Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dal Khor

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. per WP:V: Given sources does not appear to support article and no other sources presented during discussion. No prejudice towards recreation if a sufficiently sourced article can be created. henrik•talk 10:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable WP: NEOLOGISM Neither of the sources in the article actually have the phrase in them, A search on Gbooks shows only one source which uses the term and does not describe it as a "Persian term pejoratively referring to Indians, Pakistanis or other groups from the Indian subcontinent." Darkness Shines (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I've read and verified the topic from both books cited in the article. The term is not a newly induced term and is said to be well known in academic work. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Anyone else care to verify? [1][2] The term Dal Khor does not appear in a search of either book. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's unfortunately a very common pejorative. I think the article could be sourced, but the sources in the article don't appear to use the word. What is this with the words sourced to references that don't have them? It might be better moved to wiktionary until sources are found. I'm not going to spend any time editing this article or fighting to keep it. Pseudofusulina (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did verify this and the sources in the article do speak about the term. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were also asked to provide full quotes from the sources, you have yet to do so. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page numbers are provided in the sources, you can read from google books. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched both and the term appears in neither, please provide full quotes to that it can be seen that the sources do in fact support the content. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The pages needed are available for preview, strange that you don't seem to find it in search. I can not copy the quotes because of copying restriction, and don't plan of typing it all here. You need to actually read to verify than just searching it around. There can be nothing more specific than the page number itself. [3] [4]. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The pages are not available for preview in the UK Germany Spain Turkey or America. Please provide full quotes from the books so that we can verify that there are no OR going on. It is not a copyright issue to make a full quote of the passages in question. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then you really really need to read WP:SOURCEACCESS because I've verified this. Complete information about the citation is available and you are not the only editor who can verify this. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Actually this is a widely used term, especially among Afghans, to refer to South Asians (Pakistanis in particular). It's a bit like the Sardarji jokes phenomenon, which are used sometimes in the racist/pejorative sense or in a funny context. Mar4d (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer The only person who says he has verified the sources has refused point blank to quote the passages in question which he says supports the content in the article. Given his refusal to abide by policy and supply full quotes when asked to do so leads me to the conclusion there are WP:OR issues here. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you claim every thing on policy. The policy is availability of citations which are available with page numbers. There's nothing more specific than that. I'm not going to type the full quote in here to satisfy the only editor requiring those. Editors are free to read the given page numbers which are about the term. I even linked the opened pages in the search links I gave for last time. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why these did not show up the first time I looked, but I have roaming access via Mexican and US IPs, and I was able to see one of the quotes, "Rural Punjabis ... consumed dal-roti, dal-chawal and got nicknamed dal khor." Maybe google books does restrict countries.

There is no restriction on en.wiki to providing a quote about what a book says; my example above is helpful to the editor questioning the source (as I did) and does not violate copyright. There is also no requirement that sources be available on the web. Darkness Shines, I've provided you with a partial quote from one of the sources. I think, on this basis, both sources can stay. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pseudofusulina, there's software restriction in the preview on copying the text from the book, but the way DS demanded the quotes was no way to get a courtesy quotation from the book. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't think of that. Yes, it's impossible for me to quote from texts in Kannada or anything, so I would have to copy and paste, but I cannot. I did not quite understand that. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, now the question is does this one source support this Dal Khor (Persian for "Dal eater" or "one who eats Dal") is a Persian term pejoratively referring to Indians, Pakistanis or other groups from the Indian subcontinent. The term has been used in various contexts and has even found its way to literature pertaining to Pakistan and India.[1] Pakistanis, notably Punjabis residing in the countryside, are more often given the nickname due to the popularity of vegetarianism and lack of meat in rural areas.[2] The term is commonly used by Persian-speakers throughout Iran and Afghanistan. I would say, no. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to quote the entire article here. It does require improved references, please feel free to revert my tag removal. However, this is AfD, not an article improvement drive. Please withdraw this AfD. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No as it is still a non notable WP:NEO. If you can provide more reference I will withdraw it (I have looked for others) The quote you gave above means the article can currently read as "Dal Khor is a nickname given to Rural Punjabi vegetarians" Darkness Shines (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just point out that Neologism is a term for new words, not old words.. and this is certainly old per the source. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is what the article will look like using the current sources [5] Darkness Shines (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Google appears to have changed things again, I can now see the page in question. It is actually the short story The train has reached Amritsar And I can say with all certainty that it does not support the content in the article. It does not say the term is a pejorative. It does not say it is used in reference to Indians, Pakistanis or other groups from the Indian subcontinent. I have taken a screenshot of the passage and will upload to imageshack for anyone who wishes to see it. Those with JSTOR access can view it Here. The entire article is WP:OR. And per WP:NEO To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term Article fails on every count. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what's wrong with your search engine, but it was showing here all the time. This is not a "story" as you say. It does however include narration of a real incident in an independent academic work referring to the term as being used by Pushtun, for Pujabis at the time of independence (that directly strikes out WP:NEO). Don't think Afd is appropriate here. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm still a bit skeptical here. User:TopGun, are there other references to be found that can support the article's claims? I don't disagree with you that the term exists, but the nominator does make a rather valid point that we need some more reliable secondary sources here to avoid the WP:OR claim. SaveATreeEatAVegan 10:44, 16 February 2012 (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.