Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mona Sikhs


 * 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   merge to Sikh.  MBisanz  talk 00:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Mona Sikhs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no such term 'Mona Sikhs'. This article have not any source. This has not any value. However, this article also express personal opinion of the creator. It should be deleted. This article can be called Duplicate of Patit. Patit is actual as well as legal term used for Sikhs who cut or trim their hair. Thanks. Theman244 (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge I did not believe this article was quite of unique enough content to warrant its own article in the first place, and had suggested it might be merged with Sikh in order to benefit both the above article as well as the suggested parent, and I still believe this to be the case. This also appears to be a separate socio-religio-cultural group from the aforementioned Patit, which appears merely to be how one group of Sikhs defines another, not how the latter perceives and refers to themselves, nor does it necessarily begin to cover the cultural and historical distinctions. Any verifiable or unique content that can be sourced should be merged instead, as I do find many references on a simple google search, such as here and here, the latter of which was originally published in 1989 by a credible publisher, so without doing significantly more research, I'd have to presume it's a real cultural distinction of merit and satisfies notability for a merge, if with significant general cleanup and improvement.  b e s i e g e d        talk 02:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This article is written by only one person without any source only express his\her personal opinion, not the whole community or others. Many sentences in article also contradict with each other and contain original research and many other major/minor errors and problems. Before merge with other article all problems should be sorted out otherwise should be deleted. If not deleted then merge with Patit not the main article. Merger with Patit will be more appropriate rather than main. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment While I wholeheartedly agree that the article would need a significant amount of cleanup from experts or others with more knowledge in the area than I can provide, my limited research (completely independent of what is covered in the parent article) indicates this is a specific socio-cultural group, whereas Patit seems to be little more than a definition of religious law in how the main body of Sikhs defines a subsect, whereas the Sikh article has appropriate and in-depth coverage of the socio-cultural and historical aspects of Sikhs and Sikhism. Barring reliable sources/evidence to the contrary, I must continue to contend that Sikh is the appropriate article for merger.  b e s i e g e d       talk 04:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  22:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep/merge The term mona, meaning shaven, is certainly used of Sikhs who cut their hair and there are numerous sources which support this such as Sikhism. Warden (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2012 (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.