Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhai Makhan Shah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was keep. DS 14:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bhai Makhan Shah

I tagged this for speedy, but, in view of an objection raised on the article's talk page, I figured I ought to bring it to AfD. Essentially, the text is a Sikh story taken from this website (I don't think that there's a copyvio issue). Were the article a summary of the story, it would perhaps be appropriate; it seems summaries exist here for sundry Bible stories (e.g., Genesis. As it is, though, the article reads essentially like a fictional account (I should say that perhaps my atheist tendencies got the better of me when I added the speedy tag, inasmuch as I wrote that the text was "like a fictional story"; I do not mean here to suggest that the story is apocryphal, only that the fashion in which it is currently presented is non-encyclopedic and akin to that one would find in a novel or the original source). Moreover, were the text of great religious import, it would, I think, appear in some form on more than one website; a Google search for a short portion of the text, though, returns just one result, the website supra. Thus, delete keep (with tags). Joe 03:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per above No vote for now. Once the article creator finishes on improving the article I'll vote for keep Strong Keep, good job on cleaning up the article --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC) *Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Changed my vote to Keep. --Khoikhoi 06:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As the writer of this article, I make the following comment: It is interesting to note that this article was tagged by Joe for speedy deletion as Joe thought that the article "appears to be a fictional story" at 2:58. He had failed to notice that the article began with: " Makhan Shah Lubana (also written as Lobana) was a devout Sikh and a rich trader from Tanda district Jhelum (now in Pakistan)…" – If this was a fictional story, would it refer to "(now in Pakistan)". Further, mid-way down the article is the line " He then recited this Shabad of Guru Arjan Dev:" followed by the sacred hymn by the fifth Sikh Guru – Now surely if you are not even aware of the Gurus of the Sikhs, do you have the right to make any judgement on this article or any other article linked to Sikhism?
If Joe has the "well-being" of Wikipedia at heart, surely it does not take more than a few seconds to search for "Makhan Shah" on Google to see if this is fiction or fact! – He would have found 654 hits and the first article is at: www.Sikh-History.com – Do I need to say more! – I don't think you would find fictional stories on a history website. Under the circumstances, the comment by User talk:Royboycrashfan that this is "original research" is laughable. 654 hits with Google and this is original research!! And what is surprising is that he is supported by User:TBC and User:Khoikhoi. Follow the leader!!
Following my comments on the discussion page highlighting that this article was a Sakhi, which are very popular in Sikhism at 3.09, Joe changed the article to AfD status at 3.13 saying that this was because "text is a Sikh story taken from this website". So in 4 minutes he has done a proper comparison of the two articles. I am sorry but I don't think this is how articles should be judged - Someone spending 4 minutes to evaluate an article that may have taken a few days to create from various resources. How can someone who appears to have no knowledge of the subject matter and has spent very little time be allowed to take such a step?
Having read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, I believe that the comments made by Joe – "only that the fashion in which it is currently presented is non-encyclopedic" does not appear to be reason for articles to be deleted.
Further, he says that if the text was: "of great religious import, it would, I think, appear in some form on more than one website" – This is based on a Google search of the words: "Once while he was returning home". What he does not tell us is the Google finds the following:
"with his ship carrying valuable goods over the vast seas, his ship got caught up in a furious storm" in my article and
"with his ships loaded with valuable cargo, there was a furious storm at sea and his vessels got caught in it" on the other site.
Not quite the same sentence – let alone the whole article. So how he can say that "text is a Sikh story taken from" another site is completely unjustified.
So I believe that these criticisms are totally ill-founded and without foundation. Further, this appears to a tactic to discourage minority religions to have a reasonable say on this website and this type of behaviour will stall contribution from the minority traditions. The majority sects will dictate what goes on this site - even when they are completely wrong!!--Hari Singh 05:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment, please calm down. First of all, with quotes, Google only shows 138 results, but then again Google is not very reliable for articles on non-English related subjects. Second of all, I suggest you cite your sources as well as rewrite and clean-up the article using the Wikipedia:Manual of Style as your guide to make it so that the article sounds more like an encyclopedia article instead of a fictional story. If you need help, you can always contact other editors. --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment As I suggested on Hari's talk page, there is "certain[ly]...a different way in which to include the story, one short of the insertion of the story itself" (assuming for the sake of argument that the story is indeed notable, as I think it likely is). If there seems to be a consensus for notability here, I would be happy to withdraw the nomination and remove the AfD tag and instead tag the article as needing to be Wikified, cleaned up, and sourced. Joe 05:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - appears to be about a notable person in Sikh religious development.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a book publisher. If verified to be notable, rewrite as an encyclopedia article rather than a story. Sandstein 06:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The author has written an extensive reply to this comment on my talk. I've copied it to the article talk page. Sandstein 08:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Initially if you folks had said that the style was not good and it should be improved – Well, I can understand that and we can discuss that. – But that is not what was said. Please read the initial posts. First it was a fictional story, then it has been taken from another website or may be it was original research or school project! Well what is it?

    You know that the world has over 6 billion people and there are just 1million articles on this site – that a tiny fraction – This site does not represent the views of the globe or even all the English speaking people – If you don't listen and allow other to tell you their story, how will you know how they feel and what they have to say!

    If you care to look, I have written over 400 articles for Sikhiwiki (http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Main_Page) and Wikipedia on Sikhism. When a Sakhi is told, it is told as a story. That is how these were recorded in the "Janam Sakhi"s which have existed since Guru Nanak in the 1500. What is suddenly wrong with this style? Was there a reason why this style was used? And because of Wikipedia, this style has to change?

    It would help me if constructive comments were made rather than irrelevant and incorrect comments! Many thanks to all of you who have been constructive and have taken your time to improve things rather than move backwards! I am much grateful for your help.--Hari Singh 07:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, please remember that Sikhiwiki is a wikicity, which is completely different from Wikipedia in terms of regulations, rules, style, ect. --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with cleanup tags. I put {{tone}} on it -- Astrokey44|talk 12:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • delete Sheesh read the rules and style guidelines here and follow them instead of trying to bully us with talk of how you do it elsewhere. Your whole tone is defensive to say the least, and the article explains nothing really, it just looks like a boring story of little interest to anybody outside of sikhdom. Williamb 12:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The Sikh religion is a major world religion so I think the person who 'discovered' one of the ten Sikh gurus is notable - theyre making stained glass windows about him [1] -- Astrokey44|talk 12:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it's definately notable and deserves a Wikipedia entry. However, it needs cleaning up (a lot) and it needs to be moved to Makhan Shah. We should refrain from adding titles unless necessary (in this case, Bhai means brother). Essentially any relatives of the Sikh gurus or close associates all deserve Wikipedia entries. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above Computerjoe's talk 19:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that, consistent with the comments of Sukh and the discussions several of those who posted here have had with the article's creator on his and other talk pages, it would be fair to say that there is a consensus for keep. The article, as it is now, still needs a great deal of work, but the appropriate tag has been added, and it appears that Hari understands how best to write the article in order that it should conform to Wikipedia conventions (although I am a bit worried by his comment supra: "When a Sakhi is told, it is told as a story. That is how these were recorded in the "Janam Sakhi"s which have existed since Guru Nanak in the 1500. What is suddenly wrong with this style? Was there a reason why this style was used? And because of Wikipedia, this style has to change?"). This can't be closed as a speedy keep, but I do think it should now be closed as keep. In the future, I do think that a proper procedure for us to follow when presented with an article such as this was in its first version, consistent with the "On deleting pages" section of WP:DGFA, is to vote "delete" and then list the article on WP:RA. Joe 20:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Astrokey44. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hari removed the AfD tag from the page. Because I fear that he may infer malign motive from my re-adding it (even as I've now supported the "keep" position), I'm not re-adding it (though it was removed out-of-process), especially because I expect that this will be closed as keep soon. Joe 05:15, 23 March 2006 (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.