Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mughalstan


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Mughalstan
Does not conform to WP:N. Is just a creation of a well known hate-site. Babub→ Talk 20:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: Fails WP:V, not supported by credible sources (only sources come from Internet forums, news groups, or sites that repeat the forum posts as "evidence"). --Ragib 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:V in my book; see . Definitely seems like a notable concept too; distasteful as it may seem, Wikipedia is not censored. It will need some attention to keep it in line with WP:NPOV, though. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you provide this reference. If you read the reference, you'd find it listed under Pages thought to be fake. Also, NONE of the links put under the first mention in that page work. Therefore, it fails WP:V quite easily. NPOV isn't an issue here, Verifiability is. Thanks. --Ragib 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the site you've mentioned classifies it as fake. Babub→ Talk 21:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The source cited by ginkgo100 is more than good enough. Moreover the notability of the reported website lies in the fact that it is one of the very few (about <10) websites banned by indian government. And 'course, Wiki is not censored.--nids(&#9794;) 21:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Time and again, I ask everyone to show a single reference to this. I really don't care what is banned and what is not. Right now, all the arguments shown is that the banned site (which we can't really verify) had all proofs of the issue. Well, show me a reference ... at *this* moment. That the issue is mentioned by almost no other sources (except the "banned" "all-encompassing" source) is yet another proof of the thing being non-verifiable. WP:V triumphs all other policies. --Ragib 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If just a homo sapien said that he saw it, then it was definately not verifiable. But when google cache shows it, there is a difference.nids(&#9794;) 21:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Google cache is not a reference. --Ragib 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, see Wikipedia's stance on Reliable sources, which states : Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. and also A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. --Ragib 21:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a very relevant article as it is a stem from extremism which is very prevalent in the world today. Though Mughalstan is probably specious and very unlikely to happen, I think this article should stay as it contains an idea advocated by some. Thanks. Jdas07 21:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but where is the proof? Where is the reference? It's not good to say you saw it but can't show it to us now. Wikipedia is also not a primary source of ideas. --Ragib 21:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Three out of five of the sources on the article work. Thanks. Jdas07 19:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Nids and Jdas.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   -- Bakaman Bakatalk  00:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Have not seen any indication that the idea is notable - e.g. a subject of publications in a number of WP:RS, have a sizable amount of supporters, etc. We do not have to popularize ideas that exist only on a few fringe internet forums abakharev 02:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete please, I cannot see ny way that this could be neutral. --Musaabdulrashid 03:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per --Ragib  --Shyamsunder 15:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't care about neutrality as much as verifiability. Agree with Ragib fails WP:V. Where are the sources? --Antorjal 03:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ragib. --Gurubrahma 05:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no verifiable sources. I don't think any of the sources identified to date meet WP:RS.  An offensive topic can stay, but an unverifiably sourced offensive topic cannot -- Samir  धर्म 05:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverified and non-notable, as it would be easy to find good sources if this was a notable plan, even if idiotic. "The idea of Mughalstan comes from the belief that all the lands, once conquered by the Mughals, should belong to their descendants." Yes... that makes perfect sense. In that case, they should not object to Italy/Rome reclaiming their conquered land, which besides Southern Europe, would include Egypt, Palestine, Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, parts of Saudi Arabia and the choicest parts of Northern Africa. -- Kjkolb 05:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Samir -- Lost (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete on a couple of grounds, 1 Verifiability and 2. Notability. Haphar 10:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (without prejudice, in case WP:V can be satisfied). Like others, I am not satisfied with the reliability of the sources we have. There seems no doubt the idea exists and is notable enough to create some amount of fuss on the internet, but to satisfy WP:V we ought to be able to find a reliable discussion of it in a proper, non-partisan scholarly publication or at least some major serious news media, talking about the idea and its proponents, and not just agitating for or against it. The page quoted by Gingko100 is a start but it's basically also just an amateur website for all we know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Ragib. Original research with comments such as "Khalistan, the Sikh Nation of Sufi Muslims. The Sikhs or Nanakshahis are followers of the Muslim Sufi saint Guru Nanak; hence Khalistan is a natural part of Mughalstan." that make the article appear comical. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: A useful resource for the Mughalstan concept and movement.--ISKapoor 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, something that can't be verified is never a useful resource. See WP:V. --


 * Delete per Ragib and Samir. &mdash; Khoikhoi 23:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Ragib. Besides the article itself has inherent lies such as "immigrant Muslims and have been historically referred to as Mughals". I dont know but I do have a Masters Degree in Indian History and I have never heard of such absurd concept or thought. Marwatt 12:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. BhaiSaab talk 01:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ragib. This would be clearly notable if it were verifiable. However, at present this looks like a neologism at best. Qball6 02:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Note - The article is not a soapbox for the creator (myself) or any other editors personal views. Its documentation of the Mughalstan ideal. I am an ardent hater of Mughalstan.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * comment-This is exactly the point, the article is a soapbox for directing hatred against the "ideal of Mughalstan" which has no documentation to begin with, other than a web forum post and an angelfire site. As said below, if this really were a prominent idea it would have a lot more coverage. Also, it is a bit disruptive to post comments like this at the top of the AfD entry, they should be moved to the bottom to preserve the flow of the debate. Musaabdulrashid 06:35, 9 September 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.