Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian reunification

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 delete. The consensus is that this article should not exist - however, merging with Greater India is not agreed here. As such, I am closing this as delete PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indian reunification[edit]

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

This article is full or WP:OR and sourced from dubious sources. There have been a couple of back and forth reverts redirecting the article to Greater India. Except one all the references/external links are to blogs and non WP:RS links. And the Indian Express link is an opinion piece by Sudheendhara Kulkarni which vaguely muses about "unification". I believe this article covers exactly the same ground as Greater India and should be deleted. Sodabottle (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a notable concept, distinct from "Greater India" in the same way that a proposal to unite the United States, Canada, and Mexico would be distinct from "North America." The article needs to change its tone so that it is reporting notable people who have advocated this, not that it itself is doing so. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Greater India seems to be a "stalking horse" for this, the real topic of interest. No longer true since much additional material has been added. However I suspect that this whole topic is driven by the will rather than the intellect, for the most part. (Or to put it another way by the future not by the present or the past. I think people reading this will be intelligent enough to understand my meaning, and if honest will agree.) Words to the wise only.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if someone commits to beefing it up. A search of ALL news articles shows quite a few mentions. These news searches for just last few months just don't do the job. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like before when it was deleted by PROD, the article is essentially synthesis based primarily on an op-ed piece. The concept of reunification differs significantly in context as discussed by reliable sources -- during the British Raj, during the Mughal rule, during Asoka's rule etc. This article is advocating a present day reunification based on archaic inferences that are best dealt with in those particular articles, if at all. —SpacemanSpiff 05:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is terribly POV and advocates more than informs. But still the Proposal to unite Southwest Asian nations is a notable topic, like or agree with it or not. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Greater India. The current article touches on the idea of "Akhand Bharat" (un-partitioned India - see Partition of India), which is rooted in Hindu nationalism.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Greater India. - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 18:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dont see a need to merge/redirect. prashanthns (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Greater India; agree with nominator that the article contains mostly original research. Even the theory itself sounds fringed. Mar4d (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No redeeming value. Why merge this OR? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to Greater India. That article has been improved and this would fit well in it. I can only express the wish that fewer people will die for the idea of Greater India than have died for greater other nations. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Greater India.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge as last resort: I completely oppose this happening in real life (it would mean the end of my country), but it is a piece of discussion in India and Pakistan, with some famous supporters. If Greater Nepal and Greater Bangladesh can aim to stake a piece of India's territory, the reverse should also be kept as well. --67.212.80.105 (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. Delightful idea by the way, but no traction in the real world, unfortunately. --rgpk (comment) 19:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it would be a good thing, if it could be done peacefully. It would help bring stability and prosperity to the poorer nations. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea too. But wikipedia is not the place for dreams :) --rgpk (comment) 14:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should stay, it has some famous advocates and isn't original research as 70,000 results for India Pakistan reunification, 82,300 results for Greater India and 319,000 results for Indian reunification come for it on Google. --67.212.80.105 (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 1,980 hits for the exact phrase "India Pakistan reunification" and they all seem to be blogs or random musings on talk forums. Greater India refers to the large region defined by the culture of the subcontinent rather than a yearning for a single subcontinental nation. The phrase "Indian reunification" comes up with a mere 770 results, a large number of which are driven by wikipedia itself while the rest are again random musings on blogs. Google hits, unfortunately, give a big thumbs down to this article. --rgpk (comment) 15:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Greater India has nothing whatever to do with Indian reunification other than similar names, the fact that they both deal with Indian people, and some of the same geographical area. The missing link is the Greater India#Undivided India section, which IS relevant, and thus leads in a stream-of-consciousness sort of fashion to the Greater India#Indian reunification section. I don't really mind it being there, but strictly speaking it does not fit there and it does, here. Information from Greater India not already in Indian reunification should be added to it. Anarchangel (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2011 (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.