Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Christian violence 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.

[edit] Anti-Christian violence in India

The result was No consensus Maxim_(talk) 13:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Christian violence in India (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is part of a series of articles created by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus [1] that have several problems. 1. The article, in it's entirity, is Original research a Synthesis of unrelated facts written semi-intelligently in order to push a particular agenda, which is the suggestion that there is some-sort of institutional anti-Christian problem in the country of the subject, and there are no "reliable sources" (except for a disproportionate focus on a controversial left-wing scholar who was part of a major controversy concerning bias in the Campus Watch list and unqualified reports from an organization who has been accused of bias against India [2]) to make this assertion,2. The article subject is unencyclopedic. No other articles for allegations of violence directed against specific religious groups in a specific country have ever been created.Not a single one, for any of the worlds 10 major religions and 150 major countries (ie not one of 1500 possible articles). Why is India being singled out for opprobrium? What is to prevent somebody from writing articles ranging from Anti-Shinto violence in Papua New Guinea to Anti-Semitic violence in Puerto Rico based on synthesis? 3.This article, together with several articles created by this user, constitute POV-forks of existing articles. In this case, the article is a POV fork of Religious violence in India, from where content has just been copy-pasted over. These POV forks are being edited by the user with what clearly is a tendentious intent to disparage it's subject (India and Indians). Thus, I nominate these unencyclopedic article for deletion Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - The level of violence against Christians indicates that it could be a good article over time due to the amount of information it would cover. It may be POV, and not well written, and not sourced, but it should be fixed, not deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my position.I'm not suggesting that the information isn't noteworthy. My point here is that there is nothing in this article that can't be included (and already isn't) in Religious violence in India. Also, the violence allegedly directed against perceived "Christians" isn't religious or theological (unlike, say, the violence between Muslims and Christians) but is primarily due to political and communal compulsions. This article makes the synthesis that the violence is theologically directed, which is false. Given India's religious plurality, an article with a pro-Christian subject, if kept, will lead to others writing about anti-Hindu violence in India from Christians (such as Goa Inquisition or the National Liberation Front of Tripura, or the extraordinarily high levels of anti-Hindu violence from Christian Fundamentalists in Trinidad or Fiji leading to andless flame wars which will interfere with encyclopedia). Best to keep everything organized in a single balanced article. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of user Ghanadar galpa's misinterpretation on wikipedia and its policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of notable and verificable facts and information in encyclopedic format with neutral point of view. The arguments like flame wars are baseless. The article religious violence in India is specifically for the combination of all religious violence that occur in India. That article is not supposed to depict the anti-Christian violence elaborately. There comes the need for a separate article. In India Anti-Christian violence is widely noted[3]. Hence the need of this article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I have already mentioned that the Vinay Lal nonsense is being given too much attention, given the extremely infammatory and controversial far-left views of this particular academic. Furthermore, given that Christians in secular democratic India enjoy more religious freedoms than, say Christians in Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Yemen, or any Islamic theocracy, and that there are no "Anti-Christian whatever" articles on them (or specifically anti-anyreligion for that matter), establishing their lack of noteworthiness. It is clear that no such noteworthiness exists for India. I'm afraid that this tactic (repeating the same false point is Goebbelian fashion again and again until it seems to be true, is a standard one employed by mr Crassicaudatus (see Talk:Human rights in India, where he tried to pull this stunt off as well)). 72.179.58.61 Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Religious violence in India. It is better than creating lots of articles on violence against particuklar groups unless consensus amongst editors decides that there is enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Capitalistroadster. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The instigator of this article, mr otomelue Crassicaudatus, has been vote canvassing for this article and others from another AfD. [4][5][6]Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per Capitalistroadster and Ghanadar galpa's own statement, "I'm not suggesting that the information isn't noteworthy. My point here is that there is nothing in this article that can't be included (and already isn't) in Religious violence in India". At present, the article is too much of a stub, containing one sentence per section. Unlike the other sections of Religious violence in India that have forks to a main article, it does not document individual incidents, but instead specifies statistics. The other forks are either about specific incidents or source some incident reports individually. --Banazir (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: The primary instigator of this article, User Otolemur Crassicaudatus, is presently trolling multiple talk pages trying to canvass for votes and making some pretty nasty accusations against me (all tedious, repetitive and unsubstantiated), not to mention full of some of the most offensively hateful bigotry and prejudice that I have seen to date. Voters need to take note of this.[7][8]. [9][10] [11][12].Should I report him? Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have issued Ghanadar galpa and Otolemur crassicaudatus a no personal attacks warning on their user talk pages. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 02:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete No need for this article. this user has alread created an article called religious violence in india that this info could go into. Nikkul (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: if kept rename to "... in modern India". Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Persecution of Christians has more info than this page, one of a string of useless India-bashing pages created over the past week or so.Bakaman 21:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete information is present in other articles.--D-Boy (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The noteworthy information if any can be added to Religious violence in India. --Shyamsunder 21:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article Religious violence in India is already there. We don't need this article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Religious violence in India per Ghanadar galpa and Banazir's comments. --Lquilter (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete This is subsumed by Religious violence in India and the author is flogging a POV-ridden dead horse. The scale of religious violence in India against Christians is minuscule compared to that against Hindus and Muslims. Ezhava (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  user has only 16 edits since June 2007, all made it yesterday. details. (sock?}.--Avinesh Jose (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable topic. Scale of religions violence *by* Christians in India is more relevant, as there are many instances of coercion and force used in conversion. For instance, denial of jobs and degrees in Christian-run institutions unless a person converts. In India's North-east, dominated by Christians, missionaries and Christians terrorists have banned non-Christian religious activities and demolished Hindu temples, as well as shot dead Hindu priests. Malabarcoast (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  user has only 14 edits since Dec 15. details here. (sock?} --Avinesh Jose (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I was about to agree for the Merge of this article, but then I read these previous statements. Such rubbish being said, its funny how its always the smallest minority that is the (easy) bogeyman for chauvinists, no matter what the faith. Easy targets are what these cowards want. Graham Staines and his little children these people claim were the murder victims of Over "patriotic" youth. What idiots we have trolling the wikipedia. --Friedricer (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User has five edits. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - merge with Religious violence in India. Articles on persecution of specific minorities are destined to become POV hotbeds. Presenting the larger picture will help to provide a larger picture.Osli73 (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Take a look at this article; not much in itself, but there has been an article like it every week for several years from India, and a critical encyclopedic look at this topic should be allowed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I though, O Lardy, tarnation, another martyr-wannabe. Then I looked at it criticially, and it appears to be a topic notable enough for its own article. There are 5 good cites, and many more could be found easily. My only concern is that this could become a post hoc-POV fork of Religious violence in India. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Have a look at Anti-Catholicism in the United States. It is worth keeping this article. Hope this will improve later. --Avinesh Jose (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This is subsumed by Religious violence in India and the author is flogging a POV-ridden dead horse. The scale of religious violence in India against Christians is minuscule compared to that against Hindus and Muslims. Mastercrafter 11:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  User has nine edits; only three since August and all of those were made today. Possible sock. --Richard (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Violence against Christians in India is a genuine and valid issue. Conversion to Christianity is a very sensitive issue in many parts of India. And conversion to Christianity or try to convert to Christianity may even result in death. Nomination of this article for deletion is a bad faith nomination. Claiming this article POV-ridden is a bad faith calim. Why this article will be POV? To mention the fact that violence occurs against Christians is POV? Wikipedia is a collection of true and genuine facts. This article depicts the violence that Christians face in India. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:26, 15 December 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.