Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saraiki diaspora


 * 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 Snow keep; bad faith nom. (non-admin closure) —Мандичка YO 😜 05:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Saraiki diaspora

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

saraiki are punjabi and punjabi disapora is same as saraiki Malik Mubashir Awan (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 7.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 06:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - the Saraiki people are a distinct people with their own language —Мандичка YO 😜 17:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: How does that make this a keep? This is "Saraiki diaspora," not "Saraiki people." Is the "diaspora" a primary search term? Is it a notable subject? Is it appropriate to use this term, derived as it is from a historical analog with the Jewish Diaspora? Firing off that the people are an ethnicity isn't really all that's under consideration, is it? Hithladaeus (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at the relevant articles please. It is completely false to say "saraiki are punjabi and punjabi disapora (sic) is same as saraiki" as AfD nom claims. These are distinct ethnic groups with separate identities and thus separate diasporas; see Saraiki diaspora and Punjabi diaspora. The equivalent would be for me to propose Slovak diaspora for deletion with the argument "Slovaks are Czechs and the Czech diaspora is the same as Slovak." If nom wants to argue that the Saraiki and Punjabi are the same people, then he can try to make his case on relevant talk pages, not by randomly AfD a Saraiki article to promote his theory. —Мандичка YO 😜 19:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My question is whether the diaspora is a notable subject. Saying that there are different ethnicities is a statement absolutely unrelated to whether or not an article about a diaspora of the postulated peoples is notable. You are addressing a straw man or suggesting that, because the nominator said something politically wrong (I'm going to state that I don't regard ethnicity as empirical), the AfD consideration is invalid for an article about the population's diaspora. I was asking for reasoning on why the subject of the article, which is the diaspora of these people, was notable. I was also pointing out that back-forming "diaspora" onto all ethnic groups is at least an assertion of point of view and at most a political gesture (rather like applying "holocaust" to catastrophic episodes of violence, the use of the term implies a conclusion). Personally, I have no knowledge or interest in the groups being mentioned. I merely sought clarity. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Read. The. Article. As it states, "The Saraikis are one of the largest ethnic groups to collectively migrate from Pakistan." If you don't think they merit a diaspora article then say so. Additionally, the nominator did not say something "politically wrong" but is trolling as usual. Said nominator is no doubt this same editor who frequently makes disruptive edits to Pakistani ethnic and language articles, proposing them for deletion by spurious reasoning (usually claiming article is a hoax, there are no such people, no such language etc), creating redirects, duplicate articles, etc. and has been banned for sockpuppetry over and over.  —Мандичка YO 😜 01:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Did. read. it. I took no position. On the other hand, having someone reason on an "AfD," "keep. . . are a distinct people," when that reasoning does not apply to the subject, struck me as poor reasoning. AN/I is elsewhere, I believe. I had wished for you to provide reasoning on why this group's "diaspora" was notable. If your reasoning was that the nomination was not valid, because the nominator was a troll or vandal, then that would not be "keep," would it? Clarity is a plus. (A diaspora requires the belief in an ethnic group having a particular homeland. This is alien to me, as it is to many Americans, as it clashes with the Enlightenment ideals of the USA. It's why Americans have trouble understanding the "but they're Russians" argument Putin uses in regard to Ukraine. It's why Americans don't understand some of the disintegration of nation-states in Africa. Therefore, it is a very visible matter of ideological difference when someone names something a "diaspora" and refers to a refugee or other displaced person crisis. Obviously, a good many Europeans, and especially central Europeans, have no such reluctance.) This is the nature of an ideological blindness, though: if you assume ethnicity and geography belong together, you won't even be aware that other people do not, and you'll get very angry when they ask you to clarify. I hope that helps assuage your concerns that I did, in fact, "read. the. article." Hithladaeus (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hithladaeus, nom is likely a sock of banned . It is likely he will be shortly indef blocked by an admin. Khestwol (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , does not care that this is a silly nomination by a known troll whose mission in life is to redefine the ethnicities of Pakistan, including this latest claim that the Saraiki and the Punjabi are identical. Hithladaeus apparently wants to use the Saraiki as an opportunity to have a much-needed in-depth discussion on the definition of diasporas as a whole, how this concept is perceived by enlightened Americans and how it relates to the ongoing war in Ukraine.  —Мандичка YO 😜 05:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep as per Мандичка. Khestwol (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow keep due to nomination likely being made in bad faith by what is starting to become an LTA. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm going to close this as bad faith nomination —Мандичка YO 😜 05:17, 9 June 2015 (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.