Delete. I cannot see any reason that we need an obscure Urdu curse in the English Wikipedia. No notability is claimed at all and it is little more than a dictionary definition. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Its quite a common curse phrase. Whats the notability requirement for such phrases? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep The term is notable per WP:GNG. There are many sources available online discussing in detail; to mention a few: This source mentions the history of the curse and how it was derived. This one describes its use in Pakistani society. Will certainly improve once I get time. --SMSTalk 16:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Weak Keep Seems to satisfy GNG. I thought it was Punjabi. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It's also used in Punjabi, thought it would be Ulla da patha instead of the "ka". Minor difference :) Mar4d (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep This is a very commonly used phrase in Urdu, Hindi and Punjabi in Pakistan and India. The articles passes GNG since there are many sources available to verify notability of the topic. On a side note, Rob Asghar has commented on this Wikipedia article in a book written by him btw. Just thought I'd share :)
I like how a Wikipedia entry for the phrase once noted "Currently, this term is also used widely for the President of Pakistan (Asif Zardari) as a sign of great dislike by the people". When a struggling nation feels that way about its leader - as is usually the case in Pakistan - you can only brace yourself for what's coming next.
—Rob Asghar, Lessons from the Holy Wars: A Pakistani-American Odyssey, page xv
Keep satisfies WP:GNG. But it will be better if someone add some good references/links. Bharathiya 09:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC) (talk)
Keep and improve: notable and sources present. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
SMS your first source is from Spinifex Press, hardly a highly thought of or well known publisher given they "publish innovative and controversial feminist books" Your second source is a self published book and fails WP:RS. And as no other sources are being presented to prove this terms notability it ought to be deleted. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Do we have a ruling here that Spinifex's published books are not considered reliable? (btw this books first edition was published by Penguin books) The second source, how is it a SPS? Can you please explain, because I don't see it as one. --SMSTalk 19:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
First source is of no use as it is not an academic publisher and is only good for opinion, not facts. Second source is self published as the publisher is a self publisher akin to lulu. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)