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 userfy to User:ISKapoor/Bhapa. There is a consensus to delete, but ISKapoor has expressed interest in working on it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhappe[edit]

Bhappe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Appears to be a non-notable caste/social insult. PROD removed by the article creator. A previous version Bhappe Sikh (if I recall correctly) was speedy-deleted. - sinneed (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite per concerns: The article is about a non-notable slang word. It cites no sources, and while searches show some usage, they do not reveal any wp:notability. Should the word itself become notable in the future, the article would require a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedea standards, as it is entirely wp:OR with a strong wp:POV and poorly written.- sinneed (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete BrianY (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Your only reason is that its some social insult? Whatever it is - it exists (period) Its not enough to say Nigger, Paki, Skanger, Wog should be deleted because they are racist terms, Bhappe is not a racist term, its a term used by Jatt Sikhs to describe no Jatts, other castes are on Wikipedia like..

  Chamar but its still on wikipedia ? Could you explain why that is ? Analtap (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - "non-notable" is a key part of the 1st sentence fragment. If the term itself is wp:notable, perhaps it should be included. If so, those wp:reliable sources should be included in the article, with rewritten content supported by them. I see the term used, thus, it should be in a slang dictionary, but I don't see notability in wp:RS.- sinneed (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  But your only reason is that its still racist bascially, thats what you said earlier ? Correct?

  Is Paki notable ?

  Why is bhappe not notable ? Analtap (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason I asked for delete is that a quick search on the internet turns out nothing about this word. For example, when looking up Paki, there were several sources (including some news ones) that made the word relevant. BrianY (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Even with 2 sources, Paki (as a pejorative) rates only an entry in List of ethnic slurs#P. It doesn't have its own article.- sinneed (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  and Skanger (after one level of indirection) disappears into Wiktionary. Favonian (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a multi-lingual urban dictionary; more so given that this is a non-notable slang and not even a common use slang term. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - With no solid sourcing and no visible definition at all, I would very lightly oppose that. I am not a great source-finder, but could not find enough to feel confident of including it, like Paki in the list of slurs.- sinneed (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiktionary has different requirements. No dictionary has sources for every (or even any) words. If it can be shown that it's used, it should be there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Outstanding. Learning bits like this is one of the redeeming virtues of delete discussions. Thanks.- sinneed (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this non-notable slang term. Crafty (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a racist term and also a non-notable slang term. Also could not find any reliable source to define it. Thanks --Sikh-History 07:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced, and the entry itself has a taint of racism to it. Hairhorn (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this stupid B.S. article. This is a racist article created by a non-Khatri (Kshatriya) out of envy and jealousy. DELETE IT NOW PLEASE!!! - --KhatriNYC (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A non-notable racist word. Joe Chill (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NEO. -Falcon8765 (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A recist word. --144.160.130.16 (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is derogative term. It is not notable. It is used only by some members of one Sikh community for another. --ISKapoor (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the fact that some might find this term to be offensive is not a reason for deletion. This discussion should focus whether or not the article meets our inclusion criteria. Crafty (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Not a bad point, I think. I will restate in different wording.- sinneed (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree However it is not notable. It is a term used by a small group to describe another even smaller group, in a corner of India most people have not heard of. It is ridiculous. So a Strong Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikh-history (talk • contribs) 07:06, August 1, 2009

• I understand how the term is used and if you check you'll see I !voted to delete on the grounds of insufficient notability. Crafty (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Above duplicate !vote struck. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Spiff, I wondered what to do about that, if anything.- sinneed (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is not wiktionary (and also this isnt an English word). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Crafty is, of course, absolutely right in his comment, but this article has nothing in it which is of value in an encyclopedia. It's just an unsourced list of what some people allegedly call other people. Compare it to the article on "The N-word", which Analtap does above, and the difference is clear. Favonian (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Favonian, it is not alleged, Crafty is right it is a term that is used by various communities to describe a certain, working class community. Some people may not like the reference because of the hierarchical nature of the Indian caste system to which they may not like being associated with such as dalits but chamar is not a notable word either with thousands of other words yet it is also in the Wikipedia such as Udasi, Tarkan, Ravidasia, Jat, Aroras, Baniya etc. To suggest wp:pov AND wp:notability should not be used an excuse for wp:JDLI or should be should be avoided.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.109.125 (talk • contribs)

• OK Just a god-damned minute here. I support the deletion of this non-notable dross and frankly I'm tired of being verballed by every POV-pusher who trips across this page. My objection is to the prissy objections by a certain group of editors whining about this term being racist. It might be racist, I really couldn't give a shit and neither could the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia. Let's keep the focus on notability not the thin skins of Indian editors and their sundry allies. Crafty (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't know enough about Wiktionary's inclusion criteria, but if it belongs there then Transwiki it. --Deadly∀ssassin 22:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DICDEF: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide." (bolding is from the original). Priyanath ^talk 19:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: I'm not disagreeing with you but there is quite a lot of slang etc in wikipedia, such as the word bollox have you suggested a campaign to remove them all? Its becoming more apparent there are a lot of sundry allies (as was suggested above) to delete this article, but surely that's beginning to suggest its very notability in fact. A huge talk page perhaps warrants some notability?...Yet most of the objections are based on the fact they 'think' its racist or slang which is another argument.Heliosphere (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - Are you saying "People care about Wikipedia and noticed this, so it must be notable."? wp:Notability has nothing to do with us, the humans sitting here typing on pages in Wikipedia. Article deletion pages are in no way notable... but we spend a lot of time on them...- sinneed (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - Thanks to Heliosphere (which by the way is the new name for the user formerly known as Analtap) for providing yet another article to which his own may be unfavorably compared. If the Bhappe piece were anywhere near as well-written as Bollocks or Nigger, I would gladly vote for keeping it in Wikipedia, but it isn't so I won't. Favonian (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Sinneed, have you voted on any other item (prior to this) to be deleted that wasn't religious (Sikh) related? Your initial complaint was that it was racist, but you seemed to have shifted away? Anyway....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliosphere (talk • contribs) 21:13, 3 August 2009

• comment As always, please focus on the content, not the editors.- sinneed (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I'd suggest you focus too on the content (I think its a fair question - above) Heliosphere (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Favonian, if an item needs to be well written, wikipedia has its core mechnanism for improving articles, so over a period of time and article wont necessarily resemble its original text due to a multiplicity of contributions, plus your comparing this article to others that have had the chance to be written and re-written by many contributors over very long periods of time.Anyway its been vandalised so many times..... Heliosphere (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change in view: I have investigated the history of the term, it has a long history (It is derived from Vappa/Bappa as in Bappa Rawal, historically used for a senior person, father or older brother). There are quite a few references where the related topic (relationship among Sikh communities) is discussed. The article is currently biased and derogatory, in addition to being poorly written, but I can re-write it, if it survives the delete.--ISKapoor (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you can add wp:reliable sources to the article or the talk page of the article, I would love to see them. The complete lack of wp:notability remains my objection... the nature of the word was, as pointed out later, just distracting.- sinneed (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

I was wondering if it is possble to request a few days while I work on the article, before a final judgement is arrived at, since I note that it has quite a few delete recommendations (not inappropriately looking at the article as it currenlty looks)? --ISKapoor (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Sounds like a good idea to me. Judging from an admittedly brief glance at your articles, it looks like you have the credentials. Favonian (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I don't know any reason this needs to be killed immediately. If there is a need to close the AfD, I would support that as well... I have the article watched and if it doesn't improve I can renominate it... this time without the distracting mention of the word's meaning.- sinneed (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with that, but a better option is to userfy and do it at your own time and bring back to mainspace (obviously, that should be part of the closing statement). -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent point.- sinneed (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The article does have some ridiculous claims about an imaginary global 'Khatri network' that a Guru depended on, I'm glad Sinneed has decided its notable after all, although some POV is to be expected and its looking more like term of endearment when in fact its not Heliosphere (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:Just in case Satanoid/Morbid Fairy/Heliosphere/and-whichever-other-accounts-that-editor-has, the creator of this article and its speedy-deleted-predecessor, has confused anyone, my "!vote" remains unchanged at this point.- sinneed (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Sinneed, kindly refrain: wp:Agf and please focus on content not on editors Heliosphere (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)— Heliosphere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.