Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tukde Tukde Gang: Difference between revisions

Tukde Tukde Gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

There is no significant coverage for this term in reliable sources. It is merely a loosely defined political jibe used by proponents of Hindutva and BJP to attack many different groups. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and India. jolielover♥talk 08:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This term has been the central topic in multiple RS. Now, although the quality of sources is more important than the quantity, the fact is there are “plenty” of articles using this term. As of the SIGCOV, few articles considerably explains it’s meaning. A “political jibe” which self explains itself – it should be least expected, that someone will sit and write a dedicated news piece like “What is “Tukde Tukde Gang?”. Moreover cleansing topics like these might allow the some people to raise their finger on us. And to me, this doesn’t violate WP:ADVOCACY or WP:OPINION – just a popular political jibe used in Indian political media and well attributed in multiple RS. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it violates WP:SOAP and almost all of the sources cover the use of it as a political attacks/jibes. Beyond that there is nothing notable about this term. Your argument that deleting it would allow Hindutva proponents to raise fingers at us itself argues for its deletion because Wikipedia is not a soapbox to lend credence to fringe and extremist view points. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 10:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article “Tukde Tukde Gang” does not meet Wikipedia’s notability standards. The term is not about any identifiable group or organisation but only a political slogan coined in the media and later popularised by BJP leaders in speeches and rallies. The article itself admits that it is a political catchphrase, with no evidence of any actual group existing. In fact, an RTI query to the Ministry of Home Affairs confirmed that the government has no information on any such organisation.

Most of the sources cited in the article are routine political news reports or partisan statements. They only mention the slogan in passing or quote it as rhetoric, but there is no significant, independent, in-depth coverage that explains or analyses the term as a subject in itself. Opinion pieces and repeated mentions in news cycles do not amount to the kind of substantial secondary coverage required under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.

Because this phrase is essentially a political jibe rather than an encyclopedic topic, it fails the basic criteria for a standalone article. The subject may be briefly described within a larger article on Indian political slogans or rhetoric, but as a separate entry it lacks encyclopedic merit. Therefore, the article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbhinavAnkur (talk • contribs) 07:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closer: this was an AI-generated text. Katzrockso (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely standard for Wikipedia to include articles on political catchphrases that has received significant coverage in reliable sources. See for example Category:American political catchphrases. It is by no means WP:SOAP for an article to cover a political catchphrase, simply because it includes section of criticism. Given that the term is controversial in the country, it is WP:DUE to include criticism of the concept. For example, We are the 99% includes a criticism section. A very analogous term, despite many differences, is BlueAnon which similarly describes a grouping of individuals that nobody claims membership of, but is described descriptively by certain political actors to denote individuals they present themselves in opposition to.

A quick WP:BEFORE searched turned up WP:SIGCOV of the concept in WP:RS such as NDTV, Hindustan Times and The Times of India:

Katzrockso (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Times or india is not reliable source for political matters, nor is Hindustan Times as both of their editorial integrity are compromised by the ruling party (which coined this term).the OUP source only devoted a passing mention of it when covering the JNU sedition row. Your comment lends more credence to Kautily3 ‘s argumen. Zalaraz (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in the Times of India article is not contentious – are there any statements in that article that are in dispute here? If you believe that their editorial integrity has been compromised, you should start a RfC at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Reliability should be addressed in context and I see no reason to suggest that these articles are in any way influenced by potential COI from ruling political parties. Katzrockso (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should take a look at [[Wikipedia:TIMESOFINDIA]], [[WP:NEWSORGINDIA]] and [[Godi Media]]. Indian news media sources are a poor way to establish notability. The reliable source cited by you only explains this in the context of JNU protests. Wisher08 (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:DICDEF, which states Wikipedia is not a usage guide

Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc. “should” be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used). The “Usage” section comprises the bulk of this article. The fact that the Tukde Tukde Gang just a concept and not an actual gang does not help matters.–DesiMoore (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The “usage” section is describing how the term is used, as described by reliable sources, not how they should be used. In your exact quote, there is “it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used”. Katzrockso (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don’t see why we can’t have an article on “a loosely defined political jibe”. DICDEF does not mean we cannot have articles on disputed concepts, and SOAP does not mean we cannot cover political topics… obviously. Sourcing already in the article, and as shown by Katzrockso (esp the OUP book), is good for GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is beyond the definition there is nothing here other than instances of their term being used as an attack on Indian opposition and nothing new can be added anyway, it is better off being covered at JNU sedition row instead where the term originated and was used to describe the protesters. Zalaraz (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The term has been used in broader political contexts than just the JNU sedition row. That controversy is relevant insofar as it was the genesis of the term, but commentators in the media have alleged the term is used in a broad scope to classify criticisms – that is significance that can’t be covered at JNU sedition row Katzrockso (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I disagree that this phrase is notable to warrant a standalone article. Sources are only covering how the term was used as an attack during the JNU sedition row, after that controversy died down, the phrase fell into disuse. We shouldn’t be considering coverage in partisan indian media sources (Godi media)) for reliability here as they frequently engage in circulating and promotional paid news for BJP politicians. Even then they only describe instances where the phrase used by politicians. Wisher08 (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ’Delete’ Per nomination. Fails WP:GNG, and Wikipedia is not a place to promote fringe neologisms, which is the only thing this article is doing. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:GNG and passes WP:SIGCOV; many of the delete votes as well as the nomination itself sound like WP:RIGHTWRONGS or WP:IDONTLIKEIT: that the article should be deleted because the term is pejorative, while themselves using pejorative terms such as Godi Media. Merge with the JNU row (which was in 2016) can’t cover usage and criticisms since, which are in the article (including from 2022 by the Indian PM in the Indian parliament apparently, unrelated to the JNU row; likely more recent coverage/usage also exists). UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SOAP. The phrase gained attention only during the JNU sedition row. There is no evidence of sustained, significant coverage in reliable sources following that. Not opposed to a redirect to the proposed target above as an WP:ATD. Koshuri ^(あ!) 10:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to JNU sedition row – Where the usage of the phrase was first recorded, this phrase was notable in only one incident and we are far past that point now, the usage of the phrase in other contexts is not well covered by sources, so the existence of a dedicated article is unjustifiable and amounts to WP:SOAP. Wareon (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete: Completely fails WP:GNG. Worst of all, the article openly pushes WP:SOAP and WP:POV content. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 15:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails WP:GNG. It is just one of the hundreds of Indian political catchphrases. Significant coverage is clearly missing. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]