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)reply
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. Fztcs16:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.--Fztcs16:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)reply
@
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)reply
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
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)reply
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.--Fztcs07:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.--Fztcs07:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Comment The 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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Comment I see the potential that the article can be rescued as a page covering the 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)reply
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.VRtalk15:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)reply
@
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?--Fztcs07:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)reply
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)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.