Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudo-secularism

Pseudo-secularism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable term not used by anybody except

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - are we a
  soapbox now? Bearian (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Expand and globalize this article. Great achievement (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Globalization is not possible because this is a neologism used in Indian politics. Outside of India, no one is using it. 103.198.133.241 (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While the article claims that BJP has a problem with "pseudo secularism", they actually have problem with secularism as a whole.[1] That said, the article does come off as a soapbox. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 12:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are 'Find sources' links above - use them.
  • 1000+ results on Google Scholar with -wikipedia filter, after excluding variants such as 'pseudo-secular' and 'pseudo-secularist'.
  • 100+ books on Google Books, excluding Wikipedia-based / AI-generated content. Some books that cannot be simply dismissed as trivial mentions:
    • The Crisis of Secularism in India, Duke University
    • The Secular Imaginary: Gandhi, Nehru and the Idea(s) of India, Cambridge University Press
    • This excludes the entire books written by people who will be dismissed as Sangh Parivar supporters: Pseudo-secularism in India, Pseudo-secularism, Christian Missions, and Hindu Resistance etc
  • Let's not even talk about literally thousands of news articles, because they will be dismissed as instances of the term being used by 'Sangh Parivar and their supporters'. Never mind that articles such as Trads or Manuvadi - which these 'Delete' voters will gladly defend - are also based on news articles.
  • That brings us to another point. Does the General notability guideline
    WP:GNG include any stipulation that a term should be used by a wider range of people to be notable? Sangh Parivar and their supporters easily number over 100 million with BJP alone claiming to have 170 million members). Category:Ethnic and religious slurs
    has over 200 terms that are used by much smaller groups.
  • Even if there such a stipulation existed, the article would easily pass notability:
    • Religious Revival and Pseudo-Secularism, article in Cardozo Law Review journal, nothing to do with Sangh Parivar
    • Epistemic Violence and the Rise of the Pseudo-Secular Islamic FBO in the Age of the ‘Religious Turn’ in Development, article in Muslim World journal, Deakin University
    • The Sources of Secularism: Enlightenment and Beyond (Springer) extensively discusses pseudo-secularism in the Middle East (quote for example "the reign and fall of pseudo-secularism is the most striking similarity between Iran, Turkey, and Tunisia")
    • Dominating religion in Egypt's pseudo-secular state, ABC Australia
    • A Pseudo-Secular Space, Religious Minority and Reasons for Exclusion: The Ahmadiyya Minority Group in Contemporary Indonesia, Politics and Religion Journal
    • This excludes news articles about Sangh Parivar opponents accusing them of being pseudo-secular, for example, Who’s pseudo-secular now? Sure, Yogi Adityanath, do build a Ram statue – but with your own money or Has the BJP become pseudo-secular?
    • This also excludes news articles about BJP opponents accusing other BJP opponents of being pseudo-secular, for example, Cong leaders term JD(S) pseudo secular or Lalu is pseudo-secular: Congress
  • The "article is a soapbox" arguments boil down to
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT - no attempt to initiate a discussion on the talk page or use maintenance tags on an article that has 18+ sources in References section and four books in Further reading section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:5943:3700:E0C7:A57C:181C:931 (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• None of these sources provide significant coverage to the neologism in hand. I note you are using Hindutva publications,[2][3] and opinion pieces.[4][5] They are not
  WP:RS. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Sorry, but you have extremely poor comprehension skills.
  • For what you call "Hindutva publications", I mentioned "This excludes the entire books... such as"
  • For what you call "opinion pieces", I mentioned "This excludes news articles...."
  • "None of these sources provide significant coverage"? Really? I get it that you may not have the time to read the books published by Duke University or Cambridge University Press, but there are two journal articles with literally the term "pseudo-secularism" in their title. 2607:FEA8:5943:3700:100:D940:36E1:D661 (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:SOAP. Non-notable political neologism, serves no purpose other than making Wikipedia a soapbox. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• How does a "non-notable neologism" happen to have so many results on JSTOR? 183 results for "pseudo-secularism", 147 results for Pseudo-secular, 27 results for "pseudo-secularist"... with journal articles dating back to 1990s?

• 1991 journal article: "all others were either communal or pseudo-secular"
• 1993 journal article: "Any dissent runs the risk of being branded as pseudo-secular appeasement."
• 1994 journal article: "In either case, allegations that the state is pseudo-secular are entirely misplaced."
• 1994 journal article: "The term 'communal', in this twisted language, is reserved for the Muslim, whereas the 'pseudo-secular' is the Hindu who defends the right of the Muslim citizen."
• 1994 journal article: "Post-independence Congress governments are labelled 'pseudo-secular', and accused of pandering to the 'minorities'."

• cf.
  Manuvadi (4 results for Manuvada, 33 results for Manuvadi) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:5943:3700:100:D940:36E1:D661 (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]