Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New subcontinent

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New subcontinent

New subcontinent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure original research. Basically, the author hypothesizes a reconfiguration of the countries of the Indian subcontinent on religious, ethnic and political lines. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 09:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An unregistered user has just rewritten the entire page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_subcontinent&diff=308457900&oldid=308447469 —
  Rankiri (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Both versions would appear to be
  original proposals. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - original research / soapboxing for a proposal. Pseudomonas_(talk) 15:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  Himalayan snow. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as
  WP:OR. Salih (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per OR, HOAX and NONSENSE. --Deepak D'Souza 01:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Now. Priyanath ^talk 03:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Hoax/ irremediable OR. Perhaps even speedy-able. Abecedare (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note It dose have sources like newspapers and the Tamil Tigers are real people. --86.29.130.180 (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The page creator removed the AfD template, I've restored it. Time for some
  snow? -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as mainly an opinion post. A neutral article about separationalist struggles and border disputes in the region is cool. An opinion-based essay in violation of
  snowball from melting. I'll change my mind if the article is named to better describe it's subject, and the content is found notable and rewritten with sources to a neutral, factual text about the subject, but I don't think this article has anything seriously worth salvaging. Also, I haven't checked, but there are most likely articles about all significant separationalist movements in the area, in which case this one would be redundant. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note A major rewite is on the way.--86.29.143.201 (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Now. Pradeep90 —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Note Bugger, it's locked and he's messed about with my
  Gorkha stuff again! It's too bias agaist Gorkhas and Tamils! Snow?--86.29.140.242 (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Snow means the
    snowball clause. But the article most likely will be deleted, the bias will be swept away. Kotiwalo (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete as non-notable OR synthesis soapbox etc. If there's anything worth salvaging in this article, it can be merged into the articles currently linked under See also. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note It's a soap box, but could be re-written to be less bias against Hindus and Gorkahs. Assam should get a mention to, along with Pakistan's squabble with Afghanistan over the Durand line.

• Keep It's based on facts and sources like the Assam Times. The tone needs a change and a ceanup is needed, but it's content is right. It is not a 'snow ball' or a 'clowie'--86.29.132.118 (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article describes a "what if" - situation. Wikipedia doesn't do them - the article is a
    synthesis by someone, not a fact. Even if it was true, I'd still prefer this as separate articles about the notable separatist groups (logical, isn't it?). Kotiwalo (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Note
  Sikh homeland, It was in The Straits Times recently!--86.29.132.118 (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as its highly opinionated and is based on ifs and buts and has no place in a encyclopedia website. Its highly biased against India, Hindus in general and Tamils. If this is allowed then maybe tomorrow someone can publish an article say on Pakistan showing Baluchistan and Sindh as different country just because there has been unrest in those areas and in some one's POV its possible...This article is purely based on wishful thinking of some PakistanisParthashome (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note the title should be deleted, since it is no more than the end result of a hypothesized successful separatist struggle. However, i do note that a significant rewrite of this article might have some place under Separatist movements of India. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont bother about it. There is nothing salvagable in this article and as for Separatist movements of India, it is highly unreferenced and includes some fictional movements. Not to forget: it does not differentiate between movements for separate states and secessionist movements. --Deepak D'Souza 11:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• NoteI agree, it's
  Pashtuns!--86.29.135.66 (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Subcontinent doesnt mean India, Pakistan is also a part of that subcontinent and there are also many separatists movement going on: Baluchistan, Sindhudesh and Pashtunistan and it is based on ifs and buts, so it has to be deleted as soon as possible! --Pradeep90 —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Nobody here is concerned about this article from an ethnic rivalry perspective even if caused World War III to break out. The only concern is if it is a proper topic for Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 19:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • It's to short and boring to keep, Pakistan teeters on the brink of having Sindh defecting to India to! Is it right to premote warmongers on the Wiki and start World War III?!--Doźlik (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Ther is also Separatist movements of Pakistan page.--The corridor head end! (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sikkim was never part of China and is not even a disputed area. The Naxals have never demanded a separate country. The Gorkhaland issue is a internal State hood issue. Pakistan also has liberation movements like Baluchistan and Sindhi which are not mentioned...Hate filled and highly opinionated. Should be deleted immediately...Parthashome (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per SpacemanSpiff's reasoning. Hekerui (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sleep This page is turnig in to a flame-war and troll-fest, dopes!!! --86.29.142.106 (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually this is more peaceful than many of the discussions I've seen, possibly because this case is relatively clearly not a good Wikipedia article. Also, do not call others dopes or even trolls, that's not
    civil. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Yep , and that kind of talk probably suggests that the person making them is a troll. Probably this guy is a block-evading sock. --Deepak D'Souza 03:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably are a sock...There is no trolling going on here. The article is the work of a troll's POV and personal wishesParthashome (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete original research from typical POV-pushers.--GDibyendu (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second it.Parthashome (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• NoteI've re-written it and added the Chin tribes.--86.29.137.30 (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that this article gets rewritten really frequently. Constructive editing would be okay, but there seems to be edit warring between several people who obviously hold different opinions on the subject. If we somehow decide to keep the article, measures should be taken to improve the article's neutrality and stability, so it won't stay the writhing mass of primal chaos it is. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note There is no demand for Dravidistan, there used to be one in 1950-60 but not anymore. The Kashmir region is also made up of Jammu and Ladakh which are Hindu and Buddhist Majority while Kashmir valley is a small area which has its border with azad kashmir(Pakistan) is a muslim majority where you usually have strikes and protests and they are the ones who are demanding for Independence and not Jammu and Ladakh and you just cant assume that Kashmir will become a aprt of Pakistan in future. Naxals are not asking for a separate country, China has accepted Sikkim as a part of India and Khalistanis want not only Indian punjab but also the Pakistani Punjab. And what makes you think that India will give Kashmir, Junagarh and Manavadar to Pakistan without a war? So first fix this and show Balochistan, Sindhudesh and Pashtunistan in your map before uploading it.

Basic Idea -- In this section it says " Dravidistan, East Bengal and Orissa (the Naxalite rebel controled 'state') which is communist in nature). It is also assumed that Kashmir joins Pakistan."

There is no demand for Dravidistan, East Bengal(Bangladesh) is already an Independent country, Naxals are not asking for a separate country and again you cant assume Kashmir will become a part of Pakistan. I can assume many things too, i think Pakistan will disintegrate in the next 10-20 years. --Pradeep90 —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete fast This is the work of jobless Pakistanis; extremely harmful. Indian admins please wake up fast. Jai Hind. Hometech (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowball Clause Delete - Original research, mainly opinion article.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 02:09, 24 August 2009 (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.