Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saffron terror


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Aerospeed  (Talk) 15:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Saffron terror
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clearly against WP:NEO, serious lack of secondary source for the term "saffron terror" , most of the references cited are from news and mostly "alleged". also the article uses general term of "alleged" without any consent to "alleged", and a mixture of linking the meaning of saffron in national flag to terrorist activites is a clear WP:SYN. Usage of many groups with mere alligation, taking newspaper as sources is amounting to WP:GEVAL. and finally confusing lines used with prooving and disprooving in the same line as the total output (final meaning) is amounting to Synthesis Shrikanthv (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:NOTNEO: 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. --AmritasyaPutra T 10:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a ridiculous AfD that should be rejected without any consideration. The term "saffron terror" produces about 50,000 google hits  and "hindutva terror", which is a synonym, produces 26,000 . The notability of the subject is not in doubt. There is a 300 page book on the subject, cited in the Bibliography of saffron terror and reviewed in an academic journal, and another book by Christophe Jaffrelot, a world-leading authority on Hindu nationalism, is being written as we speak: . The nominator and his friends are engaged in a cover-up operation as far as I can see. Apparently, they do not want Hindu acts of terrorism brought to light. From the academic review of the book, we note: "For anyone who has not been following the news about Hindutva terrorist attacks, the sheer number and wide geographical distribution of these attacks is astonishing, and indicates, as the author suggests, a turn from communal pogroms to terror attacks as the favoured strategy for “the reactionary political project of building fascism”. It is apparent that at least in the 21st century, Hindutva terror has been far more active in India than Islamist terror." Wikipedia should not bend to fascism and terrorism. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we wait for Christophe to complete his book? The other book is published by Pharos, check their website and catalogue; they have zero academic record and their specialization is 'Islamic Books' not history. The writer, Ghatade is an engineer by training and a political activist and amateur journalist; there are zero articles published in TOI or The Hindu (national dailies) by him. He is not a historian or academician. --AmritasyaPutra T 11:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * One would naturally expect an 'Islamic' publisher to publish books about terrorism that targets Muslims. That doesn't automatically make them "unreliable." Subhash Gatade has published in Economic and Political Weekly, a scholarly journal, on a wide range of topics: . The cited book has been reviewed in the journal as well, as I mentioned previously. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All Jaffrelot has written in his life is about anti Hindu nationalism including while during his studies. So I would not count him as WP:NPOV although he may be a WP:RS. Same for Ghatade who is not even a WP:RS. But regardless, when you are defining a certain term, mere WP:RS is not enough, you would need WP:NPOV. Additionally WP:WINAD. Majority of scholars define these acts as riots and not terrorism. Riots are riots, terrorism is terrorism. As far as fascism is concerned, it requires an Authoritarian system - one that is certainly not being supported by the said groups. Common Law (supported by these groups), religious liberty (supported by these groups) is not a sign of fascism. Of course, by having common law for every citizen in the country is somehow fascism, I am afraid that most western coutries including US and Euro countries are the same.--Sdmarathe (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is clearly nonsense. Academic freedom means that scholars are free to study whatever subjects interest them.  A cursory look at the Christophe Jaffrelot page indicates that his interests are wider than Hindu nationalism. He has also written about Pakistan politics and caste-based politics. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Please keep your emotions at check, divide the article from your emotional attachments to it, as User:AmritasyaPutra puts it there is only statment of the word in all the newspaper article and has very few or nil secoundary sources describing or critically analysing it. currently the article is stitched up to as to give weight to the word WP:NOTNEO or make it famous. again note that the books stated by you "Godse's Children: Hindutva Terror in India by Subhash Gatade " itself looks like a stitched work of many historical events, note that the book is released on 2011. when Gandhi was killed nowhere was it called hindu terror during the period of the event, if some author calls it hindu terror after 60 years of the event in one of his book and not even notable enough will not give due weight to in wikipedia. and doubt on its notability except for use in wikipedia reference. Shrikanthv (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe "emotions" are exactly what brought you here. In this edit, you said that a key sentence in the lead "demeans organisations." In this comment on the talk page , you said that the lead suggests that "individuals with hindu religion belief" are being accused. So, you want your favourite organisations to look good and you want hindu religion to look good. You want this article gone so that you can continue your denial. So, this is a politically motivated AfD.  It is not done in the best interests of Wikipedia. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3, you were warned on your talk page about personal attacks by another editor for mindless accusations here. Be civil and discuss content, take your complaints to ANI if you mean it. --AmritasyaPutra T 01:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per GOSSIP, we should not promote any kind of political propaganda. The "alleged" speculations have no weight. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - According to the guideline that AP linked so conveniently, the term needs to be discussed, and not just used, by multiple reliable secondary sources. Here they are;
 * Both of these are in widespread use as RS across the 'pedia. More can be provided if necessary; but last I checked, two sources satisfied the criteria for "multiple." This meets GNG very comfortably. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Both of these are in widespread use as RS across the 'pedia. More can be provided if necessary; but last I checked, two sources satisfied the criteria for "multiple." This meets GNG very comfortably. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Both of these are in widespread use as RS across the 'pedia. More can be provided if necessary; but last I checked, two sources satisfied the criteria for "multiple." This meets GNG very comfortably. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Please note both the sources (above mentioned) are amounting to WP:OPINION and are from magazine and a newpaper also themselves refering to newsarticle which are again opinions of others Shrikanthv (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense; EPW is an excellent academic journal, and Frontline is non-academic but certainly has rigourous editorial oversight. What part of "reliable and secondary" do they not satisfy? Besides, you seem to be equating "research" with "opinion," which is ridiculous. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not questioned the degree of excellence of EPW journal, the "research" in the general is on the "opinons" of the people and am not equating a research to a opinion Shrikanthv (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Accurately and neutrally describing the term is not promoting political propaganda. The term has been described in newspapers and books., --Neil N  talk to me 14:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * NeilN you are probably correct, what you think about the circumstances that have lead this AFD? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I opened a new section here. --Neil N  talk to me 14:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is probably the case. It needs improvement but not in the way of here-is-saffron-terror(ists)-list-according-to-wiki-editors. --AmritasyaPutra T 15:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * NeilN pecular mention in |7 from 350 odd pages it is mentioned ones and that too the book is still a new print and |8 the book just only uses the word without any description ones! out of again 350 odd pages, I do not believe this can be used to make the word ready for a dictonary Shrikanthv (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Ready for a dictionary" is not part of WP:NEO. --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 07:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The word dictionary was used in indirect meaning suggesting it (saffron terror) has very little mention in the sources qouted and nothing to do with dictionary use Shrikanthv (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The term is used by mainstream newspaper and publications. There are sufficient number of citations in the article to support that. And the term has been, it seems, in use at least since 2002. Kautilya3 has discussed the notability in detail in his keep voting above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment No one is questioning the notability here (at leat not me), this AFD should discuss the issues like WP:NOTDIC -sarvajna (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:NOTDIC and WP:NOTNEO: This is clearly created for its shock value and does not contribute much academically as it appears to be just a collection of references from other pages and few reliable sources. Some in list have actually been referred by international experts to opposite conclusions than mentioned in the article. This article hence appears nothing more than a list of alleged acts and not really a legitimate article. The term itself has been coined by Chidambaram and Sharad Pawar as a political ploy to defame Hindu nationalism and Hindutva political parties. Voting for Deletion of this article as this seems to only promote the creation of Congress party's appeasement politics for political gains --Sdmarathe (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This user has been cavnassed. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Heck No. I have commented and have followed this page when I was reading other related pages. Do you not even care to look at talk page? Should I level the same charge when you and AsceticRose came out of nowhere when I was being edit warred by vanamonde? Please stop making such baseless accusations.--Sdmarathe (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that the nominator has canvassed you is a fact. If you would have come here of your own accord, you may simply say so. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. despite reading the comments and links to talk page edits, you do not want to believe. So apparently simply saying so was not enough. --Sdmarathe (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I think Sdmarathe's "I have commented and have followed this page when I was reading other related pages" is clear., if you're going to notify individual editors, be prepared to provide a reason as to why you notified those editors and not others. Further allegations of canvassing should be made at WP:ANI if need be as little will be done here. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He's not. He's just notified since he was heavily involved with this page . Bladesmulti (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you care to show us where he was involved? Kautilya3 (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Confused with a number of other political party and pages where terrorism was a subject. Although he has still edited a few related pages like Shiv Sena, Naroda Patiya massacre and more. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sdmarathe had commented on the article talk page discussion related to this AfD before Shrikanthv posted a neutral one line for participation on his talk page and India Notice board. By your standard, this edit is also canvassing, no? But why look there because he is in your support? --<span style="font-family: Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif;color: #FF9933">AmritasyaPutra T 12:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sitush has deliberately stayed away from this AfD. To drag him in here is in bad taste.  Do you realize you are being too noisy in here? Why don't you relax and let people do their thinking? Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * pot? --<span style="font-family: Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif;color: #FF9933">AmritasyaPutra T 13:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -BECAUSE subject simply meets the Wikipedia's standard of inclusion. We have talk pages to discuss contents of the article. WP:AFD is only meant to discuss the inclusion and exclusion of a particular subject, That's it. Get your arguments straight! (see also, comment above left by User:NeilN) Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  11:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete For all the reasons given above.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 05:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Not sure I'm seeing the nom's logic here. The topic is valid and should be included in the encyclopedia. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename Unaffiliated editor. The title 'Saffron terrorism' fails the Neo requirements (until a secondary source spends a page on a neologism then it isn't notable--no secondary source does, so...). But 'Hindu Terrorism' is certainly a notable topic. The Matusitz book (that is the most substantive secondary source for 'Saffron Terrorism') uses that as the section heading and there are thousands of secondary sources on that particular substantiation. I think the good faith opinions on both sides can meet in the middle for the article being titled 'Hindu Terrorism' (which already redirects here) which is certainly notable and less problematic than 'Saffron Terrorism'. Peace. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename at least in the short term per AbstractIllusions above. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I cannot see any articles about the topic in scholarly sources. There are not even sources that say something like "it is a term used by x to describe y",  All we have are scattered references to use of the term and we do not know if all the speakers are referring to the same thing.  And do not rename or save as a re-direct.  TFD (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. The term saffron terror had only been started by congress in early 2000s for political gains and latched on by biased sources. What has been labeled the so called terror groups are only labeled for political and religious gains. No reliable scholarly source that is WP:NPOV had used the terrorist adjective to the groups. They have however used The term right wing Hindu nationalist that include fringe rogue elements. Such elements exist in all Right or Left wing groups or parties in India (case in point Akbar Owaisi in AIMIM - who has incited crowds by defaming Hindu Gods and threatened repeatedly against the entire country). This article at its very least should mention that it's an allegedly political term and elaborate on that if so desired. this should not be a laundry list of alleged attacks some of which are not even referred to as terrorist acts and some are known linked to other groups. It only adds to sensationalizing the term --Sdmarathe (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The article shows that the term "saffron terror" comes from journalistic sources. Neither of the cited articles mention any political origins for the term. If you want to claim that the term was political, you need to substantiate it by providing political sources that predate the journalistic sources.  Do you have any? Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have moved one of the comment to talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There is no reason as to why this page must be deleted. I do not think that it should even be renamed because firstly, Saffron is a colour, it is neither an ideology, nor a religion. It is a colour which happened to have a religious or ideological significance. Saffron terror was merely chosen for its non-religious nature and to identify an alleged terror oraganisation and activities of some saffron clad people. They may or may not be Hindu, they may or may not be Hindutva ideologues. They might as well be Buddhists. I would really want it to be renamed as Hindu terrorism, but keeping in mind the sensitivity, required neutral viewpoint of this issue and the widespread use and familiarity of the word, the word Saffron should stay.

Hindus do not have a monopoly of the term Saffron, Hindu, Hindutva just like the way Muslims do not have the monopoly over the term Jihad and Islam. It can be used in anyway one feels like for they are just words. The media used the phrase Saffron terror, they chose the word Saffron terror and hence we call it Saffron terror, same is with Islamic terrorism, no malice intended, no intentional hurting of feeling, it is just plain hard facts. In short, either put up or shut up. Whether the word in itself is meaningless or not is another issue worth discussing and can be added as criticisms to the Criticism section of the article.

This article has the potential to be better through addition and citation of more reliable sources, proper editing and adding of pictures. This article can certainly not be made better through deletion.Thinkmaths (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC) — Thinkmaths (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * comment You perhaps mention the exact problem with the article as you find "saffron" not a monopoly with Hinduism, which i have noted in the nomination is leading to synthesis and leaves a large open field for misinterpretation and the information you stated that "some media" used this word "saffron terror" is also right as stated by me in nomination this is leading to WP:NOTNEO neologism does not give right to the word "saffron terrorism " be made famous as it lacks secondary sources, I do not understand eventhough your analysis is correct you are putting this under keep ? . and this article has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism nor Hinduism vs Islam, please keep the topic away from the article as I do also see that your are mentioning that "we call it ...." .who are the we ? Shrikanthv (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * reply We are not a panel to decide about the consequences of a given information. We are archivists, we archive any information about a particular word of phenomena which exists, allegedly or in reality. There are wikipedia articles about conspiracy theories, doesn't those conspiracy theories lead "to synthesis and leaves a large open field for misinterpretation" according to you, but they are still there because the existence of that theory is a fact, whether the theory is real or not forms the content of the article. The existence of this word in itself is a fact and this article describes the usage, relevance and history of this term, whether the word as a phenomena is real or not forms the content of this article. The phrase Saffron terror is not a neologism because the phrase is being used for more than 12 years now and is quite a popular word. I would like to divert this discussion to the talk page so, ping me in the talk page if you wish to continue.Thinkmaths (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, or rename to "Hindu terrorism", since this is a real and important phenomenon, and both terms are used by scholarly sources (links provided above by others, but a cursory look at google books or google scholar will demonstrate as much). -Darouet (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with religion, the acts are not driven by religious zeal but allegedly driven by ideological zeal. -sarvajna (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just like TFD has said on talk(page) of this AFD, if there is any terror, then why it hasn't been added to Terrorism in India? There is no mention of this new term. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Blades, that argument is totally irrelevant, and you know it. If the Terrorism in India page doesn't have it, then put it in. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, I have added it now.Thinkmaths (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We add only convictions not just a few allegations. Thinkmath's recent change on Terrorism in India is probably enough for recognizing any Saffron terror, a whole page is undue weight. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha! What a turncoat! Then by the same token why should Islamic terrorism stay, all the terror event mentioned are enough for Islamic terrorism. The content of Saffron terror deals with this in detail by explaining the origin, the usage and its familiarity in the public.Thinkmaths (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Conviction is not same as the small list few allegations. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What about the list of terrorists that was released by the Home Ministry after Shinde's Saffron terror remark, now they were not allegations, were they? How else then the Home Ministry can reveal their names. They were either convicted or absconding. Now you would say, the list had too few names.Thinkmaths (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You have the report? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The question is not about who created this term? Even if Congress party had created this phrase, it is hardly a reason for the deletion of this article. However I can make one observation from the article, the phrase was widely used during the regime of one political party. None of the events mentioned in the article have reached their conclusion, the whole article seems to be some list of allegations and there is no detailed explanation in place on wikipedia even after so many years after the article creation. It can be because the editors did not work on the article or because there is nothing much to cover. A lot of editors here are confused between terrorism, communal violence and single handed assassinations. This phrase is a Neo, as mentioned at WP:NEO An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy. This is what is being done in many of the arguments above, with the number of hits and other things. A few others seems to be suggesting synonyms for the phrase and want to liberally use other sources which constitutes OR and other editors who are trying to link it with "Hindu Terrorism" or a religious motivated terrorism should try to understand the subject, it very much gives an impression that there is a serious lack of competence. -sarvajna (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Just because the terror incidents by Saffron terrorists are less now, this article cannot be deleted. All the incidents mentioned in the article and few other incidents (a simple Google search will help) are a clear outcome of Saffron Terrorism. Multiple attempts haave been made to delete this article. But it has survived. Go through the Talk page and see why earlier attempts to delete this article were not successful. Those reasons are still applicable. I am not sure why this article is being targetted so many times for deletion. I suggest the afd tag be removed from this article and more details are added to this page like any other Terror page. Wasif (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Previously only one attempt was made to delete this article, the result was "no consensus". I think you did not even cared to do your homework before making this comment. Google search will not help, get the source. -sarvajna (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - To me this appears to satisfy WP:NEO via WP:GNG given the available sources. That's not to say the article as it is should stay as it is, of course -- just that I don't think deletion is the way to solve problems with the article. That said, I feel like I may misunderstand some of the delete arguments. The most convincing non-keep arguments to me would be (a) that once the page is brought up to NPOV/RS standards it will have insufficient content beyond a dictionary definition, or (b) that there is an obvious target for merge and redirect. I see some comments that have touched on each of these, but I hope someone can either summarize one or both of these positions or otherwise point me to where I may be overlooking or misreading. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. Very less portion of the article actually deal with the term "saffron terror". I roughly checked all the links before the allegation section and less than half of the sources uses the term "saffron terror". Even most of those sources don't discuss the term, rather they discuss the phenomena, which makes this neologism unnotable. The phenomena is rather more notable, but a page move will be required to a better title. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 05:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Vigyani, I'm not sure I understand you, because it seems like you are arguing for a rename, but you're voting delete. Yes, the sources in that article need cleaning up, but there are enough sources that discuss the term to meet GNG for the article itself. Even if that were not true, you agree that most of the sources do discuss the phenomenon, which suggests that there is enough material for an article on the subject, whether with this name or a different one. So it seems like your argument is suggesting rename. Or am I reading you wrong? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I vote Delete for an article about the term "Saffron terror". But I am probably neutral if the article is renamed and the new article make it clear that it is about concept not the term. The alleged/non-alleged concept of saffron/hindutava terror has been discussed in enough in media and maybe notable. Although, I do not believe that any such terror exist.-- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ  05:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the reasoning above, but rename to Hindu extremism or something on the lines of  radicalism. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is notable, sourced, and a widely used term deserving of its own entry. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed above why just a passing reference is not enough, providing source for statements like "sourced, and a widely used term" will help here. -sarvajna (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Pushing your POV onto my comment does not change my vote. The sources are more than adequate. Strong Keep ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Flying mentions are really not enough for proving notability. There are thousands of terms that are more popular and more notable than this one. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Over 50,000 Google hits, including an article in the Times of India this year and 23 articles in The Indian Express say otherwise. It is far more than a "flying mention." ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have mentioned above, your personal research of google search doesn't matter, it would only matter when those hits have explained the phenomenon in detail, also I did not mention that you are pushing your POV, commenting that I am pushing my POV doesn't really help here. You comment shows the depth of your research on the subject -sarvajna (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability is clearly at issue here, and this is notable. Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight. Someone is apparently offended that this article exists, and wants to see it disappear.  I am disconnected from this culturally, nationally, and religiously.  The POV that I am pushing is that this belongs, per Wikipedia guidelines. My vote remains at Strong Keep - regardless of how many times individuals with a personal bias try to discount the value of my vote. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you have failed to substantiate your claims with any source I rest my case with the admin who will take the decision, I have no intention of changing your vote since all of us know that this is not a democracy where number of vote counts. Your bold lettered keep doesn't make much difference. Also keep up with your personal comments, you would be soon finding yourself at ANI or some other place. However it is amazing to know that someone who is fairly new to wikipedia makes such a good comment -sarvajna (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did provide a source, but here are two others - which specifically deal with the "the phenomenon in detail" as you have requested. "Symbolism in Terrorism: Motivation, Communication, and Behavior" By Jonathan Matusitz. Chapter 8 is dedicated to this phenomenon. Also, "Arguing Counterterrorism: New Perspectives" edited by Daniela Pisoiu pp. 192-3.  These two sources "cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept" as requested by other editors. This should be more than enough to satisfy that requirement. Whether I am a new editor at Wikipedia is immaterial.  I am not new at life, research, debate, or human interaction. The request for deletion of this subject is unwarranted, as are threats of taking me to ANI.ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Again we are not talking about how many times the WP:NEO word apeared in your google search, nor are we looking to create a new word in dictionary by making it famous, please refer to previous comments the books and sourced mentioned by you is already been discussed, nobody is thereatning you nor condemning your point of view, if you do not see the reason, you would not like to read the reason why it has been nominated thats your take Shrikanthv (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ScrapIron's comments are quite justifiable. Reliable sources have been provided that not only use the term, but also discuss the term, as WP:NEO requires. I provided two such; Kautilya provided a couple; ScrapIron produced some; Neil produced some. Those of you voting "delete" have not provided a convincing rebuttal to any of these. When I confronted you with the EPW source, your only problem was that it was a "magazine," followed by something quite incoherent and off topic. You've produced something similar here. The sources are reliable, and they discuss the topic in question; there really isn't anything more to be said. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The source provided by ScrapIron has already been discussed here, I don't think there is a need for the same rebuttal every time. -sarvajna (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Again off the mark. My point was that GNG requires two sources, by and large; several more than that have been provided. Therefore, you need to demostrate that all but one are not up to the mark before your votes can be taken seriously. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Off the mark" ? Great argument, it has been said several time during the discussion that you will be able to find not just 2 but event 200 sources where this phrase is mentioned. This is not really helpful unless those resources explain the phenomenon deal with the subject directly. As explained by TFD (in the diff provided) this source fails to deal with the subject properly. You have failed to explain why the source are helpful. All you are able to do is a google search and provide the number of hits of sources which has the phrase. This is not really helpful. -sarvajna (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete NONE of them are proved. It is widely believed that this is a part of a structured campaign to tarnish political rivals. None believe these conspiracy theories(Yes, I did called them) other than leftists(who dominate "intellectual" space in India(This explains notability)) who anyway lost grip on reality. According to rule of law, unless one is proved guilty, one should be considered as innocent and more importantly should not be used as political tools. You simply cannot add an article on wikipedia based on some wild allegations especially when it defames a community. तेजा శ్రీనివాస్ 14:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * discussion moved to user talk as irrelevant to this page.Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2014 (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.