Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bebe Nanaki Ji (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was Keep: Nomination Withdrawn (Non-admin Closure) Edgepedia (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Bebe Nanaki Ji
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I nominated this article for deletion 5 years ago on account of non-notability; the outcome then was "keep and rewrite". However, the rewrite is still a hagiography - in the literal as well as figurative sense - that quotes two websites, both of which do not look like reliable sources and one of which is a dead link. A Google search reveals no obvious other reliable sources, apart from a mention in a children's book. I submit that there are just not enough reliable sources available to write an article about this figure that complies with WP:V and WP:NPOV.  Sandstein  11:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC) The sources found below under a variant name indicate that the subject is notable and that the article should be kept. All that remains doing is a move and rewrite...  Sandstein  17:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to Bebe Nanaki, over the redirect. A book search on "Bebe Nanaki" gives plenty of hits.  She is without doubt notable.  The honorific "Ji" does not belong in the article title, and was throwing off the search results.   I have changed the "find sources" link above. That said, the article is not exactly neutral and there seems to be some copyvio history that perhaps means the article should be deleted to clear it, then started from scratch.  I could start a new version from the sources.  Not sure what the right process is.  Aymatth2 (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, a search for "Bebe Janaki" indicates that there are adequate sources. If there are copyvio concerns with the text (where?), I agree that a deletion and a rewrite from scratch would be the best option.  Sandstein   07:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The copyvio content was edited out long ago, but is still held in historical versions, e.g. here. This is a large lump of material. My feeling is that it should be purged.  One solution is to just delete this version, then turn the redirect page Bebe Nanaki into an article from book sources.  Aymatth2 (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to Bebe Nanaki, over the redirect. I'm not convinced that you need to do something as drastic as completely deleting something in order to rewrite it. For the copyvio issues, the affected historical revisions can be suppressed fairly easily, I think. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have changed my opinion to "keep and move". Still think we should get rid of the copyvio versions, but that is a separate issue.  Aymatth2 (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Sandstein, whose stubbing was (rightly) merciless in the face of such non-writing, they can be. Uncle G (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This person is, by definition, encyclopaedic. She has an entry under the name Bebe Nanaki in, an encyclopaedia.  Ironically, that's one of the books that was copied by the copyright violator.  Various sources, including , alternatively use Bibi Nanaki, as does our Guru Nanak Dev article, which didn't link to this article until just now. Uncle G (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2012 (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. ''
 * 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. ''
 * 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. ''