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 strong consensus here is to delete. Whether or not this is N or V does not come into play, and being created by a blocked user does not bode well for any article and would lead to increased scrutiny and skepticism Valley2city^‽ 21:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhapa Sikh

[edit]

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

The Debate on "Bhappa" has not been sorted? Sikh-History 21:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhappe -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the nominator I haven't seen anything new in this article to show notability for the term. The majority of the article that is referenced, is unrelated to the title. The first two refs are to dictionaries, not a sign of notability. Unless some credible sources are found (unlikely since this page was userfied and worked on for over a month before getting back here), this should be a delete. I'd say it qualifies for G4 given that the only change in articles is addition of unrelated content. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Hoax.~~ There is indeed a slang word "Bhapa". And? wp:NOT a dictionary. Not notable.- Sinneed 04:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC) edit - Sinneed 04:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GFDL vio? Does this qualify for G12? The page has been copied from User:ISKapoor/Bhapa (indef blocked user's space) which was a userfied version of the earlier Bhappe deleted by the earlier AfD. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... if we do delete Bhappa, I'd suggest deleting that userfy'd Bhapa one as well, as it belongs to a blocked user so there's about no chance of anyone working on it to improve it. Tabercil (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NoT-Notable and insultive word. --170.35.208.21 (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable and we have had this discussion before about its deletion and it was deleted.--Sikh-History 11:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - user:Sikh-history is the nominator. Procedural question: Should SH's item "non-notable and..." be a "comment" instead of "delete"?

The Bhapa Sikh article needs to be DELETED NOW! it is a deragotory term found within the Punjabi community, and it the page seems to be created by a Pakistani Punjabi, who has prejudice against Indian Punjabis. PLEASE DELETE THIS PAGE NOW! Thanks --KhatriNYC (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We do not wp:censor in WP. Shouting in discussions makes it harder to reach wp:consensus, on which WP runs. The fact that this is a derogatory term does not affect whether or not it should be included.- Sinneed 14:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - it's a stupid page made by a person who does not like Khatri people. Please delete the Bhapa Sikh page. Thanks. --KhatriNYC (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The critical thing that we are supposed to be thinking about here, is if the topic is both notable and verifiable. I don't think that saying that the term is a racial slur is grounds for deleting the article. I realize that this is WP:OTHERCRAP but there are articles on Nigger and Nigga which are also offensive racial terms. WP:ILIKEIT isn't generally a good reason to keep an article in and of itself, but I found the article interesting, and I learned from it, because it is good to know offensive terms, if only to avoid using them to not offend someone. I noticed that the article was deleted before, but read an interesting point made in the deletion discussion. This argument was that the very number of people participating in the discussion pretty much proved that the topic was notable and verifiable. If this was some sort of term that no one had ever heard of there would not be an army of partisans interested in deleting it. I have noticed the unfortunate tendency within the India project section of Wikipedia to try and white wash and sanitize articles about ethnic tensions in India. I think this is unfortunate because it threatens WP:NPOV.

As far as User:SpacemanSpiff reasoning about the relation between this deletion debate and WP:BLOCK, I really don't see how that applies here. Of course there may be an element within the community who is using the blocking policy to push a point of view that sanitizes racial tensions, by unfairly blocking users who are not following their agenda. If that is the case with this particular article, blocking policy become irrelevant clearly by WP:IAR. Even if some ingenious Wiki-lawyer could come up with some sort of blocking policy justification for deleting this article, all that proves is that the blocking policy itself has become to long and complicated so my approach would be to say WP:TLDR to the blocking policy. So here it is in a nutshell. Blocking policy can't be used to justify pushing a non-neutral point of view. What does a particular editor being blocked or not have to do with if a topic is notable WP:N and verifiable WP:V? Nothing what so ever it would seem to me. The whole line of reasoning is an ad hominum attack. This would be prohibited by WP:NPA, unless it is admitted that people are using WP:BLOCK to skirt around the prohibitions on using this type of logic in a debate.
As far as Wikipedia not being a dictionary, if all that were available about the topic were a dictionary definition, this might be valid, but ethnic slurs seem to normally have an involved history, and have a lot of material about them that involves a treatment more involved than simply giving a dictionary definition. The present article is more than a dictionary definition, and while it also needs a lot of work to fix a neutral point of view, still clearly there is more material than a simple dictionary definition.

Getting back to the issue of if this term is notable and verifiable, I did a quick google search and saw that there were close to 5,000 hits. I realize that WP:GHITS alone does not always prove a topic is worthy of inclusion this does at least show that the term is fairly well known. I found a fairly interesting and what seemed to be a well read article here. But there should be plenty of other good references that could be turned up rather quickly with a little work. In conclusion this term is clearly both notable and there should be plenty of verifiable information about it that could be turned up with a little work, and the present poor or even offensive state of the article is not really relevant here.130.86.76.103 (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above edit by 130.86.76.103 was modified 19:09, 8 October 2009 by 130.86.73.121. Guessing this is a dynamic IP but... not the same IP.- Sinneed 21:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- 130.86.76.103, the wall-of-text method of doing anything at all in WP works poorly. It simply means it is very unlikely that one's comment will be read. I would love to read a 1 or 2 sentence summary of that, as I would love to hear your point.- Sinneed 23:54, 7 October 2009 (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.