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 no consensus.

Okay, this is a very poor-quality discussion animated mostly by personal sentiments instead of Wikipedia policies and practice. I'm discounting all the opinions, no matter how "strong" or "speedy", that are based on editors' personal opinions about the article's current contents or on other weak arguments such as WP:OTHERSTUFF, or no arguments at all. Notably, the argument that this should be deleted as an attack page is preposterous (there's a rather evident distinction between making an attack and describing derogatory slogans made up by others), as is the argument for keeping it just because a laudatory slogan also has an article. I'm also discounting all opinions that make allegations of misconduct (such as hounding) against others: AfD is not a dispute resolution forum.

On that basis, the only opinions I'm taking into consideration are those by TheSpecialUser, Rsrikanth05 and Ansumang (keep), and Future Perfect at Sunrise, CodeTheorist, Averroist, Shrigley and Samar (delete). With respect to these opinions, we do not have a clear consensus to delete, so I'm closing the discussion as "no consensus".

How to proceed now? I recommend to start a talk page discussion or a formal WP:RfC about whether this should be merged to Anti-Pakistan sentiment, as has been variously suggested. If that RfC is inconclusive, the article may be renominated for deletion (in the hope that the second discussion will be less of a mess).  Sandstein  08:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Murdabad[edit]

Pakistan Murdabad (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)

This article very aptly fits a dictionary definition of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POV editing, created in response to another article Pakistan Zindabad. The subject of the article is a derogatory attack term which is inappropriate and has no place here, by any stretch. The article, if not outright deleted, should preferably be merged into Anti-Pakistan sentiment. I cannot see any WP:AGF involved in the creation of this article. There are heaps of slogans, and last time I checked, Wikipedia didn't have articles on attack slogans like "Death to America", "Death to India" etc. Mar4d (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mar4d (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Mar4d (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mar4d (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Pakistan Murdabad" which means "Death to Pakistan" is much more popular and frequently used in conflicts, then "Death to America" and thus it doesn't have any article. Hogwash. What makes you say that, other than your own personal opinion? Mar4d (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not an personal opinion. This and This. →TSU tp* 15:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even better, here and here. →TSU tp* 15:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You link to Google searches for death to america, but you should have linked to "death to america". JamesBWatson (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Mar4d Your argument is completely invalid. If no article has been created on a related topic, then that dos not means that no such article should be kept. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. Feel free to create Death to America if you like, but the fact that nobody has yet done so isn't a reason for deleting Pakistan Murdabad. I think Death to America is used sufficiently often in some parts of the world that it may well be notable enough for an article. JamesBWatson (talk)
Errm, what? Where on earth is the attack? It doesn't attack Pakistan, it simply reports on an expression which is used by some people to attack Pakistan. To say it should be speedily deleted as an attack page makes about as much sense as saying that Adolf Hitler should be deleted because it is an antisemitic page, or that Cyanide should be deleted because it is a deadly poisonous page. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So if someone comes up tomorrow with an article called "Fuck XYZ country" and describe its use, you would have no objections? Mar4d (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)This kind of expression is used for all nations, ethnic groups and people too, by their rivals. Tell me won't these be attack pages: "Death to <person>", "Death to <ethnic group>", "Death to <nation>", like "Death to Bush", "Death to Obama", these kind of expressions are reported abundantly, but this don't make it a valuable content for an encyclopedia, it may be used in an article with context where required but it should not have a separate article. Rivals of a country, group or a person also hurl abuses about them, will they also find place among our articles? --SMS Talk 17:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pakistan Murdabad is a very popular slogan. The article also describes the origin of the slogan. Again to remind, Wikipedia is not censored. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hindustan Murdabad is a Pakistani slogan most commonly used while referring to Anti-India sentiment. It translates to "Death to India".
how would the people who have placed a keep tag like?
Though Hindustan Murdabad is not a slogan commonly or famously used in Pakistan. The slogans used in Pakistan are much worse, for which, if a page is created, may make Wikipedia an abusepedia.
Strong delete recommended.
--Inlandmamba (talk to me) 18:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. You have reinforced what I've been trying to say all along but couldn't express any clearer :p Mar4d (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why I have to remind again and again that Wikipedia is not censored. If you think that those slogans are notable, you are most welcome to add them here. Please be on the topic and don't try to make this AfD off-topic. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain how is this WP:ATTACK? Also I really can't understand your statement that the facts are disputed. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain how doe this article meets WP:OR. It also has information on the etymology and the origin. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The article gives the etymology of the phrase, but WP is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDIC) and such things are better added to Wiktionary. The phrase has been used a number of times according to the references in the article, but mere common usage of a phrase doesn't mean that it is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, so the references are all irrelevant (even if they are reliable sources). In fact most of the references only mention the phrase in passing. The only references that would make the term notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia would be reliable sources that considered the socio-political and historical importance of the phrase. The article as it stands is trying to make the case that the phrase is important and worthy of notice, when it should instead be referencing a scholarly article that makes that case. That is why it is original research. CodeTheorist (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
“ Pakistan Murdabad is a Hindustani slogan most commonly used while referring to Anti-Pakistan sentiment. It translates to "Death to Pakistan"." Under the heading, Etymology, the title of the article has been defined as “The slogan is the use of typical Urdu and Persian suffix Murdabad.
The first reference in both introduction and first heading is same and based on a commentary of a short story, “Toba Tek Singh” written by Sadat Hasan Munto, published in Urdu language . The plot of the story is about a lunatic asylum at the time of Partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, and the writer was a master of Urdu literature and Pakistani. The suffix ‘Murdabad’ was used at random in the story. This reference does not imply that the slogan is most commonly used.
The second reference is based on a book about the events at the time of Partition of India. In this reference, the word was also used at random. It reads as follows
“certain boys, who rashly chanted Pakistan Zindabad, (Longlive Pakistan!), instead of Pakistan Murdabad (Down with Pakistan), were arrested.” (“British documents on foreign affairs: reports and papers from the Foreign Office confidential print. From 1946 through 1950. Asia, Volume 9).
The reader may judge for himself that how this reference states that the slogan is most commonly used. It is clear from these references that the slogan underlines the missing notability and that the article is therefore some sort of poor google research and original research to close this gap, therefore fails to fulfill WP notability criterion. Regards Averroist (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.-- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 08:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another piece of baseless allegations. This AfD was only a piece of hounding, and now you are accusing me of hounding. Funny, isn't it? Talk about the article. And if you are saying that this fails the notability guideline, then the same also applies to Pakistan Zindabad. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My allegations are not baseless, there's hard evidence for them. The closing administrator is free to check that you created these two articles shortly after my creation and should act to stop this WP:BATTLE as requested by multiple users. The second part of your comment is based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... that article is notable for multiple reasons including being a battle cry unlike this one. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know how hard your evidences are. Talk about the article. Blindly citing WP:ATTACK will do nothing in favour of you. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that why only the Indian editors are supporting to keep this article? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about censorship.. nor about an edit dispute.. it's about the existence of such an article. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No policy says that if there are no counterparts, then the article can't be created. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was not my comment here... anyway, that raises further questions... if counter parts are created, would you still be supporting a "keep" there? The first consideration is that the article is WP:BATTLE based and not notable enough on it's own either. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will again repeat my words, if this article is not notable, Pakistan Zindabad is not a different case. Also if the counterpart is in the same case like this one, respecting content policies, I will most probably vote for keep. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well you don't need to repeat and I've already replied to that.. it'll just make it more lengthy for the closer. I have my doubts about a keep !vote on a counter part though from the fact that only Indian editors want this article kept and any neutral / uninvolved editors have made the case to delete this. The point I was making was this is not about censorship so no point in saying "not censored" here. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on edits, not on editors. Despite being warned on this page only, you are continuously attacking editors on the basis on their nationality. Are you tempting to get your 11th block, I sincerely hope not. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was on the statistics of this discussion, not on any particular editor. And it is a valid point that if only Indian editors are supporting something in contrast with a variety of editors, there is NPOV issue too. And do not try to inflame me again. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one is interested in "inflaming" you, but accusing a group of editors just because they share a trait in real life is a serious concern. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing of what? ...now that you've made my point about sharing a "trait" (which is exactly what I was saying... the POV), I'll rest my case. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trait=Feature; and that feature is the nationality. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying.. nationality and it's POV was exactly what I meant. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope a similar comment by you when someone will comment about Pakistani editors. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITEXISTS is not a good arguement. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2012 (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.
More