Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marathi nationalism (2nd nomination)

Marathi nationalism

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Marathi nationalism
• Articles for deletion/Marathi nationalism (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Marathi nationalism (3rd nomination)

Marathi nationalism (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)

Article is WP:OR. Google search shows nothing, book search is also shows nothing. Actually this article talks about "regionalism" and not about "nationalism". Human3015^TALK  21:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  21:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep A random check of a few of the many sources shows reliable, significant sources. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep* (*-Whether this entry should be marked Keep or Comment is disputed below, however, I have put it forth as a new reason to keep Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)) Review of possible English sources is insufficient. Need to have review of non-English sources to avoid WP:BIAS (I also said "Keep" above; this is an additional reason to keep for now) Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Thisisnotatest: You can't vote twice. Anyway, here you are also accepting that English sources do not talk about this thing and they are insufficient. There are no sources in Marathi language also. I know Marathi language. If you want proof that I know Marathi language then read article Manav Vikas Mission where I used all Marathi sources. So trust me there is no sources in other languages too. There is nothing called "Marathi Nationalism" but there is "Marathi regionalism" within India. And every state of India has such regionalism. Thank you.--Human3015^TALK  08:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Human3015: AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion. I would have updated my original comment except that the Admin said to put all new comments below the relist announcement. I also made no attempt to hide that it was the same person commenting; in fact I called attention to it. You are welcome to assert that you know Marathi; you don't have to prove it to me. It is good to know that Marathi sources have been searched, however, often editors will assert there are no English sources, then somebody else comes up with English sources, so the fact that you've searched is not a guarantee that there are no Marathi sources. That still leaves many other Indian languages that may have sources which have discussed the issue and need to be searched. And don't ever mess with my comment by altering it; that's a violation of Wikipedia policy. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Thisisnotatest: If AfD is "discussion" and not "voting" then why you are voting twice? Voting twice is violation of policy. But lets not discuss on that. I can only tell you that there are no sources in other Indian languages too. Along with Marathi I also know Hindi, Bengali, Urdu, Punjabi.--Human3015^TALK  09:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Thisisnotatest: And if you want to make 2nd or 3rd comment in any AfD in addition to your original comment then you should use Comment instead of Keep, Delete etc. One person can vote only once. (Do you vote twice in your local elections?) As a nominator of this AfD I am also not suppose to vote on this AfD. --Human3015^TALK  09:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Human3015: I don't vote twice in elections and I don't vote at all on AfD's because a Keep, Delete, or whatever is not a vote, it's a recommendation. I did not try to hide that I was making both recommendations, so no foul play is occurring. The point of putting Keep on a particular recommendation is so that it is clear that it is an argument for keeping, not an argument for deleting. If I just marked it Comment it wouldn't be clear at all that I was putting it forth as an argument for keeping the article.

As for policy, it's clear that if I were commenting on the same reason for keeping and marked that Keep, it would be against instructions on how to interact with AfD. However, raising two unrelated reasons is not covered. The only reason this even came up is because in the time between when I thought of my first reason and when I thought of my second reason, someone posted a notice not to post anything above that notice, so I couldn't update my original notice. Otherwise, I would have just updated my original comment to show both reasons. (And I can't copy my first reason to my second reason and delete the first because the admin has already considered it.)

I'll post a question in the Village Pump (policy) for discussion as to how I would appropriately handle my second reason. In the meantime, I have flagged my second Keep as possibly being improperly noted so that nobody is confused by it. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Thisisnotatest: You can ask question at WP:Teahouse/Questions for quick answer. Anyway, what about article? Do you found any credible source? You can amend your vote to "delete" if you want. Because there are no sources.--Human3015^TALK  06:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Human3015: I'm not seeking a quick answer; I'm seeking a clarification and discussion of Wikipedia policy that we seem to be in disagreement over. I have posted it for discussion at the Village Pump (policy) XfD: Delayed raising of a second reason to delete or keep as it is a policy issue. While I do need to assume good faith on your part for making the recommendations you are making, I'm not sure why I would follow the recommendations of someone who is willing to alter my comments (by striking out the Keep that you dispute). Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Thisisnotatest: I am sure you will get same reply there that I already said to you. Best Luck.--Human3015^TALK  07:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)