Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sikhism

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Sikhism. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Sikhism|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Sikhism. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Sikhism

edit

Pajeet

edit


Pajeet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Largely trivial coverage in sources (RS or otherwise), fails WP:SIGCOV for notability esecially for a racial slur like this. The exact article (with the same sources) has been repeatedly created from a redirect by the singular WP:LTA sock network Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial ([1], [2], [3], [4]) whose intentions have been nothing more than racist trolling ([5], [6]). The article itself has only served as a racist troll magnet whenever it has been repeatedly created ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]).

Coming to the sources (currently/previously at the article/Talk):

We ultimately have very few RS which cover the term in any significant capacity, a standalone article as such cannot really be justified (nothing which can't be/isn't already covered at List of ethnic slurs). The slur is no different from more older ones (e.g. 1, e.g. 2) whose standalone articles we do not feature for similar reasons. Gotitbro (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Ethnic groups, Hinduism, Sikhism, and India. Gotitbro (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per nominator's own admission that this term finds non trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources such as the NCRI report on Hinduphobia, Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and DFRAC. These three sources provide in-depth coverage required for the article, see WP:THREE. Koshuri (あ!) 09:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    THREE is a personal essay (really the first time I am seeing it at AfD). Though I would like to clarify that I haven't listed DFRAC as RS nor have I listed ISD as non-trivial. That you have cited stable while restoring the largely socked version of the article is concerning. Gotitbro (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:THREE is only to back my point that in most cases only three reliable sources with in-depth coverage are enough to prove notability. Your continued disparagement of the article's stable version as sock despite it being restored and responsibility for the content being taken by multiple editors in good standing is getting tendentious. Koshuri (あ!) 10:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has taken "responsibility for the content", Altenmann initially restored the article [17]/[18] the article (also saying refs were a plenty which as can be seen were really just trivial bloat) and was clearly unaware of sock shenanigangs. The restoration was imediately challenged twice by different editors [19], [20] but ultimately restored again by you [21] telling editors to take it to AfD. None of this would be considered WP:STABLE. Why would you revert apparent sock cleanup is also beyond me.
    Coming to THREE, a user essay which has been neither satisfied nor a standalone article based on these justified. Nothing we can't handle at the pre-existing list. Gotitbro (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly notable term as per the sources mentioned above. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of ethnic slurs#P or Delete (in that order of preference): Fails WP:SIGCOV. There is currently no scholarly source at all that discusses the subject. Coverage so far is limited to mostly low-quality sources. There is also precedence per "curry-m*ncher" being redirect to the list article and "d*t head" not existing. The fact that article was written primarily by a sock-farm (with seven year long history of socking), who misrepresented even the already questionable sources and quickly added the slur to a WP:BLP only shows the bad-faith disruption. The tendency of some editors to prefer that source-misrepresented sock version is also beyond me. Given the obsessive preoccupation that the longtime sock has with the slur, I expect a visit by him here as well eventually. --UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no requirement that sourcing must be scholarly for establishing the notability of a term, regardless there is enough scholarly coverage for this article . "Curry muncher" and "dothead" are little known and were never used widely unlike the term "Pajeet". So quoting them as "precedence" is a non argument. The rest of your argument is nothing more than the same disparagement of the article for being created by a sock and bad faith assumptions. Koshuri (あ!) 14:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, scholarly sources are not necessary for notability (the subject fails notability regardless of the lack of any meaningful scholarship on it) but scholarly sources give the most reliable information, which the article and indeed the term currently largely lacks. As for curry-m*ncher being "little known and were never used widely unlike the term Pajeet", that is simply false. For one, we have multiple scholarly sources for it: Tom Dalzell; Terry Victor, eds. (2006), The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, Routledge, p. 534; Virtual Homelands: Indian Immigrants and Online Cultures in the United States, University of Illinois Press, 2014, p. 29; Anne Collett; Leigh Dale, eds. (2018), Postcolonial Past & Present, BRILL, p. 174 and many, many more scholarly as well as literary usages. Asserting otherwise is stretching the limits of WP:OR, which unsurprisingly is also what the sock version of the article mostly was. We don't reward specific slur-obsessed socks by going against precedence and sourcing guidelines. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: We have similar articles like Paki (slur), American-born confused desi, etc more. Pajeet is a popular term across social media and sources are well notable (per argument by other Keep votes). But I agree this article must be improved and rephrased to Good Faith.. It shouldn't be used for trolling as like the sock editor. The current version seems stable enough but the more good faith & neutral, the more better to keep the article. WinKyaw (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The former is well attested in RS [per its article], the latter is not a slur (and also well attested). "Popular term across social media" raises questions on the kind of social media being referred to [we are not documentation hub for 4chan and X bigots] rather than as a rationale for notability. Gotitbro (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well here in this category, I see lots of similar articles. Nothing much wrong with this being existing. And popular term across social media is for all medias especially Facebook, Instagram, X & so on.
    Mainly I think if Pallywood, Locust (ethnic slur), Polaco (slur), Wetback (slur), etc can exist, there's nothing wrong with this article too! WinKyaw (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pallywood has sources published by Sussex Academic Press, Routledge, Journal of Communication, Third World Quarterly and many other similar academic sources. Polaco and Wetback have similar academic sourcing. This article lacks any comparable sources, thus the comparison is faulty. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whether the article was created by a sock or not is irrelevant given the subject meets WP:GNG. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The term is inaccurate, but quite widespread colloquially. Svartner (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep widely used internet slur that has persisted for some time. Metallurgist (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The term "Pajeet" is highly notable and has received in-depth coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources:
  • In a case study by Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers University, this term is covered extensively, with almost entire study revolving around it. 33 mentions of the slur , along with his history, usage, variants etc all are covered over several pages.[22]
  • In a report by Rohit Chopra, Professor in the Department of Communication at Santa Clara University and Visiting Scholar at the Center for South Asia at Stanford University, the term is covered extensively and it is published by the Centre of study of organized hate[23]
  • Non trivial coverage in a report by Institute for Strategic Dialogue [24]
  • Extensive coverage in DFRAC , an IFCN certified fact checker. This report covers the origin, and history of the term along with analysis of its usage on social media. [25]
  • Significant coverage in a Global Project Against Hate and Extremism  (GPAHE) study [26]

Enough to prove that this term is highly notable and has received scholarly attention. It has also been used as an insult against various public figures of Indian origin in the west as well and there is ample news coverage for that, but I won't be citing that. Ratnahastin (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The review of sources in the nomination is appalling. With your logic, we can reject any sources such as CNN ("they are favorable to Democrats"), Oxford University press ("they are situated in the mainland of colonial British empire") or any other source. Sikhpride38 (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, entirely apalling that we don't consider thecommunemag.com (samvadaworld.com), hindupost.in, hindutimescanada.ca, Know Your Meme, townpost.in, baaznews as RS nor trivial mentions of the term. None of the rationale that you cite has been given above. Interesting that an account, with only 11 edits, that hasn't edited in 3 years suddenly pops up at an AfD and then proceeds to revert SPA tags. Gotitbro (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is defending unreliable sources like Hindupost ans Communemag. You are doubting credibility of even DFRAC, Online Hate Prevention Institute, The Daily Pennsylvanian and other reliable sources. According to your logic, there can be no reliable sources. Sikhpride38 (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Sikhism&oldid=1308238771"