Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian century (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Please wait another month before renominating. It seems that consensus for deleting the article is still away, and reasons to keep are strong enough. — ΛΧΣ  21™  18:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Indian century
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was nominated some time ago based on concerns of notability. The discussion was closed as no consensus. The article is still in poor form and has the same issues raised in the previous AfD. I propose deleting this as there is nothing here that cannot be discussed at Asian Century.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 03:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Just today two editors have added references, the notability of the term and concept was well established in the previous AFD. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither the notability nor the concept was "well established" in that discussion. Most of the keep arguments were loose WP:SYNTHESIS. The discussion was tilted more towards a merge or delete.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep For the same reasons that I presented in another elimination vote. Hallel (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Really just a dictionary definition of the expression.  There must be an article where notable predictions about India's future can be discussed in a objective way. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See Asian Century, that is where the topic should be covered if at all.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 03:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Oh! Not Again! As many as 17 references were cited in the previous AfD. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 19:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. How many of those references were actually useful? Just having a couple references here and there is not good enough.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 07:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep OMG! The references says it all, it is clearly a notable term. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 07:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article, as it stands, is original research and synthesis. It seems noone has noticed yet that many of the sources cited do not even use the term "Indian century" once, much less explain what it means. In the current version, the footnoted articles no. 1, 3, 4 and 7 do not mention once an "Indian century". This leaves considerable doubt whether the others which I did not check do. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This, this and this should be good enough to establish notability. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 14:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – In the context of India as an emerging superpower, the term/neologism itself has seen usage in reliable sources. Some source examples include:
 * ‘India’s decade could pave way for an Indian century’
 * 21st century is going to be Indian century: Alagappan
 * Real India: A Historian's Cautions on "The Indian Century"
 * Is this the Indian century?
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 06:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete At best, this is a neologism and neologisms are not generally ready for articles on Wikipedia. WP:NEO is quite clear that for an article on a neologism we need to see reliable secondary sources that say something about the term, not merely use it and specifically asks us to exclude personal observations. Unfortunately, the english language references provided are all personal observations (or don't use the term at all) and none are secondary. --regentspark (comment) 03:09, 7 October 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.