Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalistan

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 of the debate was keep, improper listing. Ashibaka tock 22:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khalistan

Anmol.2k4 18:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this page for deletion because it is written with a point of view , excessive use of unreliable sources.and the title "Khalistan" is wrong for the topic because "Khalistan" does not exist,lack of support from resident Punjabi's and Sikhs in India, but there was a "Movement for Khalistan" and that is the right title for the topic, and i think this whole article "a new name" should be rewritten with the help of people from sikh community "in" India and other Indians, because this topic is related to politics/people of India.We all should understand Khalistan is not a political entity and having a article is not justified, Microsoft Encarta and Britannic encyclopedia don't have an article known as "Khalistan" but they do have articles on the movement that took place decades back, and i think there are also copyright issues involved with this article because big parts of this article are written on other peoples research. Many reliable sources are used to show "one side" of their view on the topic, there are also indications that organisations banned by US and EU are involved in providing their research on the movement.I am a strong supporter to have a stub on this topic , but im afraid that such articles on wikipedia have become mouthpieces for organisation which are known for disrupting peace (assassination of one of india's prime minister, twin bomb blast in New Delhi on the eve of Diwali) in Indian sub continent.

Anmol.2k4 18:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article needs cleanup, not deletion. The movement, and their proposed homeland is well known, and the article seems to have a long list of citations. It is true that this article is perhaps biased, but AfD is not the place to remove bias. Discussion and consensus at the article page is the proper way to do so. Thanks. --Ragib 18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. While I am not averse to moving it to "Movement for Khalistan" I believe it is not an appropriate title. The article needs some clean-up and NPOVification, though. --Gurubrahma 18:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. AfD is not for POV problems. David Sneek 18:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a valid term, even if not an officially recognized entity (see Kurdistan, for example). If the article is too POV, or there are copyright issues, that requires cleanup, not deletion. Whether or not one likes the politics of some supporters has no place in the discussion. Fan1967 19:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: as Ragib said, it needs cleanup. If you think the article has copyright issues then please tell us specifically which text is the problem and where is the original source that its copied from? (i.e. a url or something). --Spundun 19:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: I've worked with User:Zafarnamah to get the article cleaned up significantly from its original form (check out the talk page, and history). There is an undeniable bias in the article (i.e. it is pro-Khalistan) and it does little to criticise the Khalistani militants. However, this is absolutely no reason to delete the article, and the name is perfectly acceptable too. Anmol.2k4 seems to think that bias problems in an article with such depth are easy to fix - they're not. I've on several occasions asked Indian Wikipedians to help in showing an anti-Khalistan view, but none have edited it. This issue is extremely complex, and plagued by misreporting on both sides (the stifling of media in Punjab did nothing to help this). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope one good effect of this is that more people contribute to the article. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Yes, Khalistan does not exist and the article should not and does not claim it exists. Lack of support can be mentioned in the article. I agree with above arguments for keeping the article with the word of caution that all inappropriate material or baseless political propaganda should be removed from the article. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 19:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Submitter doesn't understand deletion policy. And seriously needs to stop spamming people. Arvindn 19:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article needs cleanup, not deletion. - Ganeshk (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per David Sneek; AfD is not for resolution of PoV issues. --Alan Au 20:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per everyone before me. DevanJedi 20:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup.
  Arundhati bakshi 21:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per everything above. Mike _{(T C)} 21:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.