Deletion of Saffron terror

Comment: Per : To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|secondary sources, such as books and papers, say ''about'' the term or concept, not books and papers ''that use'' the term
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTNEO)

Comment: No one is questioning the notability here (at leat not me), this AFD should discuss the issues like 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDIC)

Comment: To me this appears to satisfy  via  given the available sources. That's not to say the article as it is should stay as it is, of course -- just that I don't think deletion is the way to solve problems with the article. That said, I feel like I may misunderstand some of the delete arguments. The most convincing non-keep arguments to me would be (a) that once the page is brought up to NPOV/RS standards it will have insufficient content beyond a dictionary definition, or (b) that there is an obvious target for merge and redirect. I see some comments that have touched on each of these, but I hope someone can either summarize one or both of these positions or otherwise point me to where I may be overlooking or misreading. --&mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:GNG)

Comment: BECAUSE subject simply meets the |Wikipedia's standard of inclusion. We have talk pages to discuss contents of the article.  is only meant to discuss the inclusion and exclusion of a particular subject, That's it. Get your arguments straight! (see also, comment above left by User:NeilN
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AFD)

Comment: Per  and : This is clearly created for its shock value and does not contribute much academically as it appears to be just a collection of references from other pages and few reliable sources. Some in list have actually been referred by international experts to opposite conclusions than mentioned in the article. This article hence appears nothing more than a list of alleged acts and not really a legitimate article. The term itself has been coined by Chidambaram and Sharad Pawar as a political ploy to defame Hindu nationalism and Hindutva political parties. Voting for Deletion of this article as this seems to only promote the creation of Congress party's appeasement politics for political gains
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDIC||WP:NOTNEO)

Comment: per . Very less portion of the article actually deal with the term "saffron terror". I roughly checked all the links before the allegation section and less than half of the sources uses the term "saffron terror". Even most of those sources don't discuss the term, rather they discuss the phenomena, which makes this neologism unnotable. The phenomena is rather more notable, but a page move will be required to a better title. --Vigyani
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: The question is not about who created this term? Even if Congress party had created this phrase, it is hardly a reason for the deletion of this article. However I can make one observation from the article, the phrase was widely used during the regime of one political party. None of the events mentioned in the article have reached their conclusion, the whole article seems to be some list of allegations and there is no detailed explanation in place on wikipedia even after so many years after the article creation. It can be because the editors did not work on the article or because there is nothing much to cover. A lot of editors here are confused between terrorism, communal violence and single handed assassinations. This phrase is a Neo, as mentioned at  ''An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy''. This is what is being done in many of the arguments above, with the number of hits and other things. A few others seems to be suggesting synonyms for the phrase and want to liberally use other sources which constitutes OR and other editors who are trying to link it with "Hindu Terrorism" or a religious motivated terrorism should try to understand the subject, it very much gives an impression that there is a |serious lack of competence
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:CIR)