Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Sikh Holocaust 1984

Third Sikh Holocaust 1984

Third Sikh Holocaust 1984 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A blatant and clear-cut case of POV pushing. The term "Third Sikh Holocaust" gets only 1,600 hits on Google (the first few of which are YouTube videos) and absolutely zero hits on Google Scholar. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, with no previous good version to which to revert, this is hopelessly in violation of WP:NPOV. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 01:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Initially I considered whether an article rename would suffice, but reading through the article, it is clear that it is a irremediable piece of soapboxing. Other articles created by the same user Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk · contribs)
  • First Sikh Holocaust
  • Second Sikh Holocaust, and
  • Harbhajan Singh Yogi

also need to be scrutinized to see if there is anything worth retaining. (read for example footnote 52 in Harbhajan Singh Yogi) Abecedare (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment He has also created Wadda Ghalughara and Chhotaa Ghallooghaaraa which roughly translate as "Big holocaust/massacre" "Small holocaust/massacre". Gizza^{Discuss ©} 08:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I noticed and examined the other two articles, and Google turned up some scholarship on the first two "Sikh holocausts" (which are only called such by partisan sources). A merge into a new article such as Sikh persecution in the 18th century or something along those lines will likely be the end result. We're attempting to rectify the neutrality and title issues separately from this article since those two have the possibility of becoming viable articles whereas this one is irredeemable. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Clear case of POV pushing with no reliable source verifiability. Not one hit on gbooks or gscholar (unlikely given the scope of religious studies and ethnic studies at major universities). The only gnews link is a partisan source. Also part of this set of articles was this AfD that resulted in a delete, but one that had similar amount of reference padding to Harbhajan Singh Yogi and had overlapping editors. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 02:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as hopelessly PoV, (as probably are most articles with the title holocaust). Though there does need to be an NPOV article on the many allegations of unprovoked killings of Sikhs during this period. Imc (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Entirely an essay/opinion piece in tone and style. Priyanath ^talk 16:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry, Delete. If this is already covered elsewhere, then I see no reason to keep this article. I would agree that this article is indeed "hopelessly PoV" when it would require a major rewrite to have a more neutral tone and when it seems likely that people would be offended by the idea of a rewrite. NPOV can be done-- the articles on The Holocaust and the Final Solution have done rather well in keeping an encyclopedic tone on an emotionally-charged subject -- but those are the collective work of many editors. Mandsford (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Note The existence of other articles is not really relevant in a deletion discussion per WP:OTHERCRAPTeamQuaternion (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is highly POV. The matter is already covered in more neutral articles such as 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Operation Blue Star and Punjab insurgency. utcursch | talk 18:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I forgot I was reading an encyclopedia whilst reading this. It seemed more like Sikh propaganda. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 22:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - clearly POV pushing. Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I am picking this article as my keeper of the day. I noticed that it has plenty of sources, well over 100, and I am not exactly sure what makes it so point of view. It may well have a few lines within it that are point of view, but there is no reason that these problems could not in theory be fixed. Point of view problems are considered a rather poor reason for deleting an article. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfDThe topic of the article is certainly notable and verifiable. I am not Sikh or Indian, so I don't really have a dog in the fight here as far as the political agenda. Deletion seems to be a very coercive way of dealing with content and an author, when discussion and rewriting seem to be more of the answer, I am going to check the discussion page, to see if these issues have even been discussed. Seems like this should have been done before the article was nominated.TeamQuaternion (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete As Utcursch mentions, there are already NPOV articles on exactly the same topic. Sentences like freedom-loving Sikhs offered up a disproportionate sacrifice to liberate their country from the shackles of colonial rule. and inspiring sacrifices of the Sikhs make me wonder whether TeamQuaternion (above) actually read the page. You don't need to even be familiar with Wiki's policies to realise that the tone and agenda pushed by these POV forks have no place here. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 08:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep or userfy very, very well sourced. It can be reworked and rewritten into a decent article. Ikip (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Rename and rewrite -- This is a substantial and well-sourced article, but with a POV title and perhaps some POV content . The primary subject is an internal conflict between the Sikh community and the Indian government. It is clearly written from a Sikh POV, but I see no evidence of a holocaust in the sense applied to the Jewish holocasut in WWII. The first pertion deals with pre-1984 Sikh grievances: I am not clear as to their relevance. The long paragraphs on the principal participants do not belong: the WP method of dealing with the need for these is to provide a short paragraph with a "main" template linking to the bio-article on the person. I do not know whether there is another articles on the subject to merge this with. If there is not, it should be given a series of tags, indicating the problems with it. It is a great pity when a substantial article such as this is deleted when what it needs is pruning, converting to NPOV, and generally sorting out. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I note that First Sikh Holocaust and Second Sikh Holocaust are now redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Rename, rewrite and merge with 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Operation Blue Star and Punjab insurgency: "Third Sikh Holocaust" may be an OR. Other OR too: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) is vaguely analogous to the attack in Amritsar. Heavy one-sided POV. Inappropriate tone, like personal POV essay:"The situation has changed some since the terrible days of Indira Gandhi. A Sikh is now Prime Minister of India and Sikh culture and commentary is readily available worldwide on the internet. But Punjab remains without a capital, many farmers without adequate water, and India remains a country of great hope, great challenges and great illusions.As the motto of the Indian republic says, Satyameva Jayate – “Truth Alone Shall Triumph”." BUT BENEATH THE POV, LAY BURIED SOME WELL-REFERENCED FACTS. Khushwant Singh for eg. is a very notable author. " Oxford University Press", University of Pennsylvania Press are noatble publishers. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (I already voted to keep), some people in this discussion may have a big advantage over me, because before I looked at this ADF proposal I did not know anything about this history. Ghallooghaaraa is the Sikh word for Holocaust, or so the article claims. This should be verified by checking with a Sikh English dictionary, but the factual nature of the article is not really being challenged. It would seem to me that the Sikh name for the event is an appropriate title, for an in depth coverage of these events from a Sikh point of view. The article documents with well over 160 sources and growing the verifiable and notable point of view of the Sikh community on the history of these events. There is really nothing wrong with an in depth article on a point of view, especially a notable one, as long as it says that it is from the Sikh point of view. As I see it, if the so called neutral articles mentioned don't provide some degree of coverage to the Sikh point of view, and link to this article, then the real problem is with the neutrality of these articles and not with this article on the Sikh point of view. A problem with merging the entire article with 160 citations into a main article with only 26 citations, including all the facts documented in the sources would be that then the main neutral article would become out of balance containing many more cited sources that support the Sikh point of view.TeamQuaternion (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe you will have to read through all of the 160 citations first, and ensure that they are not being quoted or referred to selectively or out of context. Best of luck. Imc (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete while i sympathize with anyone who would like to rescue poorly written articles, and i have attempted to rescue some myself, i really cannot imagine this article passing deletion review with a "hey, why not just clean up". i believe in eventualism, but i also think articles need to stand as they are, maybe poorly sourced, maybe incomplete, but overall encyclopedic. this is so poorly written and pov, it needs to go. whoever wants to rescue it, please, just copy it to your sandbox and rewrite, and then recreate under a different name. i admit the references look good, but that may be all thats salvageable. the world can wait for this to be rewritten.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)