The result was merge to Anti-Pakistan sentiment. J04n( talk page) 22:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Per WP:NOTDICDEF, "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. This problem is inherent in this article, which is currently a WP:SYNTHESIS of quotes that, as said in the preceding passage, only use the term. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary or Wikiquote, and this article in its current state is a WP:QUOTEFARM. There are dozens of quotes which only use the term with passing mention, and say nothing about the term. 95% of the information here is more suited to an article on violence during the Partition of India and Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Those who want to propose a merge of some of the content into relevant article/s may voice their opinion on this AfD too. Mar4d ( talk) 16:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This phrase ignited widespread ethnic carnage in the Punjab in 1947. It is encyclopaedic and very notable. Are you kidding me, you doubt its notability? Notability is not temporary. It needs work, not a deletion. Over use of quotation is not a ground for deletion.
There is NOT a single PROBLEM with this article which can't be surmounted. United States and state terrorism also attacks one country! It has lengthy quotes too. Should we also delete it? And what about countless other articles like it? What about Death to America? I mean what is going on? Wikipedia contents don't need to be censored. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 05:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC) reply
But this article certainly targets a country!-- so freaking what? There is NOT ONE PROBLEM with this article which can't be surmounted. United States and state terrorism also attacks one country! It has lengthy quotes too. Should we also delete it? And what about countless other articles like it? Wikipedia contents don't need to be censored.
"I also have references that state far worse sayings about India, should I start creating an article on those phrases?"- Sure if you think the quotes merit a separate article, why not? That very phrase had and still has certain types of social and historical repercussions in the same vein that Pakistan Zindabad had or has.
"Then may be you will understand what an encyclopedia is"
- I won't be lectured by you on what Wikipedia is and what it won't be. Wikipedia, among many things, is not censored based on people's emotional demands. I will try to desist from quibbling with you.
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?)
05:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
reply
( edit conflict) :History, don't make people laugh, please read above mentioned one one word that is written by Fut.Perf.. We should follow neutrality rather than related to emotional demands, we are editors not the part of political actors. Justice007 ( talk) 08:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC) reply