Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bebe Nanaki Ji
- 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 keep and cleanup. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bebe Nanaki Ji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)
The sister of an important religious figure, but it's unclear how she's notable by herself. Her name, in some obvious spellings, gets low-3-figure Google hits. Also, per the tag in the middle of the article, all or part of it may be a wholesale copyvio from two books (which however don't appear to feature her as the principal subject). Sandstein 20:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite: although the article needs copyediting, if this woman is credited with being the first Sikh in history as the article states, then I think she is of historical importance. Rosemary Amey 20:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this what is meant with the tortured phrase "There is no doubt that perhaps first Gur Sikh was none other than Bebe Nanaki Ji"? OK, but then undoubtedly we must perhaps also address the copyvio issues. Sandstein 20:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyvio - Much/most of the article (such as the paragraph starting "He was named") is lifted straight from [1]. --J2thawiki 20:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewirte: I agree maybe the article does need re-wording in some places, however Bebe Nanaki Ji, is of great historical importance in the Sikh Faith. The reason for my humble contribution to Wikipedia was to add valuable insight into the life of the first Sikh of the Sikh faith. As well as being the first sikh, she was also a woman, which has far reaching conoltations in regards to one of Guru Nanak Dev Ji's core messages of equality between men and women.
She also played the pivotable part in the recognition of Guru Nanak Dev Ji as an enlightened spiritual leader. There was a unique relationship not just as the first sikh but also as a Sister.
Admittedly there is not nearly enough reference material regarding her life, which is also another reason for posting the article.
If you could all make suggestions in the areas you think that need work, i am sure that the work could be accomodated rather than deleting the article as a whole. I think this would be an injustice to the readers of wikipedia. The fact is people come to wikipedia to learn about something that they did not know before they came to read its pages. I am sure a fair number of people read the articles around Sikhism and Guru Nanak Dev Ji and as such it is a shame that such a prominent Sikh Figure as Bebe Nanaki goes without a mention on Wikipedia.
Forgive me for i am a literary novice with the best of wishes.
Kind Regards, Jaswant Singh Sagoo 16:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the copyright violation issue? Didn't you just copy the contents of this article from other books? If so, this content at least cannot stay. Sandstein 04:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/REwrite - He is an important Sikh figure.Bakaman 04:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- She's a woman. Sandstein 04:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Illustrating why we need a rewrite.Bakaman 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So... you mean the subject of the article is a man? Even though the article talks at great (copyvio) length about a woman? Which means we can usefully keep approximately zero bytes of the present content? This, sir, is one surreal debate. But tell you what? We delete this content first, then you can rewrite the article, about the man. Or you can even do this right now and there's no need for deletion. OK? Sandstein 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No I meant that I was incorrect in noting the person was male. The spelling of Bebe is confusing as Sikhs would use "Bibi" instead. That still hardly matters as "Bibi NAnaki" (as she is more commonly known) is notable. See refs like these that provide a better feel for the subject [2].Bakaman 22:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the gender confusion is over :-) ... but someone's web page isn't a reliable source for notability. I know too little about the subject, but possibly you could at least rewrite the article as a stub? We can't keep the current text around if it violates someone's copyright. Sandstein 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm merely noting that the web page provided a less jumbled form of the text that may actually be understandable.Bakaman 01:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but this still doesn't solve the problems of (1) establishing notability through reliable sources and (2) removing the current article text which is in violation of copyright. Sandstein 06:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm merely noting that the web page provided a less jumbled form of the text that may actually be understandable.Bakaman 01:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the gender confusion is over :-) ... but someone's web page isn't a reliable source for notability. I know too little about the subject, but possibly you could at least rewrite the article as a stub? We can't keep the current text around if it violates someone's copyright. Sandstein 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No I meant that I was incorrect in noting the person was male. The spelling of Bebe is confusing as Sikhs would use "Bibi" instead. That still hardly matters as "Bibi NAnaki" (as she is more commonly known) is notable. See refs like these that provide a better feel for the subject [2].Bakaman 22:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So... you mean the subject of the article is a man? Even though the article talks at great (copyvio) length about a woman? Which means we can usefully keep approximately zero bytes of the present content? This, sir, is one surreal debate. But tell you what? We delete this content first, then you can rewrite the article, about the man. Or you can even do this right now and there's no need for deletion. OK? Sandstein 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Illustrating why we need a rewrite.Bakaman 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite per above. Regarding Sandstein's good faith comments, I would suggest the aim of Wikipedia is to produce a balanced encyclopedia. In order to achieve this goal, more effort is sometimes required in cases such as this and more severity in cases involving popular culture.Addhoc 13:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite as suggested above. Bucketsofg 19:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/REwriteIn the Punjabi language, out of respect, the elder sister is called Bebe. Bebe Nanki Ji was the elder sister of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, and thus not refered to as Bibi. The article will be re-written in a more consistant format taking out any copyright issues. In terms of reliable sources, the information can be supported by the Bebe Nanaki Charitable Trust (UK) and the Bebe Nanaki Istri Satsang Charitable Trust (India) who manage the historcal sites in Sultanpur Lodhi and the leading body arround Bebe Nanaki Ji's history.
Jaswant Singh Sagoo 15:13, 2 February 2007 (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.