEO and non notable anyway. -- lTopGunl (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If in is not notable then why so many academic sources which mention it? Facts, not fiction (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2012 (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.