| Revision as of 01:12, 18 January 2015 editXharm (talk | contribs)156 edits Undid revision 642984365 by OccultZone (talk) Stop refactoring other arguments. You obviously can't come up with a rebuttal so you resort to personal attacks.← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:40, 18 January 2015 edit undoOccultZone (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers224,089 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| *'''Snow keep and close''' Nominator doesn't even have an idea. ]. Every third party source is considered as an independent source as long as it is representing a non-primary source, even though the nominator has failed to figure out the usage of the term outside these sources, he should know that ] has nothing to do with the nationality of the source. AfD is not for cleanup. Contrary to nominator's claim that this is used as a source is also misleading, it is not even added anywhere in the whole article. "]" are not sources, but the links that are related with the subject of the article. Nomination is not just ], it's a massive failure of ]. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 09:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | *'''Snow keep and close''' Nominator doesn't even have an idea. ]. Every third party source is considered as an independent source as long as it is representing a non-primary source, even though the nominator has failed to figure out the usage of the term outside these sources, he should know that ] has nothing to do with the nationality of the source. AfD is not for cleanup. Contrary to nominator's claim that this is used as a source is also misleading, it is not even added anywhere in the whole article. "]" are not sources, but the links that are related with the subject of the article. Nomination is not just ], it's a massive failure of ]. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 09:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| **Considering that this is the article's 3rd nomination, you still haven't addressed any of the issues. Most of the sources don't say ''anything'' about "Indian Century" at all. I corrected the link I meant to put above. Sources such as "Basketball superpower", "great power", or "superpower" have '''nothing''' to do with the unlikely Indian Century at all. A lot of the references also failed verification and do not support the contents. Most of the sources are also dead or unreliable. The article fails to include any ] independent sources that mentions "Indian Century", and most are also out-of-date. Fails ] and ]. ] (]) 10:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | **Considering that this is the article's 3rd nomination, you still haven't addressed any of the issues. Most of the sources don't say ''anything'' about "Indian Century" at all. I corrected the link I meant to put above. Sources such as "Basketball superpower", "great power", or "superpower" have '''nothing''' to do with the unlikely Indian Century at all. A lot of the references also failed verification and do not support the contents. Most of the sources are also dead or unreliable. The article fails to include any ] independent sources that mentions "Indian Century", and most are also out-of-date. Fails ] and ]. ] (]) 10:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::*It's not convincing to come up with new rationales all the time. More than 17 reliable sources were provided in the first nomination, so either you ] or you don't have the ] to judge, or ]. I don't see unreliable sources at all, and having ] is not a criteria for deletion. Sources are not outdated unless it required some update in terms of statistics or they are seriously old like you can say 100 years. Better learn the policies, in place of throwing them without knowing the substance. You have registered hardly 10 days ago and already failing to comply with the guidelines. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 15:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | ::*It's not convincing to come up with new rationales all the time. More than 17 reliable sources were provided in the first nomination, so either you ] or you don't have the ] to judge, '''or ]'''. I don't see unreliable sources at all, and having ] is not a criteria for deletion. Sources are not outdated unless it required some update in terms of statistics or they are seriously old like you can say 100 years. Better learn the policies, in place of throwing them without knowing the substance. You have registered hardly 10 days ago and already failing to comply with the guidelines. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 15:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::*No, the sources in the previous nominations were already discredited and no rebuttal was offered for them. Most of the sources have ''no'' mention of "Indian Century" at all. The sources are mostly passing mentions and fail to indicate notability for a standalone artice. You obviously can't offer any refutation and rebuttals, so that's you choose to resort to ]. Comment on ''content'', not on the ''contributor''. ] the one that ] or you don't have the ] to judge, or ]. ] (]) 18:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | :::*No, the sources in the previous nominations were already discredited and no rebuttal was offered for them. Most of the sources have ''no'' mention of "Indian Century" at all. The sources are mostly passing mentions and fail to indicate notability for a standalone artice. You obviously can't offer any refutation and rebuttals, so that's you choose to resort to ]. Comment on ''content'', not on the ''contributor''. ] the one that ] or you don't have the ] to judge, or ]. ] (]) 18:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::*Enough sources mention "Indian Century", thus you have no idea what you are talking about. ] in order to make ] is considered as ]. Do these sources are nothing more than a "passing mention"? You are asking to us to replace sources or you are just making this useless point as a criteria for deletion. You are uselessly ] even after knowing your ] to comprehend these mundane tasks, thus making it clear that you are ], you don't even know what is the meaning of personal attack. Because there is nothing interesting or supportive in this faulty AfD, and you have refused to ], it gets necessary to comment on you as well. Your isolated point that commenting on contributor(no wonder how bad/good) = personal attack, is just meaningless. Give up being a "wannabe be", write your own comments and try thinking about making ], so far you haven't made any sense. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 01:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Rename''' -- The article (also Asian Century and Chinese Century) fail ]. Since about the 1980s (or even later)India and China have experienced great growth, but that is only 30 or so years ago. WE have noi idea what may happen in the other 2/3rd of a century. Quite clearly both countries have undergone industrialisation and urbanisation on a scale similar to UK in the Industrial Revolution and Germany 1860-1914. If anything a title such as "the emergence of India as a great power" might cover the content and make a useful article. ] (]) 15:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | *'''Rename''' -- The article (also Asian Century and Chinese Century) fail ]. Since about the 1980s (or even later)India and China have experienced great growth, but that is only 30 or so years ago. WE have noi idea what may happen in the other 2/3rd of a century. Quite clearly both countries have undergone industrialisation and urbanisation on a scale similar to UK in the Industrial Revolution and Germany 1860-1914. If anything a title such as "the emergence of India as a great power" might cover the content and make a useful article. ] (]) 15:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' ] should have been done. , , . The notion that we cannot use a reliable source published in a country to write about the country is absurd and not based in policy (try removing American sources from articles about the United States). It would be helpful if someone could find coverage of ]'s "The Indian Century: Opportunities and Challenges" speech made this week. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' ] should have been done. , , . The notion that we cannot use a reliable source published in a country to write about the country is absurd and not based in policy (try removing American sources from articles about the United States). It would be helpful if someone could find coverage of ]'s "The Indian Century: Opportunities and Challenges" speech made this week. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:40, 18 January 2015
Indian Century
AfDs for this article:- Indian Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. And the sources are either out-of-date or do not indicate notability at all. Most of the sources say nothing about the term "Indian Century" except for sources that are not independent, such as the "Rediff India Abroad" source being an Indian source, and therefore not independent of the subject. The article is better off being a redirect to Asian Century since it's obviously not enough to be a standalone topic by itself. All the sources either fail to mention the term "Indian Century" at all, are by Indian authors and not independent, or are dependent on the Chinese Century as well and not enough to be a standalone.
It also looks like Synthesis and original research, as one of the sources is about being a basketball superpower. Xharm (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC) re-edited
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. E C K S A E S 08:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. E C K S A E S 08:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Snow keep and close Nominator doesn't even have an idea. WP:WIKILAWYER. Every third party source is considered as an independent source as long as it is representing a non-primary source, even though the nominator has failed to figure out the usage of the term outside these sources, he should know that WP:RS has nothing to do with the nationality of the source. AfD is not for cleanup. Contrary to nominator's claim that this URL is used as a source is also misleading, it is not even added anywhere in the whole article. "External links" are not sources, but the links that are related with the subject of the article. Nomination is not just riddled with faults, it's a massive failure of WP:BEFORE. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Considering that this is the article's 3rd nomination, you still haven't addressed any of the issues. Most of the sources don't say anything about "Indian Century" at all. I corrected the link I meant to put above. Sources such as "Basketball superpower", "great power", or "superpower" have nothing to do with the unlikely Indian Century at all. A lot of the references also failed verification and do not support the contents. Most of the sources are also dead or unreliable. The article fails to include any diverse independent sources that mentions "Indian Century", and most are also out-of-date. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability. Xharm (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's not convincing to come up with new rationales all the time. More than 17 reliable sources were provided in the first nomination, so either you cannot read or you don't have the ability to judge, or both. I don't see unreliable sources at all, and having dead links is not a criteria for deletion. Sources are not outdated unless it required some update in terms of statistics or they are seriously old like you can say 100 years. Better learn the policies, in place of throwing them without knowing the substance. You have registered hardly 10 days ago and already failing to comply with the guidelines. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, the sources in the previous nominations were already discredited and no rebuttal was offered for them. Most of the sources have no mention of "Indian Century" at all. The sources are mostly passing mentions and fail to indicate notability for a standalone artice. You obviously can't offer any refutation and rebuttals, so that's you choose to resort to personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor. You're the one that cannot read or you don't have the ability to judge, or both. Xharm (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Enough sources mention "Indian Century", thus you have no idea what you are talking about. Misrepresenting sources in order to make point is considered as gaming the system. Do these sources are nothing more than a "passing mention"? You are asking to us to replace sources or you are just making this useless point as a criteria for deletion. You are uselessly badgering even after knowing your immense inability to comprehend these mundane tasks, thus making it clear that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, you don't even know what is the meaning of personal attack. Because there is nothing interesting or supportive in this faulty AfD, and you have refused to read anything, it gets necessary to comment on you as well. Your isolated point that commenting on contributor(no wonder how bad/good) = personal attack, is just meaningless. Give up being a "wannabe be", write your own comments and try thinking about making sense, so far you haven't made any sense. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Rename -- The article (also Asian Century and Chinese Century) fail WP:CRYSTAL. Since about the 1980s (or even later)India and China have experienced great growth, but that is only 30 or so years ago. WE have noi idea what may happen in the other 2/3rd of a century. Quite clearly both countries have undergone industrialisation and urbanisation on a scale similar to UK in the Industrial Revolution and Germany 1860-1914. If anything a title such as "the emergence of India as a great power" might cover the content and make a useful article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep WP:BEFORE should have been done. , , . The notion that we cannot use a reliable source published in a country to write about the country is absurd and not based in policy (try removing American sources from articles about the United States). It would be helpful if someone could find coverage of Paul Krugman's "The Indian Century: Opportunities and Challenges" speech made this week. --NeilN 16:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Snow Keep -Sources are out-of date or do not indicate notability? Really! WP:Notability is not temporary. If there really are some WP:OR, Edit the article and WP:FIXIT. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. See also, WP:BEFORE. I do not mean to invoke OSE here, but by nominator argument we really should have no article on Earth. This is just ridiculous. I'm sorry if my words read rude. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)