Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Murdabad (3rd 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   merge to Anti-Pakistan sentiment. J04n(talk page) 22:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Pakistan Murdabad
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NOTDICDEF, "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term . This problem is inherent in this article, which is currently a WP:SYNTHESIS of quotes that, as said in the preceding passage, only use the term. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary or Wikiquote, and this article in its current state is a WP:QUOTEFARM. There are dozens of quotes which only use the term with passing mention, and say nothing about the term. 95% of the information here is more suited to an article on violence during the Partition of India and Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Those who want to propose a merge of some of the content into relevant article/s may voice their opinion on this AfD too.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the third time you have nominated this for deletion, both previous AFD's suggest a merger, yet you have not begun a discussion on a possible merger at all, why not? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not the third time I've nominated it for deletion, please check the nominator in the previous AfD before commenting + the article has become such a WP:SYNTHESIS WP:QUOTEFARM of irrelevant material since the second nomination that it is not immediately clear where it should be merged to, if at all. Either way, as far as the phrase itself is concerned, the content of the article is largely irrelevant to it so an AfD discussion is in order.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 01:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The problems are all surmountable. If you're so concerned about QUOTEFARMing then just paraphrase it. WP:RUBBISH - "In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion." Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 09:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the article would be left to a single-paragraph stub if a cleanup was performed. In that case, merge seems the outcome.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, you'll disagree now. BTW "a single-paragraph stub" is permitted within wiki-policies. It doesn't necessarily need a deletion. You have no clue of what you're saying. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW "a single-paragraph stub" is permitted within wiki-policies - not just any stub, it depends whether the subject of the article is encyclopedic or notable enough to have an article, and in this case there are more issues than just that. I have no desire to go back and forth over this with you.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 00:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * From your comments in this page I think you are confusing WP:SYNTHESIS with something it is not. You have failed respond to Darkness Shines's query as to why you believe it's a "synthesis". You're a Pakistani it's no secret (you even use a User Pakistan template on your userpage) and you naturally might be more inclined to remove this page, hence, please pardon my candor, I doubt there is a conflict of interest on your part. This phrase ignited widespread ethnic carnage in the Punjab in 1947. It is encyclopaedic and very notable. Are you kidding me, you doubt its notability? . It needs work, not a deletion. Over use of quotation is not a ground for deletion. There is NOT a single PROBLEM with this article which can't be surmounted. United States and state terrorism also attacks one country! It has lengthy quotes too. Should we also delete it? And what about countless other articles like it? What about Death to America? I mean what is going on? Wikipedia contents don't need to be censored. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see what Mar4d, ITopGun, Justice007, etc wrote on Articles for deletion/Pakistan Zindabad when it was nominated for deletion. They voted to keep it. According to Mar4d, TopGun it needed to be kept since it is a historical "battle cry". Justice007 considered it "poor and not good faith nomination." The very first nomination was labelled as "Bad faith nomination". Now we have another battle cry nominated for the 3rd time, which is equally historical, notable and talked about in reliable sources but this time from the opposing party, all of these guys want it deleted. This is flat-out  and a very blatant demonstration of tendentious editing. There is a whole category of slogans. See Category:Political slogans. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That is very different thing, slogan of honour and cheer for oneself or others create no any harm, but abuse to others is not only harmful, it is also shameful act if we make that a historical subject. Actually there should have the articles on the word/words of Zindabad and Murdabad with the etymology and the history of the different cultures, and descriptions of the words that were used, why, where and when around the global covering people's behaviours, mass anger and things (states) and etc. At that point one can create a best article on this topic/subject. You have mentioned me that I voted for Pakistan Zindabad but you did not mention I voted for Hindustan Zindabad too. You do not see there is Hindustan Murdabad. If we are eager to insist and persist on that point, then there should be articles on every country, because that slogan exists everywhere in different languages. Please do not split the hairs. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is very different thing - You're not serious, are you? 'Pakistan Zindabad' was a battle cry for Pakistan and its people and 'Pakistan Murdabad' was a battle cry against Pakistan and its people. That's all the difference there is. Everything else about the phrases is the same. As a matter of fact, both have same significance and do complement each other.
 * Also, I didn't wish to drag India-Pakistan divide into my comment above. As it seems, you don't even realize that your keep vote for ′Hindustan Zindabad′ further proves your emotional bias (against articles which might hurt feelings of others) instead of negating it. No, there needn't be a slogan equally popular about every country (not every country got divided, not every slogan is a precursor to large-scale conflicts). "Please do not split the hairs." — I am not, I didn't nominate it for the third time. Why can't you accept that we're all against to keep sentiments from getting hurt? The slogan about Hindustan is historically somewhat notable, but nowhere near as notable as "Pakistan Zindabad" or "Pakistan Murdabad".  Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That can be more discussed, but I can now say only that  let's reach consensus result in accordance to the rule.Justice007 (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and further merge and redirect if possible, some of the content to Anti-Pakistan sentiment and Partition of India, per my reasons given above.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You do not get to vote twice, your nomination is your vote, so I struck your new vote. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing admin please noteMar4d has voted twice in this AFD, I had struck his second vorte but he has seen fit to restore it Please discount the vote above by him. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not voted twice, the nominating rationale is not a vote + nominators are free to express their opinions. Let an admin see the comments and decide what to do.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 02:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The books cited in the History section of the article actually say someting about the slogan (it's context, usage etc), and don't just mention it. The term/concept is notable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * They all give only trivial, passing mention and not one of those sources is actually about the subject of the article - but rather discussing general riots and violence during the partition. This is a textbook case of WP:SYNTHESIS.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 09:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it a synthesis? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - it's a notable slogan. WP:NOTTEMPORARY - "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." As a side note, Why didn't you pay heed to what others are saying? I agree with DS in this case. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 09:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "it's a notable slogan" - your opinion of course. 2) How is WP:NOTTEMPORARY relevant here? The issue here is synthesis and context. 3) Pay heed to what? That none of the sources used in the article are about the term? WP:NOTDICDEF.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I shall ask you again, where is the synthesis? You keep saying this but have yet to provide an actual example. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: a bunch of quotes and a few uses or mere appearance does not cover notability. Wikipedia is not a quote farm. There is no detailed RS coverage of the slogan itself. Should be at minimum redirected to Anti-Pakistan sentiments per my comment on previous AFD. That's what has been done to Death to Israel which seems to have more usage due to contention over the topic but still does not have a separate page. The point of this should not be to promote the word itself, rather to cover what is already used. That can be done in a few lines in the Anti-Pakistan sentiment article. The current article doesn't seem encyclopedic. I'll ask the closer to compare this article with encyclopedic articles to weigh my point. -- lTopGunl (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Gotta say, NOTAVOTE. One of your first edits in months is to turn up for an AFD? Get an email did we? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's on my watch list and I commented on the last two AFDs.. is that enough for you or do I have to get your permission? Didn't you get blocked enough no of times for your bad faith accusations? Do not engage me into non content related debates. I don't see how your edit is in anyway a reply to my comment. It's not a 'vote'. And I know the polices. -- lTopGunl (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, after all, you voted the same ways as Mar4d a few days ago here, how unusual that you would just happen to return from your break for these few AFD's. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If I'm not editing, doesn't mean I'm not reading either... neither are these my only edits. Anyway.. I've no heart to engage with you... again = IBAN or not. Make a new friend ...my comment is self explanatory. Adios. -- lTopGunl (talk</b>) 18:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * STRONG DELETE...This matter has already been discussed to death. The Scythian 11:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and as of today it survived two AFDs and still no consensus on deletion. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 16:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It did not "survive" two AfDs, the result in both was "no consensus". Please do not try to distort the meaning of previous consensus.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 00:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Back to back "no consensus" outcomes tells something doesn't it? Yet you had the passion to nominate it the third time? Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep As Mar4d has not responded to the questions put to him regarding his allegations of synthesis, and based on the previous AFD and the work done on the article previously by Fowler. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTHESIS: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The sources and quotes in the article are not about the term, they are all discussing another topic and the only thing they have in common is that the term somehow gets one passing mention. They are not exclusively about the term nor describing what it is about. Combining unrelated material from multiple sources not even discussing the subject of the article exclusively is synthesis.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 00:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That does not answer the question put to you, all you have done is repeat yourself. Please provide an example from the article which is actually a synthesis, I have seen none. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You asked me how the article is WP:SYNTHESIS, I showed you. The rest is WP:IDHT as they say, and everyone lived happily ever after.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 08:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When the whole article is full of, to put it bluntly - shitloads of quotations and essay-like pieces of texts discussing nothing about the subject, then you don't need to see an "example"; the article is right there in front of you. I am not going to respond to your WP:IDHT again. We can agree to disagree and stop wasting space here.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 02:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So you are in fact just throwing around random policies and guidelines, your refusal to actually substantiate your argument shows this is more to do with hurt feelings than any policy on wiki. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete:We should bear in mind that the key to resolving a subject is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on something. Neither the article meets standards and quality of wikipedia nor values of mankind, that is just based on abuses and sick mentality of political incitement by the mass anger.It should not be an article.Justice007 (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: I do not see anything different in this afd than was the case in previous ones. Its a legit article, fulfills criteria. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 15:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Use in quotations is not notability. Were there articles specifically about this phrase, that would be different.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This has been the third time that this article has been nominated. I don't understand why editors are in favor of keeping this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the knowledge and resource for the world. An article such as this (created because of pure rivalry) doesn't seem to fit the description of an encyclopedic topic. Those who are in favor of keeping this article, could you give a single reason how it is even notable and people would want to see it? Every country has some enmity with another country but that doesn't mean that we should start using a forum such as Wikipedia, which is created solely for the purpose of knowledge for people, to express their personal point of views. Just using quotes from different books doesn't necessarily mean that a separate page should be created for it. If the term is notable, put it in the article of Partition of India or Anti-Pakistan sentiment. As the nominator has said that 95% of the information here is more suited to an article on violence during the Partition of India. If the editors in favor, don't like Pakistan, you should keep it to yourself instead of bringing your POV to an encyclopedia. -- Inland mamba   (fruitful thought) 22:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for illustrating my point in better words. Indeed, God knows what a WP:SOAPBOX propaganda Wikipedia would become if hundreds of articles were created on trivial "Death to XYZ country slogans.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 04:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This Article, as in Wikipedia we have to be neutral. But this article certainly targets a country! This Article may be used as a weapon by other users against that country, in this strong encyclopedia, I agree with other users, as it attacks a particular country, and the Article should be removed! Faizan (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Comment moved from talk page  Mar4d  ( talk ) 08:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The last two votes actually say we should delete an article in case peoples feelings get hurt Which policy is that then? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that the article was originally created as a negative attack page and presumably with a bit of bad faith, there is some substance behind those comments actually.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 08:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha are you for real?? You are talking about policy. We are here to improve an encyclopedia right?? Just give me a single GA or FA that is full of quotations or is specifically based on what people said. Instead of improving articles which are actually worth improving and are normally used by readers, you are improving an article which has no logic. Even if you look at the stats, just 564 views in a month, in which majority must be from the people who are fighting for keeping and deleting the article. Talk about hurting peoples feelings, if that was not the case, there would be articles full of abuses for everything thing that other people don't like. Thousands of people and news articles are there in which famous people say bad things to other people and countries. Should we start creating articles for them too? We are not here to fight for India or Pakistan. This is an encyclopedia for peoples knowledge not a forum to fight and create rivalry. If you are so much concerned about using this term, why not go for a merger and put this term in anti Pakistan sentiment? -- Inland mamba   (fruitful thought) 10:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with the quotes and their overuse, then just paraphrase it. Why ask for its deletion?
 * But this article certainly targets a country! -- so freaking what? There is NOT ONE PROBLEM with this article which can't be surmounted. United States and state terrorism also attacks one country! It has lengthy quotes too. Should we also delete it? And what about countless other articles like it? Wikipedia contents don't need to be censored. This is plain hypocrisy. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have separate articles that satisfy RS for this term? Use of a phrase in quotations is not considered to be notability. I also have references that state far worse sayings about India, should I start creating an article on those phrases? Then may be you will understand what an encyclopedia is. If you are here for making encyclopedia better, try to give me a single GA or FA that is written in the same way as this article is written. -- Inland mamba   (fruitful thought) 22:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "I also have references that state far worse sayings about India, should I start creating an article on those phrases?" - Sure if you think the quotes merit a separate article, why not? That very phrase had and still has certain types of social and historical repercussions in the same vein that Pakistan Zindabad had or has. "Then may be you will understand what an encyclopedia is" - I won't be lectured by you on what Wikipedia is and what it won't be. Wikipedia, among many things, is not censored based on people's emotional demands. I will try to desist from quibbling with you. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * KEEP As per the same reason in the first RfA. Satisfies GNG, has refs, seems notable enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Satisfies GNG, has refs, seems notable enough - you say this despite all the issues clearly elaborated upon? That is blatant ignorance.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You pose as if you've killed every argument in favor of keeping it and that too with aplomb. But the reality is you didn't answer anything. You couldn't even justify why you say that this article is a violation of WP:SYNTH or why it doesn't meet WP:GNG. The first of what you ought to have done is demonstrate why the problems are insurmountable, you didn't. The issues are surmountable. You're emotional about it, you're a Pakistani and I understand it but this is not a legitimate ground for deletion. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Again. And I'm more or less literally repeating my vote from the first and second times round. What is "notable" here is not the slogan as such, but the various incidents of conflict in which it was used (and about which we obviously have separate articles). The existence of the slogan as such is a trivial fact of the Hindi language – just as in English you can create a "down with X" slogan about anything you hate, and a "long live Y" slogan about anything you support. The fact that people use such slogans about various issues and at various occasions doesn't render these stereotyped slogans themselves notable, separately from the notability of the political issue each of them represents. The article still consists solely of an enumeration of separate and unconnected cases where people are reported to have used this slogan. None of the lengthy literal quotations on the page is actually about the slogan; they are about the violence and merely mention the slogan in that connection. As such, the article is a paradigm case of WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Why should an article which failed deletion requests in past suddenly become eligible for deletion now. This article is related to history and the history has not changed since last Afd. --sarvajna (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

We should follow neutrality rather than related to emotional demands, we are editors not the part of political actors.Justice007 (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: The article no where looks like a dictionary. The word "Pakistan Murdabad" is considered historical from the time of Partition of India. Notable enough! Here is a recent notable reference saying quoting the same, , , , , , ,  and many more.  -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete A mere slogan and Wikipedia is not a compendium of slogans. As the nom states, the sources merely assert that the slogan has been, and is, still used. However, there doesn't seem to be any discussion, in reliable sources, about the slogan itself. --regentspark (comment) 14:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear, don't you count Pakistan Zindabad or Hindustan Zindabad or Inquilab Zindabad or Semper fi as slogans? There is a whole category of slogans. See Category:Political slogans. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 16:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not the same thing. Can't comment about all of them but three out of the four you quote are the subject of discussion in reliable sources. Pakistan Murdabad, at least based on what I see in the article, is not. --regentspark (comment) 16:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge with Anti-Pakistan sentiment. The references contain only trivial or passing mentions of the topic. utcursch | talk 01:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge: In last vote I was in favor of delete but changing my vote to merge with Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Slogan has been used in the sub-continent particularly during the partition and does deserve a description but not a separate article on its own (per utcursch). P.S: Don't ask how I got here, I like to stalk most of the who's who on this page when time permits.  Samar  Talk 07:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: A slogan raised some 50 years back against any nation, how can you justify its Notability. It has no reliance on WP and if it has, then I need to work on Kashmiri slogans.   Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 15:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary, did you even read WP:NOTAVOTE? Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 16:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: It is clear from all the references in this article that the slogan underlines the missing notability and that the article is therefore some sort of poor google research and original research to close this gap, therefore fails to fulfill WP notability criterion. Regards  Averroist 09:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ″Gotta say, NOTAVOTE. One of your first edits in months is to turn up for an AFD?″ This comment was originally written by DS regarding ITopGun's vote. He also comments frequently on your page. And amazingly the same is true about you also! See WP:CANVASS and WP:NOTAVOTE. Nothing is clear. "underlines the missing notability" - God save Wikipedia. Goodness me. Did you even read all the sources? Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 16:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Delete (or merge into Anti-Pakistan sentiment) - Per WP:NOTDICDEF.  I read the entire article, and I just don't see sources analyzing the phrase as a phrase in any significant way.   The article is a collection of uses of the phrase, which is precisely what Wiktionary is intended for.   I'm not suggesting that all the information be deleted from WP entirely:  much of it could go into  Anti-Pakistan sentiment.   --Noleander (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge Meets WP:N and WP:V; a similar article, Pakistan Zindabad, has been kept. The phrase's negative connotations are insufficient reason to delete, although a merge to Anti-Pakistan sentiment would be a compromise.  Mini  apolis  18:45, 8 March 2013 (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.