- 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 no consensus. Moving articles during an AfD discussion is disruptive for a reason and this AfD demonstrates what that is. Discussion is all over the place, some commenting on the notability (or not) of Urdudaan as an article, others discussing its utility as a redirect, and still others ignoring it altogether in favor of discussing the notability (or not) of Urdu speaking people (which just for fun appears to have also been at Urdu Speaking people). So there are lots of comments but on too many topics to form a consensus. No prejudice to a speedy (though I recommend perhaps not immediate) refiling that makes a deletion argument (e.g. POV Fork or Notability) about the current title. Following that if necessary Urdudaan as a redirect can be handled at WP:RFD. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Urdudaan
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Urdudaan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Title is not a widely used term in English but also is in not of much use in Urdu. It also fails to define the subjects it is trying to describe/mention/represent. Again, to mention the term doesn't passes WP:Verifiablity & WP:Notability tests. For details please see the talk-page of the article. Fz t c s 16:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Note: the page has been moved in the meanwhile to Urdu speaking people – Austronesier ( talk) 08:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete. The term itself has zero prevalence in academic literature. Google scholar only yields two hits [1], and both are merely mentions of a blogger named Urdudaan. The term is also virtually non-existent in non-academic texts (only 80 Google search results [2]). The topic itself ("Urdudaan" meaning "Urdu-speaking people" as an ethnic group) does not meet WP:GNG, either. None of the sources given defines "Urdu-speaking people" as an ethnic group, and everyting that can be said about the speakers of the language should be covered in the language article itself, viz. Urdu, unless someone comes up with sources that actually back up the claim that "Urdu-speaking people" are an ethnolinguistic (and hence, ethnic) group. – Austronesier ( talk) 17:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)- Keep Urdudaan as redirect per WP:CHEAP and draftify Urdu speaking people. The latter topic is notable but is best included in Urdu, unless we can assemble quality information that meets the notability of the general topic. – Austronesier ( talk) 08:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - no assertion of notability let alone evidence of it Spiderone 06:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Reads like a fork. Editorkamran ( talk) 10:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete - as per nom and Austronesier. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)- Keep - Changing to 'keep' following the retitling and reorganisation of the page. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 07:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strong oppose The article needs work, but not deletion. The term is a historical term for the regions comprising that of the native Urdu speakers in British India, or the people themselves. It should be revised to make this clear along the lines of my talk page post. I'm surprised though that an AfD has been opened before reaching any kind of consensus on the talk page. The AfD has been opened and supported by people who are claiming they have never heard the word. Let the page exist for a month or two and then see how far it has devloped. I'm on vacation, so will not be returning. Please do not ping me. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment as I'm being called-in (albeit not by name but by reference) in previous post, I'm respondin to it.
- Will you care to take burden of proof and prove that, "The term is a historical term for the regions comprising that of the native Urdu speakers in British India". We have been asking this from start and till now no-one has been able to provide anything.
- And, yes, I have never heard of it, especially in the context of how it is being represented and utilized in the article, to denote native speakers of Urdu (btw...my mother tongue is Urdu & I'm native of Oudh esp. Lucknow-Faizabad region), but that is not the point, my personal views bear no weight, if there is ample proof to prove the merit of the term to render it fit to be title of an article and representative-word for a linguistic-group fighting for existence in it's native & elsewhere spaces.-- Fz t c s 16:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Magichero1234: comment It is quite strange, the major contributor of the article not even commented a single word either to delete or keep the article, hope they might be aware of this discussion Majun e Baqi ( talk) 10:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The only source seems to be using the term as an urdu speaker while the other sources are about Urdu or other topics. Even if someone can come up with a source that verifies that the term is historical and specifically used as a term to describe urdu speakers, this would, at best, merit a line in the Urdu language page. -- regentspark
( comment) 14:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strong delete The move to Urdu speaking people has made this even more redundant as an article. The entire content is already included in Urdu language. What next? Urdu speaking people who speak Urdu? -- regentspark ( comment) 14:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Strongest Keep There is an article for English people yet English language is an international language. Urdu is not even close to achieving that status, yet so many people are aganist this particular article which is very shameful.2607:9880:4030:A8:F993:6731:57F4:FFE5 ( talk) 20:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)- Comment English people is not about the speakers of the English language. Many English speakers are not English, and some of them vehemently emphasize their non-Englishness. Speakers of English are covered in English-speaking world, but here we do not present the totality of English speakers as an ethnic group. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, for FWIW, there is also no page about Mandarin-speaking people. – Austronesier ( talk) 07:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep My apologies for not voicing my opinions until now. This is a word that we, especially in Pakistan, often use to refer to Muhajirs as well as Urdu speaking people from other ethnicities (most notably Punjabis). I think this page should stay because Urdudaans share not only a language, but many cultural traditions and foods. And as the user before me mentioned, if English People can have a page, why can't Urdudaans? Magichero1234 ( talk) 07:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment so that means Urdudaans is just another word for Muhajir people of Pakistan. Also, that means Urdudaans doesn't represent all the ethnic/native-Urdu-speakers, most of whom happen to be Indians. That further limits the scope of the term and by implication the article, that also means, the article is misrepresenting the facts. I'll suggest the editors including Magichero1234 to update the article in accordance with these comments.-- Fz t c s 07:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment oh no I don't think I made myself clear enough. We use Urdudaan for anyone, not just Muhajirs. Urdudaan in Urdu means Urdu speaker. Magichero1234 ( talk) 07:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I think, by this, "Urdudaan in Urdu means Urdu speaker" you mean ,"Urdudaan in Pakistan means Urdu speaker", because the term is not used (or very rarely) in India for Urdu speaker.--
Fz
t
c
s
07:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment @ Magichero1234: As already has been pointed out in the nomination, the page fails to meet WP:Verifiablity. We have already pointed out that Urdudaan is not used in English, and even if we found a better page title, the question remains if reliable sources present the totality of Urdu-speakers as an ethnolinguistic group. If this cannot be backed up by reliable sources, we end up with a page about Urdu-speaking people or Urdu-speaking world. In this case, I would question its WP:Notability for a standalone, because this is best covered in the main page Urdu, unless we have sizeable information that would justify a size-split (as in the case of English-speaking world). – Austronesier ( talk) 08:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
CommentThe only way this article could possibly (again, possibly) be retained is if it were to be renamed to "Urdu-speaking people" and its scope redefined accordingly. The latter is a broader definition which includes a large segment of the North Indian population, in addition to the people who speak Urdu as a first language in Pakistan. Mar4d ( talk) 17:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)- Mar4d, agreed with your view to change the title to Urdu speaking people Majun e Baqi ( talk) 10:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mar4d why only possibly? Urdu-speaking people should be a very notable topic. It doesn't mean that group has to be a coherent ethnic group. See English-speaking world and Geographical distribution of French speakers. VR talk 14:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
-
Vice regent I'm not contesting the notability of
Urdu-speaking people. In fact as I mentioned above, it would be quite coherent to have an article on the Urdu-speaking population in South Asia, particularly as it would include a large section of North Indian Muslims who belong to this identity. My only concern is content-based, deriving from the current article.
Mar4d (
talk)
19:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- KEEP In light of
Faizhaider's restructuring and
Vice regent's suggestion, I am changing my view to keep. I am convinced that if we replace the non-notable term Urdudaan with
Urdu speaking people, the article has a very good scope.
Mar4d (
talk)
05:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have made some additions in references to this effect. In case the consensus tilts toward delete, I would prefer that a merge be allowed first of the relevant material into the determined target article. Mar4d ( talk) 06:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- KEEP In light of
Faizhaider's restructuring and
Vice regent's suggestion, I am changing my view to keep. I am convinced that if we replace the non-notable term Urdudaan with
Urdu speaking people, the article has a very good scope.
Mar4d (
talk)
05:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
-
Vice regent I'm not contesting the notability of
Urdu-speaking people. In fact as I mentioned above, it would be quite coherent to have an article on the Urdu-speaking population in South Asia, particularly as it would include a large section of North Indian Muslims who belong to this identity. My only concern is content-based, deriving from the current article.
Mar4d (
talk)
19:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mar4d, in this case nominatorhave already withdrawn to keep with certain changes Majun e Baqi ( talk) 06:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment This article's very content is wrong, it refers Urdudaan to native Urdu speakers which I think is not entirely correct. Daan is Persian word which means knower, colloquially Urdudaan is used to denote a person expert in Urdu not just a knower. Similarly Sciencedaan(Scientist) is said to a person who is expert in science not just a knower. Like this article
[3] about
Patras Bokhari who taught English but was an Urdu writer says that "Angrezi ka naamwar Urdudaan (English's famous Urdudaan). The other terms are Urduwan and Urduban, these are remotely used terms to denote Urdu speakers, 'wan or ban' in Persian means speaker. Like Persian speakers are referred to as
Farsiwans or Farsibans and Hindko speakers are referred to as
Hindkowans. So this article's content needs to be rewritten if it stays or else it be deleted since Urdudaan is not much notable. An article on Urdu Wikipedia can be an option.
USaamo (
t@lk)
21:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- USaamo, I think it is quite easy to amend the article as per your view to make its way to keep Majun e Baqi ( talk) 10:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've started a
discussion on it's talk page regarding the matter, waiting for others to give view regarding the matter and if page stays, it will be added.
USaamo (
t@lk)
14:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- USaamo, I think the article has substantially changed as per the suggestions given by you, thanks Majun e Baqi ( talk) 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've started a
discussion on it's talk page regarding the matter, waiting for others to give view regarding the matter and if page stays, it will be added.
USaamo (
t@lk)
14:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Move to
Urdu-speaking people, similar to
English-speaking world and
Geographical distribution of French speakers. Urdu is widely believed to be among the top 50 most widely spoken languages in the world.
VR
talk
14:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I see the potential
that the article can be rescued as a page coveringthe idea of having an article about the speakers of Urdu can be realized in a page Urdu-speaking people as a broad topic. This would essentially cover the content of the sections Demographics and geographic distribution, Cultural identity and Urdu speakers by country of the main article Urdu.. To avoid content forks, we will have to move the material of these three sections to Urdu-speaking people, and and leave a short summary with a hatote in the main article. I see two problems here: 1) The page Urdu is not excessively large, and the remaining article will lose much of its core content. 2) The content of these sections has some sourcing issues. The section "Urdu speakers by country" is even contested as completely improperly sourced and deletable, see Talk:Urdu. For these reasons I prefer to keep (and expand) the information in Urdu, and not to split it out just to salvage a failed attempt to maintain a page called "Urdudaan". – Austronesier ( talk) 15:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)- So then this article should redirect to
Urdu or
Urdu#Demographics and geographic distribution until we are ready to fork? That's still different from a "delete" vote.
VR
talk
15:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- My !vote is still delete when it comes to Urdudaan per WP:V (the fact that the word exists in Urdu is not enough). I see a potential for Urdu-speaking people, but at the current stage, only as redirect to Urdu. – Austronesier ( talk) 16:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- So then this article should redirect to
Urdu or
Urdu#Demographics and geographic distribution until we are ready to fork? That's still different from a "delete" vote.
VR
talk
15:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Vice regent, It is already moved to Urdu speaking people, thanks Majun e Baqi ( talk) 05:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I see the potential
- Comment Still the pages Urdudaans & Urdudaan should be deleted, and the new article Urdu Speaking people should be Urdu speaking people and should be re-written thoroughly from scratc.-- Fz t c s 15:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm fine with a re-write. In that case the closing admin should make that note. This is important because otherwise when we re-write people might come along and claim there is consensus that this is not a notable topic. But reading comments above, that's not true. VR talk 15:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I have made some amends to the article Urdu speaking people, and removed all reference to Urdudaan but it still need review and expansion-- Fz t c s 22:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- May be Keep
Urdu speaking people, with re-write; Strong Delete
Urdudaans &
Urdudaan.--
Fz
t
c
s
05:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Faizhaider, I think as you have moved the page to Urdu speaking people, Urdudaans and Urdudaan are only a redirect just for reference not the separate article, lol Majun e Baqi ( talk) 06:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ Majun e Baqi: I moved the page to Urdu speaking people from Urdu Speaking people, please bother to see the history (but even if you don't see the history you should be aware of it as it was you who performed the previous moves). I still vote for deletion for Urdudaans and Urdudaan, even if they are redirects, nothing is linking to them, what is the use to keep them?-- Fz t c s 07:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect: The comments of Austronesier, to include the extra comments of 08:12, 14 July 2020, are compelling. Problems are 1)- the article is vague , 2)- any missing coverage can be presented in the article Urdu (as mentioned), so it is 3)- an unnecessary split. What is the need or want to create a new article with disregard that the parent article can use improvement through expansion of any missing material. -- Otr500 ( talk) 06:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Anything worth mentioning is covered far better and in more depth by the article on the Urdu language. This article appears to be an accidental WP:POVFORK from that article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Urdu speaking people with a redirect to Urdudaan Majun e Baqi ( talk) 13:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment for closer: This article was moved to Urdu speaking people during the AFD discussion. If closing using a script, please take care to ensure everything goes in the right place. Stifle ( talk) 11:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. Moving articles during an AfD discussion is disruptive for a reason and this AfD demonstrates what that is. Discussion is all over the place, some commenting on the notability (or not) of Urdudaan as an article, others discussing its utility as a redirect, and still others ignoring it altogether in favor of discussing the notability (or not) of Urdu speaking people (which just for fun appears to have also been at Urdu Speaking people). So there are lots of comments but on too many topics to form a consensus. No prejudice to a speedy (though I recommend perhaps not immediate) refiling that makes a deletion argument (e.g. POV Fork or Notability) about the current title. Following that if necessary Urdudaan as a redirect can be handled at WP:RFD. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Urdudaan
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Urdudaan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Title is not a widely used term in English but also is in not of much use in Urdu. It also fails to define the subjects it is trying to describe/mention/represent. Again, to mention the term doesn't passes WP:Verifiablity & WP:Notability tests. For details please see the talk-page of the article. Fz t c s 16:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Note: the page has been moved in the meanwhile to Urdu speaking people – Austronesier ( talk) 08:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete. The term itself has zero prevalence in academic literature. Google scholar only yields two hits [1], and both are merely mentions of a blogger named Urdudaan. The term is also virtually non-existent in non-academic texts (only 80 Google search results [2]). The topic itself ("Urdudaan" meaning "Urdu-speaking people" as an ethnic group) does not meet WP:GNG, either. None of the sources given defines "Urdu-speaking people" as an ethnic group, and everyting that can be said about the speakers of the language should be covered in the language article itself, viz. Urdu, unless someone comes up with sources that actually back up the claim that "Urdu-speaking people" are an ethnolinguistic (and hence, ethnic) group. – Austronesier ( talk) 17:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)- Keep Urdudaan as redirect per WP:CHEAP and draftify Urdu speaking people. The latter topic is notable but is best included in Urdu, unless we can assemble quality information that meets the notability of the general topic. – Austronesier ( talk) 08:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - no assertion of notability let alone evidence of it Spiderone 06:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Reads like a fork. Editorkamran ( talk) 10:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete - as per nom and Austronesier. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)- Keep - Changing to 'keep' following the retitling and reorganisation of the page. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 07:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strong oppose The article needs work, but not deletion. The term is a historical term for the regions comprising that of the native Urdu speakers in British India, or the people themselves. It should be revised to make this clear along the lines of my talk page post. I'm surprised though that an AfD has been opened before reaching any kind of consensus on the talk page. The AfD has been opened and supported by people who are claiming they have never heard the word. Let the page exist for a month or two and then see how far it has devloped. I'm on vacation, so will not be returning. Please do not ping me. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment as I'm being called-in (albeit not by name but by reference) in previous post, I'm respondin to it.
- Will you care to take burden of proof and prove that, "The term is a historical term for the regions comprising that of the native Urdu speakers in British India". We have been asking this from start and till now no-one has been able to provide anything.
- And, yes, I have never heard of it, especially in the context of how it is being represented and utilized in the article, to denote native speakers of Urdu (btw...my mother tongue is Urdu & I'm native of Oudh esp. Lucknow-Faizabad region), but that is not the point, my personal views bear no weight, if there is ample proof to prove the merit of the term to render it fit to be title of an article and representative-word for a linguistic-group fighting for existence in it's native & elsewhere spaces.-- Fz t c s 16:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Magichero1234: comment It is quite strange, the major contributor of the article not even commented a single word either to delete or keep the article, hope they might be aware of this discussion Majun e Baqi ( talk) 10:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The only source seems to be using the term as an urdu speaker while the other sources are about Urdu or other topics. Even if someone can come up with a source that verifies that the term is historical and specifically used as a term to describe urdu speakers, this would, at best, merit a line in the Urdu language page. -- regentspark
( comment) 14:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strong delete The move to Urdu speaking people has made this even more redundant as an article. The entire content is already included in Urdu language. What next? Urdu speaking people who speak Urdu? -- regentspark ( comment) 14:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Strongest Keep There is an article for English people yet English language is an international language. Urdu is not even close to achieving that status, yet so many people are aganist this particular article which is very shameful.2607:9880:4030:A8:F993:6731:57F4:FFE5 ( talk) 20:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)- Comment English people is not about the speakers of the English language. Many English speakers are not English, and some of them vehemently emphasize their non-Englishness. Speakers of English are covered in English-speaking world, but here we do not present the totality of English speakers as an ethnic group. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, for FWIW, there is also no page about Mandarin-speaking people. – Austronesier ( talk) 07:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep My apologies for not voicing my opinions until now. This is a word that we, especially in Pakistan, often use to refer to Muhajirs as well as Urdu speaking people from other ethnicities (most notably Punjabis). I think this page should stay because Urdudaans share not only a language, but many cultural traditions and foods. And as the user before me mentioned, if English People can have a page, why can't Urdudaans? Magichero1234 ( talk) 07:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment so that means Urdudaans is just another word for Muhajir people of Pakistan. Also, that means Urdudaans doesn't represent all the ethnic/native-Urdu-speakers, most of whom happen to be Indians. That further limits the scope of the term and by implication the article, that also means, the article is misrepresenting the facts. I'll suggest the editors including Magichero1234 to update the article in accordance with these comments.-- Fz t c s 07:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment oh no I don't think I made myself clear enough. We use Urdudaan for anyone, not just Muhajirs. Urdudaan in Urdu means Urdu speaker. Magichero1234 ( talk) 07:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I think, by this, "Urdudaan in Urdu means Urdu speaker" you mean ,"Urdudaan in Pakistan means Urdu speaker", because the term is not used (or very rarely) in India for Urdu speaker.--
Fz
t
c
s
07:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment @ Magichero1234: As already has been pointed out in the nomination, the page fails to meet WP:Verifiablity. We have already pointed out that Urdudaan is not used in English, and even if we found a better page title, the question remains if reliable sources present the totality of Urdu-speakers as an ethnolinguistic group. If this cannot be backed up by reliable sources, we end up with a page about Urdu-speaking people or Urdu-speaking world. In this case, I would question its WP:Notability for a standalone, because this is best covered in the main page Urdu, unless we have sizeable information that would justify a size-split (as in the case of English-speaking world). – Austronesier ( talk) 08:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
CommentThe only way this article could possibly (again, possibly) be retained is if it were to be renamed to "Urdu-speaking people" and its scope redefined accordingly. The latter is a broader definition which includes a large segment of the North Indian population, in addition to the people who speak Urdu as a first language in Pakistan. Mar4d ( talk) 17:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)- Mar4d, agreed with your view to change the title to Urdu speaking people Majun e Baqi ( talk) 10:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mar4d why only possibly? Urdu-speaking people should be a very notable topic. It doesn't mean that group has to be a coherent ethnic group. See English-speaking world and Geographical distribution of French speakers. VR talk 14:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
-
Vice regent I'm not contesting the notability of
Urdu-speaking people. In fact as I mentioned above, it would be quite coherent to have an article on the Urdu-speaking population in South Asia, particularly as it would include a large section of North Indian Muslims who belong to this identity. My only concern is content-based, deriving from the current article.
Mar4d (
talk)
19:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- KEEP In light of
Faizhaider's restructuring and
Vice regent's suggestion, I am changing my view to keep. I am convinced that if we replace the non-notable term Urdudaan with
Urdu speaking people, the article has a very good scope.
Mar4d (
talk)
05:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have made some additions in references to this effect. In case the consensus tilts toward delete, I would prefer that a merge be allowed first of the relevant material into the determined target article. Mar4d ( talk) 06:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- KEEP In light of
Faizhaider's restructuring and
Vice regent's suggestion, I am changing my view to keep. I am convinced that if we replace the non-notable term Urdudaan with
Urdu speaking people, the article has a very good scope.
Mar4d (
talk)
05:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
-
Vice regent I'm not contesting the notability of
Urdu-speaking people. In fact as I mentioned above, it would be quite coherent to have an article on the Urdu-speaking population in South Asia, particularly as it would include a large section of North Indian Muslims who belong to this identity. My only concern is content-based, deriving from the current article.
Mar4d (
talk)
19:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mar4d, in this case nominatorhave already withdrawn to keep with certain changes Majun e Baqi ( talk) 06:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment This article's very content is wrong, it refers Urdudaan to native Urdu speakers which I think is not entirely correct. Daan is Persian word which means knower, colloquially Urdudaan is used to denote a person expert in Urdu not just a knower. Similarly Sciencedaan(Scientist) is said to a person who is expert in science not just a knower. Like this article
[3] about
Patras Bokhari who taught English but was an Urdu writer says that "Angrezi ka naamwar Urdudaan (English's famous Urdudaan). The other terms are Urduwan and Urduban, these are remotely used terms to denote Urdu speakers, 'wan or ban' in Persian means speaker. Like Persian speakers are referred to as
Farsiwans or Farsibans and Hindko speakers are referred to as
Hindkowans. So this article's content needs to be rewritten if it stays or else it be deleted since Urdudaan is not much notable. An article on Urdu Wikipedia can be an option.
USaamo (
t@lk)
21:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- USaamo, I think it is quite easy to amend the article as per your view to make its way to keep Majun e Baqi ( talk) 10:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've started a
discussion on it's talk page regarding the matter, waiting for others to give view regarding the matter and if page stays, it will be added.
USaamo (
t@lk)
14:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- USaamo, I think the article has substantially changed as per the suggestions given by you, thanks Majun e Baqi ( talk) 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've started a
discussion on it's talk page regarding the matter, waiting for others to give view regarding the matter and if page stays, it will be added.
USaamo (
t@lk)
14:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Move to
Urdu-speaking people, similar to
English-speaking world and
Geographical distribution of French speakers. Urdu is widely believed to be among the top 50 most widely spoken languages in the world.
VR
talk
14:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I see the potential
that the article can be rescued as a page coveringthe idea of having an article about the speakers of Urdu can be realized in a page Urdu-speaking people as a broad topic. This would essentially cover the content of the sections Demographics and geographic distribution, Cultural identity and Urdu speakers by country of the main article Urdu.. To avoid content forks, we will have to move the material of these three sections to Urdu-speaking people, and and leave a short summary with a hatote in the main article. I see two problems here: 1) The page Urdu is not excessively large, and the remaining article will lose much of its core content. 2) The content of these sections has some sourcing issues. The section "Urdu speakers by country" is even contested as completely improperly sourced and deletable, see Talk:Urdu. For these reasons I prefer to keep (and expand) the information in Urdu, and not to split it out just to salvage a failed attempt to maintain a page called "Urdudaan". – Austronesier ( talk) 15:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)- So then this article should redirect to
Urdu or
Urdu#Demographics and geographic distribution until we are ready to fork? That's still different from a "delete" vote.
VR
talk
15:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- My !vote is still delete when it comes to Urdudaan per WP:V (the fact that the word exists in Urdu is not enough). I see a potential for Urdu-speaking people, but at the current stage, only as redirect to Urdu. – Austronesier ( talk) 16:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- So then this article should redirect to
Urdu or
Urdu#Demographics and geographic distribution until we are ready to fork? That's still different from a "delete" vote.
VR
talk
15:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Vice regent, It is already moved to Urdu speaking people, thanks Majun e Baqi ( talk) 05:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I see the potential
- Comment Still the pages Urdudaans & Urdudaan should be deleted, and the new article Urdu Speaking people should be Urdu speaking people and should be re-written thoroughly from scratc.-- Fz t c s 15:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm fine with a re-write. In that case the closing admin should make that note. This is important because otherwise when we re-write people might come along and claim there is consensus that this is not a notable topic. But reading comments above, that's not true. VR talk 15:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I have made some amends to the article Urdu speaking people, and removed all reference to Urdudaan but it still need review and expansion-- Fz t c s 22:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- May be Keep
Urdu speaking people, with re-write; Strong Delete
Urdudaans &
Urdudaan.--
Fz
t
c
s
05:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Faizhaider, I think as you have moved the page to Urdu speaking people, Urdudaans and Urdudaan are only a redirect just for reference not the separate article, lol Majun e Baqi ( talk) 06:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ Majun e Baqi: I moved the page to Urdu speaking people from Urdu Speaking people, please bother to see the history (but even if you don't see the history you should be aware of it as it was you who performed the previous moves). I still vote for deletion for Urdudaans and Urdudaan, even if they are redirects, nothing is linking to them, what is the use to keep them?-- Fz t c s 07:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect: The comments of Austronesier, to include the extra comments of 08:12, 14 July 2020, are compelling. Problems are 1)- the article is vague , 2)- any missing coverage can be presented in the article Urdu (as mentioned), so it is 3)- an unnecessary split. What is the need or want to create a new article with disregard that the parent article can use improvement through expansion of any missing material. -- Otr500 ( talk) 06:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Anything worth mentioning is covered far better and in more depth by the article on the Urdu language. This article appears to be an accidental WP:POVFORK from that article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Urdu speaking people with a redirect to Urdudaan Majun e Baqi ( talk) 13:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment for closer: This article was moved to Urdu speaking people during the AFD discussion. If closing using a script, please take care to ensure everything goes in the right place. Stifle ( talk) 11:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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.