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The result was withdrawn by nominator‎ — Alalch E. 17:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Hindu terrorism

Hindu terrorism (  | 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)

Time to WP:TNT this failure to have an article about something. We don't know what we are writing about. Let's figure that out first through discussion and drafting. Currently, the name says one thing, but the article itself says something else. The subject, as indicated by the title, that we're now fabulously stuck with for process reasons and the subject as outlined in the prose are not at all the same. Just as it was with the old name (which had indicated a WP:WORDISSUBJECT topic). It can be reasonably thought that the article confuses our readers and does not provide valid encyclopedic coverage of anything as it is incoherent and devoid of substance. The reasons for this go way deeper than the naming concerns, and are about the subject and content—or lack thereof.While there are long-lasting disputes on the talk page, the article has never been truly written. This pseudo-article fails Wikipedia:Write the article first: it arose from a desire to have a specifically titled article, but not nearly enough effort was put into filling the resulting page with encyclopedic coverage. There have been multiple comments for years how core coverage of the social phenomenon is lacking (what it is); this was never resolved.Notice the lack of a body section about what it—whatever it is—is.Apart from tragic structural deficiencies in coverage, this being a difficult and exceptionally sensitive subject to write about: the quality of coverage in all its parts (irrespective of the nebulous overarching topic) is subpar.Whatever editors agree to have an article about, some content should be reusable, so TNT doesn't imply that we should start again from a blank page. Draftification may be appropriate. There is no deadline, and while this is being worked out, it is better to offer nothing to our readers than something as unworthy as this. — Alalch E. 02:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Law, Social science, and India. — Alalch E. 02:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Article is only pushing fifteen years old, so if the content needs improvement, that would be the way forward. Another possibly valid essay that counters WP:TNT is WP:TNTNT. P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there}  02:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Content about what? Content needs creation.— Alalch E. 03:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Sounds contrary to why an article comes to AfD – if content "needs creation" (assumedly because the subject is notable), then you create it, you don't destroy it, isn't that correct? P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there}  10:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep: This article is an absolute [expletive deleted], but deletion is not cleanup and TNTTNT. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/ _{STUFF DONE} 02:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • It's unhealthy to have this in mainspace and conduct various processes around it, all premised on this being a determinate topic when it's a just a radioactive dump site of a page about nothing concrete. That's why it's such rubbish. it will never become better in mainspace. It's impossible to write an article that doesn't have a subject, while at the same time people have strong feelings about the page as a page and its title as a phrase. It could only become better in draftspace.— Alalch E. 03:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I've been watching this article as an interested observer ever since I saw this page on WP:RM about a month ago. With all due respect to the nominator, I don't think this is a good use of AFD. I'll note as well that Alalch E. recently had their rather bold move reverted, where they asserted they were moving the article to a "neutral" title (despite the RM history). (Edit: I mention this primarily because I can empathize with Alalch E.'s frustration in trying to do the right thing.) This article is always going to be a minefield; but there are better methods and tools we can use to help keep the background noise to a minimum. Blowing it up is not the solution. -- Hadal ( talk) 04:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep Per WP:WRONGFORUM, AfD is not for deleting a topic you don't like the treatment of, despite it being notable. WP:SOFIXIT applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 05:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep and snow close. Even if the article scope (and thus its title) is being debated, the subject matter is inherently notable as evidenced by the multitude of sources. Therefore, Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 10:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Hinduism. Shellwood ( talk) 10:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Yup, speedy keep/snow close: Somewhat baffling nomination following a page move by the OP that at the time didn't obviously question the validity of the page. A page with a confused identity is not the same thing as a subject without notability. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep, per the abundance of reliable sources discussing the phenomenon of terrorism committed by actors claiming adherence to Hinduism. Absent demonstrated verifiability and original research issues, this can be handled in mainspace; we aren't even close to TNT territory. This AfD is a terrible idea; a dispute over the name doesn't change the underlying topic, on which there is broad agreement, and the OP was a previously uninvolved editor who opined at move review, subsequently moved the article without consensus, and then came here after their move was reverted while an RM is open to handle the title issue. Alalch E., I genuinely don't understand your motivation here, but you need to take a step back from this. I strongly recommend withdrawing this AfD, as it is a needless timesink. Vanamonde ( Talk) 12:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply

• Last night was WP:EUI#7 for me. Sincere apologies, and sorry for not following up sooner. Hasn't happened before and won't happen again. My real thinking shares some elements with what I wrote (for example calling the article really bad) but as a whole it is not this. My interest in this article does not originate with the Move Review and I had edited it prior to that.— Alalch E. 17:08, 1 May 2023 (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.