Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State of Muslims in India


 * 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 and Merge into the section "Muslims in Modern India" in the article Islam in India. There's really nothing wrong with the article, but: This doesn't mean that, in future, if editors want to add more material into Islam in India than will comfortably fit, a new article could not be created. Perhaps that article should be named "Muslims in modern India" rather than "State of Muslims in India". Herostratus 08:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) A good part of the article is redundant with Muslims in Parliament of India. Generally, there should not be identical lists in two places, especially when the list is subject to change. This is a maintenance issue.
 * 2) Once that list is removed, the article is short. Islam in India is tagged as needing expansion, so it makes sense to expand it by merging what is left of the article into that section.

State of Muslims in India

 * — (View AfD)

BAsed on Single source and essentially an attempt to create a POV fork of Islam in India. Allegations of lack of Muslim representation are largely partisan (and made by leftist - based partisan media hype, bearing in mind that president of India is a Muslim). Data from Sachar report may be incorporated into Islam in India and this article deleted please. Rumpelstiltskin223 19:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.    ITAQALLAH   20:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, Valid encylopedia article with demographic details about a community of a country. Similar articles exist for african americans in US. Non, partisan sources like indian express are mentioned. Its also an Indian related stub. Pure Vandalism --Shacs 20:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Such bullying tactics will not work with me. I never said that the information be removed. Merely that it be placed in the appropriate article. muslims in India cannot be compared to articles on ethnic groups like African Americans since Muslims are not an ethnicity but adherents of a religion. Rumpelstiltskin223 21:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Islam in India is a very long article and is related to religion in general. This piece relates to muslims in particular and their current position. --Linxengine 21:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The only way by which Muslims are defined is through Islam. Muslims are neither a race or creed. They are the adherents of Islam and thus any information on Muslims (particularly ones this little) can be merged with the Islam in India article.Rumpelstiltskin223 21:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is a main article and can be refered in Islam in India. As mentioned above similar articles exsist for different racial, linguistic, political, and religious groups. I don't see any reason why it should be deleted or merged. It Presents the current socio-economic details of over 150 million people. Its hard to beleive that we are resisting them even a page in wikipedia. --Linxengine 21:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What religious group? Is there any article called State of Hindus in India??? Is there any article called State of Bahaii in Japan???State of Muslims in Kamchatka??? There is a Hinduism in India but also an Islam in India. The information in discussion is based on a single source and does not merit it's own article but in Islam in India.Rumpelstiltskin223 22:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is no article, it doesn't mean it should not. Contribute one if you like, but honour others work. --Linxengine 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mastiboy (talk • contribs) 13:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Merge with Islam in India. --Адам12901 Talk 21:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Race and religion are two different things. One can choose their religion, one cannot choose their race. This can easily be readded onto Islam in India, since its about two sentences of useful info. Muslim is not an ethnic group[, and a similar article Christians in Pakistan was deleted. Baka man  21:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I read Timesofinda every day and also some others. Few day ago I had read that India PM said giving Muslims equal chances. Similarly President of India had said something similar about Muslims-In-Indian-Army few months ago because there are very less Muslim in Army. It was a long debate on it. It is a fact that Indian Muslims are much backward as compare to Hindus. One can find references from India's press. Similarly when I was in USA working on H1B visa then there was many Hindus on H1B visa (in Silicon Valley, CA) but Muslims of India was verrrry less. Hence I think a very good quality article can be created based on many references easily. I will try to contribute too on this one. Quick google seach gives me these references sky-has-fallen-muslim-in-army-asked  Untouchability like apartheid, says PM, pushes Muslim equity --- ALM 23:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Guys, It is differnt topic and has nothing to do with Islam in India. Please see the differences. --- ALM 23:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I do not disagree, but why is that a valid argument for a separate article? Why not include all this data in Islam in India. I can equally argue that I should write a State of Hindus in India article and write about attack on Akshardham temple and Indian Parliament by Muslims and increasing Islamic terrorism and how it's affected Hindus. I can write about votebank politics in favor of Muslims and CPM,s support for radical Islamism etc. etc. I am sure that such an article would be AfD'ed in a second and scores of people rush in to vote "delete-delete". Rumpelstiltskin223 23:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: It depends on two things 1) Importance of topic and 2) amount of material available on it. If topic is not much important and if there is NOT much material available. Then a section in existing article is good. However, in this case the topic is very important because Muslims are lot in number and the issue is hot enough in press (see December 27th Report). Hence for me it is justified to have a seperate article on it. --- ALM 23:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Same thing with Hindus as well. here are some articles on the situation with the marginalization of Hindus in Bangladesh, for instance . If I created a separate article on State of Hindus in Bangladesh, every Muslim on wikipedia would yell "Hindu lies!Delete-delete". Rumpelstiltskin223 00:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to support State of Hindus in Bangladesh however above mentioned sources are not neutral. You are giving me Indian News paper to show Hindus status in Bangladesh. Those News papers are of other Hindu country hence might be biased. Unlike this I am giving you Hindu News papers of the same country to present situation of Muslim. Do you see the difference? --- ALM 01:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry I just found that some of your sources are neutral too. Hence I will support that article. --- ALM 01:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - There are no "Hindu newspapers". Please read about India before you make ignorant generalizations. India is a secular country, unlike other more backward countries in the area. The word "Hindu" in "The Hindu" does not mean it is a "Hindu" newspaper but "Hindu" in that context means India. In fact, "The Hindu" is a leftist biased newspaper that frequently makes hatred against Hindus in favor of radical leftist and Islamist groups (which explains their obsession with this subject).Regarding my argument above,I think you have misunderstood my position. My point of the above statement was that none of those articles cited is justification for a separate article on this problem but is a justification for including information in Hinduism in Bangladesh. To create a separate article is a POV fork. In the same vein, all this information about reports of Muslims is not enough for a separate article but inclusion into the Islam in India article where it belongs.Rumpelstiltskin223 02:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy redirect to Islam in India. KazakhPol 00:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - consider WP:NPOV and consider that there is no State of Muslims in Israel article then why this ? Freedom skies 19:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   Baka  man  03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopediac--Sefringle 07:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above--Shyamsunde 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Good article. Reasons for deletion and Redirect given above are humourous. --Mastiboy 13:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge content into an appropriate (or separate, if none exist) sect of Islam in India.  ITAQALLAH   01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge with islam in india. Various articles dealing with American demographics exist as well.RiseRobotRise 17:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- An unjustifiable comparison. There are no articles on the demographics of religions in America (other than the articles on the religions in USA themselves like Islam in the United States, no state of Muslims in the United States). There is already an Islam in India so this content can be put there. Rumpelstiltskin223 08:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as separate article as Islam in India is more suitable as a History related page and this article discusses the current scenario and this is one of the main topics being debated in India (Media, Parliament etc). Vjdchauhan 06:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment - That creates way too many POV forks and, given the tendency for Indian Islamic and Hindu Fundamentalist editors, as well as the comrades from the far left, to troll in these types of articles it is better to keep them all in one place to avoid further disruption of wikipedia (by now, I'm sure everybody is aware of the argumentative shenanigans of some South Asian editors on wikipedia). Rumpelstiltskin223 08:43, 15 January 2007 (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.