Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarkali


 * 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. Does need more sources, many of which are conveniently provided here by the nominator. This article was brought here primarily to dispute accuracy. A better method for handing this can be found at Accuracy dispute. (non-admin closure) &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  17:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Anarkali

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable sources cited(Movies casting and rating are cited as references from IMDb(Internet movie database), to the article related to a historical figure, which have been an object of discussion among Historians since origin.(Anarkali, first mentioned by William Finch, a British tourist and trader, in his writings.) It is even suspicious whether she even existed or not, as not enough historical sources are available. Source1 Source2 Source3 Source4 [www.urdustudies.com/pdf/22/08DesoulieresAnarkali.pdf‎ Source5]. The article fails to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. The article relies on the references, are Bollywood movies, what already have been subjected to debate on account of accuracy of this particular historic event, and have been declared a total fictional plot.(By Satish Chandra, author of the Akbar's biography in NCERT(National Council of Educational Research and Training) class XI history text book, and former chairman of UGC(University Grant Commission).) Citation needed Anup  Mehra  ✈ 21:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Whether Anarkali was real or not is irrelevant. There have been many films, plays, etc. about her. The nominator has even provided multiple sources attesting to her notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Clarityfiend. This hard-to-read article needs fixing, not deletion.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito ☸ Dutta 12:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito ☸ Dutta 12:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep-- But need to find some strong reference. There must be some scholar material.- Jayanta Nath (Talk 05:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved this comment from top of the page to bottom. Also striking of the bolded vote as nominator's delete vote is counted as default for being the nominator. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 12:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My concern is not notability. My concern is, The article talks about a disputed historical figure nevertheless she existed or not, source(s) supported by movies declared fictional stories by various notable historians. It is same alike if someone writes an article claiming existence of 'Harry Potter', 'Spiderman', 'Superman' or 'Batman', citing references based on comics, movies and works of other people inspired by these characters. The article must be deleted, as an attempt to manipulate history. History is being manipulated since ages, by various movie directors, play writers and tons of other illiterate historians. I do not expect wikipedia to act same. There must be reference(s) for everything one's writing about. Some people are arguing to keep it, because Anarali is a notable character portrayed in various plays and movies. Then it could be re-written from that perspective. Not as a Historical character Akbar ordered his nobels to entomb a lady he was in marriage with, because the mother(mother of Daniyal, step mother of Salim) had an affair with her son, Salim. I ask for reference. If there's not any and even it is true, i protest each and every word written about it. (Using mobile phone, not sure where is my comment about to land, and yeah first time mobile wiki user.)  Anup  Mehra  ✈ 09:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved comment finished here. Please write your comment below. No extra weightage is given to comments on top. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 12:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Dharmadhyaksha Hmm.. Did you ever used Wiki onto Mobile phone? If didn't. Give it a try. It doesn't give you any option to place your comment, to top or middle or bottom or anywhere. It just places your comment onto top. Might be, Wiki Mobile Beta error it is. But it does happen auto not by intention. I can see people here are imposing/supporing personal opinion rather than facts based on evidence. Anup  Mehra  ✈ 13:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well... i am glad that you now found how to write at the bottom. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 13:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed by your understanding and sense of humour. Anup  Mehra  ✈ 13:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Just because some subject qualifies WP:NOTE, it provides her exemption from WP:REF? It could be re-written when reliable references/sources, if exists, are made available. I seek some logical answer. People seems to be here only looking for just a chance stalking one-another rather than making contribution to a constructive debate. I suggest to keep discussion open to provide good people, time enough backing article from deletion to find reliable resource(s), failing to find source(s) should occur into deletion. Or they could just blank and re-write the article from fictional perspective. Anup  Mehra  ✈ 13:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep We're not going to delete the articles about Robin Hood or William Wallace just because fanciful movies have been made about them. See Religious culture and folklore in the Urdu historical drama Anarkali for an extensive account of the topic. I've also worked her into articles about Lahore where there's a district associated with her tomb.  And I used to eat at a restaurant in Hammersmith of this name.  It's still there and it's named after her.    When people thousands of miles and hundreds of years away remember you, then that's lasting notability.  Warden (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying the tomb in Lahore, her tomb would be an act of manipulate history. Can you prove it? That it is her tomb? If not, then please don't spread rumor. One has no reference(s) to support a particular claim, then he can make/cite movies to prove it. Most likely to be WP:SPS Anup  Mehra  ✈ 17:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ( Non administrator WikiProject India editor's observation ), there seems to be some confusion here. If you think the subjection is a fictional character and can provide RS for it, we can go ahead and mention in the article. This is not a reason to bring this article to AFD. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 19:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah! My primary concern is, i see it as an attempt to manipulate history. As in the past there has been considerable discussion among historian onto this, and no outcome ever came, has been universally accepted due to lack of evidence. Neither Akbarnama nor Tuzuk e jahangiri or other historical documents of that time, mention falling in love of Nadira Begum aka Anarkali to her step son Salim(Jahangir) and entombing of Anarkali ordered by Akbar. And the tomb in Lahore, one view that the mausoleum was erected for one of Salim’s wives named Sahab-e-Jamal not for her step mother Nadira Begum, who died in Lahore. It is only mentioned by one British tourist and trader(Tourist and trader not a historian) came to India around 19th century in his book, which is not considered to be a reliable source as he primary depends upon local sayings, didn't investigate the particular claim. People often sees Wikipedia as a reliable source of knowledge as written texts are supported with reference(s). For me, the writing seems to be biased in favor of a British tourist and trader neglecting very recognized and renowned present day historians. It'd be better if it could be written to the extent the available sources allow or presenting all views with the help of their respective references. And, if one cites movie(s) as reference(s) then the texts of the article should be only about that particular movie(s)(In present case). The historical disputed love story has been center of attraction for years, and has been commercialized by various play writers and movie directors. People generally believes what they have been told irrespective of the actual factual accuracy. I wish if Wikipedia doesn't do the same. Hope it clarifies my stand. Anup  Mehra  ✈ 21:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ( Non administrator WikiProject India editor's observation ) You could use templates Fiction, Disputed etc. The purpose of Fiction, which I can see is already added in the article, is to inform readers: The article fails to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. That is also not a reason to bring this article to AFD. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 17:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, The template you're mentioning above was added by me, in fact. Again, I'd like to clear why did I drag this article under AfD. 1) The texts of the article deals with a historical disputed character with zero reference. 2) It is the lack of evidence that historians haven't reach any consensus on Anarkali, till this date. 3) The story which makes Anarkali popular, that She was in love with her step son and it is this incident that triggered Akbar, father of Salim and husband of Anarkali, to order his nobels to entomb Anarkali. And, there is a tomb erected in Lahore in reminiscence of Anarkali by Salim, some even argue, by Akbar not Salim, if deleted from article as unsourced claim, then nothing would be left notable. 4) The subject of the article doesn't actually have RS available. So saying tag the article with { {refimprove}} doesn't gonna make a change. 5)And, the sources listed under references section, are of movies and plays and they already have their own respective article. Like, Mughal e Azam, Anarkali (1953 film), Anarkali (1955 film), Anarkali (1966 film), Shabash Anarkali, Anarkali Bazaar, and tons of other article having texts related Anarkali. Repeating, Just because some subject qualifies Wikipedia general notability guideline, does it provides her exemption from WP:REF & WP:RELY? I'm confused, actually now this moment. I appeal/invite/request all people in favor to keep this article on Wikipeda to find some reliable source(s) and update references section. Or the article could be recreated if some sources found, some later stage. Anup  Mehra  ✈ 17:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ( Non administrator WikiProject India editor's observation ), yes, your those points are well-read. But, the point is, even if you prove that Anarkali never existed, yet, the article will be kept as a fictional character. Your point 4 above is a self-contradictory point, You yourself have shown that there are coverages on the subject (does not matter whether she existed or not. All you can do is to show the article does not pass WP:GNG, which is a valid reason to bring an article to AFD. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 18:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern is unavailability of reliable sources related to the Anarkali story, partially stated in point 3(Mind reading again?). And Anarkali is notable due to movies, plays, markets and some other stuffs related to the Anarkali story, and they have their own particular article(s). So what is the need of an unsourced article? Anup  Mehra  ✈ 19:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Unsourced", is also not a reason to delete the article. BTW, why don't you add the references which you have quoted here in the article (at least in that portion which? Even if I consider for sometime that the character is notable only because of plays, stories, films, we write articles on notable film/play characters too. So, once again the question is, does the article pass WP:GNG? -- Tito ☸ Dutta 19:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Anarkali is real as historians find her mention in Akbarnama written by Abul Fazal, a renowned historian of that era. 2) The story of Anarkali is disputed. The story finds its mention no where, neither in Akbarnama nor into Jahangirnama(Tuzuk e Jahangiri), In fact, 'Anarkali' doesn't match to any word of Tuzuk-e-jahangiri. 3) And, Anarkali is non-notable. It is only this disputed story. When someone google/bing/yahoo/blah the key word 'Anarkali', it is only her story and related stuffs(such as Anarkali restaurant, Anarkali market) to Anarkali, published on various blogs and some news channel debating what did actually happened that time. Perhaps I should apologize that I didn't knew we can write unsourced article(s). I would be interested in reading the related wiki project that says so. And to the point about WP:GNG, The historical figure Anarkali(Zarida Begum), one of the wife of 37 wives of Akbar is not notable.(Actually only his two wives, Ruquiya Beugm(his cousin) and Mariyam uz Zamani(Harka bai) is notable). The fictional character portrayed in various films and plays, is notable. Anup  Mehra  ✈ 20:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets notability criteria. The character may be historical or fictional, we do not know. But that is not a reason for deleting the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reasons for deletion, Please read no.6 & no.7. Thanks. Anup  Mehra  ✈ 22:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Whether she was real or not is irrelevant, if she is a significant figure in literature or legend. William Finch (merchant) was a real person, though the article on him needs improvement.  He was not a mere tourist as this article implies, but had a diplomatic role.  I would be surprised if what he wrote was not in print somewhere.  We may have a problem over the fictionalisation of real events, where the literary (or film) story departs from historical fact.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2013 (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.