489:
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
Knowledge to try and white wash and sanitize articles about ethnic tensions in India. I think this is unfortunate because it threatens
505:, 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
266:
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
488:
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
540:
As far as
Knowledge 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
596:- 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.-
509:. 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
471:
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
401:
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
541:
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.
48:. 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
159:
267:
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. -
550:
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
327:
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.
120:
153:
247:
546:
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
226:
209:
562:
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.
580:
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.-
563:
349:
513:
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.
554:. But there should be plenty of other good references that could be turned up rather quickly with a little work. In conclusion
17:
93:
88:
97:
174:
141:
80:
431:, on which WP runs. The fact that this is a derogatory term does not affect whether or not it should be included.-
390:
is the nominator. Procedural question: Should SH's item "non-notable and..." be a "comment" instead of "delete"?
615:
36:
614:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
567:
353:
135:
307:
55:
131:
602:
586:
571:
462:
437:
411:
374:
357:
336:
318:
298:
271:
257:
236:
216:
199:
62:
84:
473:
458:
428:
407:
167:
181:
498:
332:
450:
398:
76:
68:
597:
581:
551:
485:
432:
387:
366:
293:
287:
191:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
365:- not notable and we have had this discussion before about its deletion and it was deleted.--
424:
311:
49:
547:
534:
502:
449:- it's a stupid page made by a person who does not like Khatri people. Please delete the
515:
What does a particular editor being blocked or not have to do with if a topic is notable
147:
510:
490:
454:
403:
530:
506:
328:
283:
114:
520:
516:
526:
537:
to skirt around the prohibitions on using this type of logic in a debate.
310:(indef blocked user's space) which was a userfied version of the earlier
477:
481:
608:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
501:
reasoning about the relation between this deletion debate and
427:
in WP. Shouting in discussions makes it harder to reach
306:
Does this qualify for G12? The page has been copied from
110:
106:
102:
166:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
618:). No further edits should be made to this page.
533:, unless it is admitted that people are using
282:There is indeed a slang word "Bhapa". And?
180:
8:
523:? Nothing what so ever it would seem to me.
248:list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions
190:The Debate on "Bhappa" has not been sorted?
242:
227:list of India-related deletion discussions
221:
484:which are also offensive racial terms.
246:: This debate has been included in the
225:: This debate has been included in the
210:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Bhappe
529:attack. This would be prohibited by
7:
348:- NoT-Notable and insultive word. --
292:04:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC) edit -
525:The whole line of reasoning is an
24:
556:this term is clearly both notable
560:plenty of verifiable information
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
314:deleted by the earlier AfD. -
286:a dictionary. Not notable.-
603:23:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
587:21:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
572:23:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
463:18:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
438:14:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
412:14:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
375:11:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
358:05:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
337:10:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
319:05:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
299:04:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
272:21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
258:21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
237:21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
217:21:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
200:21:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
63:21:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
635:
476:but there are articles on
611:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
558:and there should be
308:User:ISKapoor/Bhapa
499:User:SpacemanSpiff
453:page. Thanks. --
44:The result was
388:user:Sikh-history
260:
251:
239:
230:
626:
613:
600:
584:
435:
317:
296:
290:
270:
256:
252:
235:
231:
215:
185:
184:
170:
118:
100:
59:
34:
634:
633:
629:
628:
627:
625:
624:
623:
622:
616:deletion review
609:
598:
582:
519:and verifiable
433:
315:
294:
288:
268:
254:
233:
213:
127:
91:
75:
72:
57:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
632:
630:
621:
620:
605:
591:
590:
589:
575:
574:
543:
542:
538:
466:
465:
443:
442:
441:
440:
415:
414:
394:
393:
392:
391:
378:
377:
372:
369:
360:
342:
341:
340:
339:
322:
321:
301:
274:
261:
240:
219:
208:is located at
197:
194:
188:
187:
124:
71:
66:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
631:
619:
617:
612:
606:
604:
601:
595:
592:
588:
585:
579:
578:
577:
576:
573:
569:
565:
564:130.86.76.103
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
544:
539:
536:
532:
528:
524:
522:
518:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
495:
494:
492:
487:
483:
479:
475:
470:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
445:
444:
439:
436:
430:
426:
422:
419:
418:
417:
416:
413:
409:
405:
400:
396:
395:
389:
385:
382:
381:
380:
379:
376:
373:
370:
367:
364:
361:
359:
355:
351:
350:170.35.208.21
347:
344:
343:
338:
334:
330:
326:
325:
324:
323:
320:
316:SpacemanSpiff
313:
309:
305:
302:
300:
297:
291:
285:
281:
278:
275:
273:
269:SpacemanSpiff
265:
262:
259:
255:SpacemanSpiff
249:
245:
241:
238:
234:SpacemanSpiff
228:
224:
220:
218:
214:SpacemanSpiff
211:
207:
204:
203:
202:
201:
198:
195:
192:
183:
179:
176:
173:
169:
165:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
133:
130:
129:Find sources:
125:
122:
116:
112:
108:
104:
99:
95:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
73:
70:
67:
65:
64:
61:
60:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
610:
607:
593:
559:
555:
514:
474:WP:OTHERCRAP
468:
467:
446:
429:wp:consensus
423:- We do not
420:
383:
362:
345:
303:
279:
276:
263:
243:
222:
206:Previous AfD
205:
189:
177:
171:
163:
156:
150:
144:
138:
128:
56:
50:
45:
43:
31:
28:
154:free images
527:ad hominum
497:As far as
486:WP:ILIKEIT
451:Bhapa Sikh
399:Bhapa Sikh
77:Bhapa Sikh
69:Bhapa Sikh
455:KhatriNYC
425:wp:censor
404:KhatriNYC
304:GFDL vio?
548:WP:GHITS
535:WP:BLOCK
503:WP:BLOCK
329:Tabercil
121:View log
599:Sinneed
594:Comment
583:Sinneed
511:WP:TLDR
491:WP:NPOV
469:Comment
434:Sinneed
421:Comment
384:Comment
371:History
295:Sinneed
289:Sinneed
196:History
160:WP refs
148:scholar
94:protect
89:history
531:WP:NPA
507:WP:IAR
478:Nigger
447:DELETE
363:Delete
346:Delete
312:Bhappe
284:wp:NOT
277:Delete
264:Delete
132:Google
98:delete
51:Valley
46:delete
482:Nigga
368:Sikh-
280:Hoax.
193:Sikh-
175:JSTOR
136:books
115:views
107:watch
103:links
16:<
568:talk
552:here
521:WP:V
517:WP:N
480:and
459:talk
408:talk
397:The
354:talk
333:talk
253:-- -
244:Note
232:-- -
223:Note
168:FENS
142:news
111:logs
85:talk
81:edit
58:city
493:.
182:TWL
119:– (
570:)
461:)
410:)
402:--
386:-
356:)
335:)
250:.
229:.
162:)
113:|
109:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
87:|
83:|
566:(
457:(
406:(
352:(
331:(
212:-
186:)
178:·
172:·
164:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
134:(
126:(
123:)
117:)
79:(
54:2
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.