- 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 Bushranger One ping only 08:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Inditva
- Inditva ( | 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 is an article about a neologism of insufficient importance, and is inappropriate per WP:NEO, as well as failing to meet WP:GNG. The only real coverage is a couple of sources about the original statement in which this was used; the sources after that are blog sources, and a single quote of the original. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 13:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈ (discuss) 15:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- This term has been coined by one of the former presidents of India. As regards to the usage of the terms, please refer to the Google Scholar Search. The term has also been used in the book the "Demons of Chitrakoot" by Ashok K Banker published by Penguin publishers. The ref is: "...You understood that it's not about 'hindutva' and the religion of politics, but about 'Inditva', Indian pride, and a story too great to be either saffronized or sanitized." ref -- Muzammil ( talk) 16:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw the use in "Demons of Chitrakoot;" but that's the foreword to a work of fiction, and so not exactly an academic discussion of the topic. Besides for an article about a neologism, you really need sources discussing the term, not simply using it. I checked google scholar myself before nominating this; although the 63 results look impressive at first, there is only only 1 english result, the aforementioned "Demons of Chitrakoot;" there is no indication that the sources in other languages are treating the same term. Yes, it was coined by an ex-Indian President; does that make it notable in and of itself? Personally, I don't think so. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 17:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- That the term is gaining currency can be gauged from some sources such as Unionpedia. As regards to the usage of the term, it is also used in other published works such as Armies of Hanuman. Hence it should be KEPT. -- Muzammil ( talk) 18:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I respect your opinion, I honestly do; if you were to find substantive coverage, I would willingly withdraw the nomination. You do realise, though, that what you are presenting as a different source is the same foreword to a different volume of the same work of fiction? Vanamonde93 ( talk) 18:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- The main thing here I feel is the relative importance to the term: "the fourth in Banker's modern retelling of Rama's story, and takes on his journey to the kingdom of Lanka. For Banker, this story is 'not about 'hindutva' and the politics of religion, but about 'inditva', Indian pride, and a story too great to be saffronised or sanitised.'" ( Review by Telegraph). -- Muzammil ( talk) 18:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Very informative article, must NOT delete. Yes coined by ex president and report by journalist make it notable. So many words are coined by presidents are now common. Ameen Akbar ( talk) 18:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am also in favor of this article. This is a common term, hope it will not be deleted :) Muhammad Shuaib ( talk) 20:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- The article, written by K R Narayanan, Former President of India, who had his Advanced Higher Education from London, and also served as an Ambassador of English speaking countries viz., United Kingdom and United States of America, has an entry of a new word 'Inditva'. Since the word had been coined by an eminent academician with profound English knowledge, who was also heading a biggest democratic state of the world, same should be accepted in the similar way as words,coined by the other heads of the states, have been already accepted So many words. Besides this the article is the need of the day to strengthen the fabric Humanity. I strongly appeal to retain 'Inditva'. -- Drcenjary ( talk) 07:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Strongly in favor of this article. Please do not delete this article, this must be retain it-- Arif80s ( talk) 07:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. This is non-notable neologism. Minus Wikipedia mirrors, there are 8,730 Google results, a large number of them about the Hungarian language word for "started". If we restrict the search to Google Scholar / Books, tthere are one or two results that are actually about this topic. At best, this can be a redirect to K R Narayanan, Indian nationalism or Hindutva. utcursch | talk 14:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: I agree with nominator's rationale of the term failing WP:NEO. But I differ with what Utcursch says of redirecting it to Indian nationalism or Hindutva as the term hasn't really got any analysis done by others. Its just verbatim replication of what KRN said and maybe a redirect to his article would be okay, that too is a thin chance as this term doesn't seem much popular for someone to look on Wiki. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 03:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 04:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 19:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: Dharmadhyaksha has it about right. I'm a little surprised at the early comments here but presume they follow Narayanan's activities much more closely than me. It is a non-notable neologism, pure and simple. - Sitush ( talk) 12:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: as per nominator. Non-notable neologism. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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.