Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Indian century (3rd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:54, 20 January 2015 editTheSawTooth (talk | contribs)679 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 10:57, 20 January 2015 edit undoTheSawTooth (talk | contribs)679 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 47: Line 47:
::::*SYNTH does not required any OR. It is an improper synthesis because it synthesises various sourced statements to give an impression that is ''not'' reliably sourced. For example, the final two statements in the article—"Many industries are established in the country due to investments in technology and in the professionalisation of manpower, in addition to its tradition of Exact Sciences. However, several problems such as economic, political, and social problems need to be overcome to be considered a superpower."—have nothing apparently to do with a present or future Indian century. Sources like ''Colonial Power, Colonial Texts: India in the Modern British Novel'' (1997) cannot possibly tell us anything about a future Indian Century that isn't non-notable speculation. Newspapers make bad sources—unreliable sources would be the Wikipedian term—for speculation about the next 75+ years. ] (]) 03:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC) ::::*SYNTH does not required any OR. It is an improper synthesis because it synthesises various sourced statements to give an impression that is ''not'' reliably sourced. For example, the final two statements in the article—"Many industries are established in the country due to investments in technology and in the professionalisation of manpower, in addition to its tradition of Exact Sciences. However, several problems such as economic, political, and social problems need to be overcome to be considered a superpower."—have nothing apparently to do with a present or future Indian century. Sources like ''Colonial Power, Colonial Texts: India in the Modern British Novel'' (1997) cannot possibly tell us anything about a future Indian Century that isn't non-notable speculation. Newspapers make bad sources—unreliable sources would be the Wikipedian term—for speculation about the next 75+ years. ] (]) 03:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::*You are still talking about the quality of the content and not about the policies that you had mentioned in your !vote, and how they are an important part for this particular AfD. Now if you are looking for the sources that would mention, "Industries", "superpower" etc. and also the term India Century, you simply add any other source, like → . Finding faults in the sources cannot be established as a criteria for deletion. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 04:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC) :::::*You are still talking about the quality of the content and not about the policies that you had mentioned in your !vote, and how they are an important part for this particular AfD. Now if you are looking for the sources that would mention, "Industries", "superpower" etc. and also the term India Century, you simply add any other source, like → . Finding faults in the sources cannot be established as a criteria for deletion. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 04:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I move that this page be deleted because it is boosterism and crystal ball. It can not be merged because this data is already in other articles you can see comment of Xinjiang guy. ---] (]) 10:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC) *'''Delete''' I move that this page be deleted because it is boosterism and crystal ball. It can not be merged because this data is already in other articles you can see comment of Xinjiang guy. Misplaced Pages is not place to put our wishful thinking. ---] (]) 10:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:57, 20 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 citations is about being a basketball superpower. And the references in an entire section also mention nothing related to an 'Indian Century', at all. Xharm (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock of Supersaiyen312

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. E C K S A E 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 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 (TalkContributionsLog) 09:49, 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 (TalkContributionsLog) 15:53, 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 me", write your own comments and try thinking about making sense, so far you haven't made any sense. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 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)
  • Comment When the first source cited in the article, supposedly referring to "the possibility that the 21st century will be dominated by India" actually turns out to be referring to the period 1914-2014, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence. AndyTheGrump (talk} 04:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed - replaced with a source that uses the phrase 'Indian century' once, and then goes on to discuss China in depth. Though no longer a completely bogus source, it reeks of desperation, and if that is the best you've got, I have to suggest that the article title at least needs revising. How about "The Indian Century if the Chinese don't beat them to it"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Not really the best source, India century is also a common term. For Indian Century, I have found another source"Indian+century" that describes both India and China and their development, and the author ends his statement, claiming that in the longer run, 21st century can be a Indian century. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 06:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. Source examples include:
NORTH AMERICA 11:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Because statements like "According to scholars, media sources and economic historian Angus Maddison in his book The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, the polities of India constituted the largest economy in the world from ca. 1 CE to 1000 CE" have nothing to do with the concept of an Indian Century. And others like "It is also often referred as South Asia's natural hegemon because of its overwhelming dominance of the region in all aspects – political, economic, military, cultural, and demographic", which says nothing about India being to this century what Britain was to the 19th or America to the 20th. Regional hegemony has nothing inherently to do with "the possibility that the 21st century will be dominated by India". The term around which the article is built is for pundits and for scholars' offhand remarks in their introductions. It is a rhetorical question ("Will the 21st century by the Indian century?") and not an encyclopedic topic. Srnec (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Srnec: You don't have to cherry pick a few lines for making a WP:POINT. Synth applies only when the information is not supported by the provided source. These statements are related with the subject, I can find that there are a few sources that refer to both, the tally of economical history and the term Indian/India Century. If you have some actual concern, you are always allowed to bring such sources to the article. You are talking about the quality of the content which was not even asked for. Read my question again, I didn't asked you to review this article, I asked you to address that how it fails WP:CRYSTAL, how it is WP:SYNTH and how it is not encyclopedic when it has been covered by so many in academia. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 03:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • SYNTH does not required any OR. It is an improper synthesis because it synthesises various sourced statements to give an impression that is not reliably sourced. For example, the final two statements in the article—"Many industries are established in the country due to investments in technology and in the professionalisation of manpower, in addition to its tradition of Exact Sciences. However, several problems such as economic, political, and social problems need to be overcome to be considered a superpower."—have nothing apparently to do with a present or future Indian century. Sources like Colonial Power, Colonial Texts: India in the Modern British Novel (1997) cannot possibly tell us anything about a future Indian Century that isn't non-notable speculation. Newspapers make bad sources—unreliable sources would be the Wikipedian term—for speculation about the next 75+ years. Srnec (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You are still talking about the quality of the content and not about the policies that you had mentioned in your !vote, and how they are an important part for this particular AfD. Now if you are looking for the sources that would mention, "Industries", "superpower" etc. and also the term India Century, you simply add any other source, like → . Finding faults in the sources cannot be established as a criteria for deletion. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 04:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I move that this page be deleted because it is boosterism and crystal ball. It can not be merged because this data is already in other articles you can see comment of Xinjiang guy. Misplaced Pages is not place to put our wishful thinking. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Categories: