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 delete. The primary point of consideration in a deletion discussion for an article such as this is whether the term has both significant mainstream exposure and encyclopedic notability, to merit inclusion. The below arguments show a far stronger rationale for deleting, particularily on the second element of contention. Daniel (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Bollywood[edit]

Queen of Bollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This page was speedily deleted a few days ago, but restored because an admin considered the speedy-deletion as incorrect, and suggested to start an AfD. Now, why it should be delted: it's total nonsense, unreferenced, original research, magazine/fansite-style written fangush, as well as unencyclopedic, blatant POV and false.

Almost every person who succeeds in some field throughout his/her career will be called The King/Queen. In this case, it's just a simple way of magazines/fansites/tabloids (even if they're reliable) to praise popular female actors. It implies as if these particular actresses are the most popular, while it's clearly not the case. In addition to that, the page is full of bias, some of the most popular actresses who are cited this way are not mentioned -- they were either overlooked or unnoticed by the creator (in both cases it shows how problematic the page is). Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 10:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every person who is successful in some field is described the King/Queen - that's what I mean. Apart from that, the list itself contains original research and is misleading. It implies as if all these actresses are the most popular while it is certainly incorrect. If Hema Malini, the most popular actress of Hindi Cinema ever is not described queen, it will invalidate her popularity. Meaning, the list is a POV list. Journalists can describe someone, but ignore the other. It is additionally belongs more to a magazine/fansite, and it is clearly unencyclopedic, POV, inaccurate, misleading and false. Shahid • Talk2me 17:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. So remove everything that is unsourced. Have the article without the list. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
mmm what? the article is just a list. That's the problem of POV, newcomers like Priyanka Chopra who are not even that popular are described as Queens. On the other hand, it is quite possible that some of the biggest female names in the history of Bollywood are not even mentioned. That's the hoax, inaccuracy, POV, OR that appear in newspapers, magazines and fansites, but cannot appear in an encyclopedia. Journalists cite whomever they want to praise them and make them look good, but overlook others. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, there are no better and worse, but only facts. Shahid • Talk2me 17:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
problem solved. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not resolved - actually the opposite. Writing that "Almost every popular actress and singer in Bollywood throughout her career was called The Queen of Bollywood." - is exactly the reson it should be deleted - there is no source to prove that - there are only sites describing people as Kings/Queens of their fields, that does not mean we have to create articles for King of X, Queen of Y, King of Z, Queen of Bollywood. Shahid • Talk2me 17:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone knows that every popular singer/actress is considered the QOB then it shouldn't difficult to track down some sort of cite for that fact.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources for that claim, because it's not a term as I said - it is used only to describe people who are some people who are successful in thir job. Many newspapers usually write gushing comments. Do you really think it's encyclopedic? Shahid • Talk2me 17:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If many newspapers use that term when writing gushing comments, its a notable term, and there should be an article about how the Queen of Bollywood is a term used by gushing newspapers to describe notable singers and actresses. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happened to WP:NPOV? I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no comprende what you're trying to say. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you removed the list because there are no sources does not help -- the list itself can come back with sources, and that's the double problem. A) There is no such a formal term as QOB. B) The list itself, even if backed up, is full of unencyclopedic, misleading content, OR, POV, HOAX, which belongs to fansites, mazgazines, tabloids, but not an encyclopedia. Shahid • Talk2me 19:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is in fact a circular argument... and a fallacious one as well. One, he was trying to find a compromise in this very heated discussion; so any assumption on lack of sources as his motivation is definitely errant. Two, you have yet to acknowledge that the article in question is a disambiguation page, which by Wikipedia policy does not have any external links (namely citations) in them. Three, a term that is widely disseminated does not have to be "official" to merit inclusion in Wikipedia (for example, consider the term First Lady, which is an informal term that has been first widely reported before becoming widely accepted even in official circles). Four, you never have addressed my specific questions regarding the previously-stated international news organization - in fact, it has seemed you have taken great pains to avoid answering the questions directly. Sorry - they are objective reliable sources per Wikipedia policy and ignoring them doesn't mean that the contrary is true. Do you have a reliable source on the same level as the international news sites and companies stating that the term is in fact a hoax? B.Wind (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Open a dictionary, you will find the term first lady, which has a definition, and the term itself is individually discussed. It was not started by Wikipedia editors. You are now comparing QOB to FL, while you are not authorised to invent new terms. Shahid • Talk2me 06:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shahid is correct. There is one important difference between First Lady and Queen of Bollywood. Both are terms used to describe something but it is clear what the First Lady describes. The First Lady is the wife of a president. Now what is the QoB? What is the criteria for becoming one in the future? We know that by the end of this year either Obama or McCain's wife will become the first lady. OTOH, the nicknaming of various Bollywood actresses as QoB is purely random and is nothing more than a coincidence.
There are WP:RS that describe what the First Lady is, which makes it notable. There are no newpapers articles, journals articles or books that talk about this QoB. I yet to have seen any reliabe sources that start off with the sentence "The Queen of Bollywood is a term... the queen of bollywood is also blah blah". What the sources say instead is stuff like Aishwarya Rai is the Queen of Bollywood or Lata Mangeshkar, known as the Queen of Bollywood... Not one of these sources talk about the term generically. What this dab page is essentially doing is WP:SYN. GizzaDiscuss © 08:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one! Ohconfucius (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - First of all, you said that -- "gushing comments" - they belong to the newspapers, not to an encyclopedia. Again, it's not a formal term. If it is, you'll have to prove that. There is no specific description of what "Queen of Bollywood" means, this is only used when describing some actresses. It is a way that is mostly common to fansites. The term "King/Queen" is not just used for actresses, it is used to describe people who are successful in their job. As I said thousand times, tabloids can mention someone, but ignore the other, who may be more successful -- which creates the POV and OR. As for notability, describing different people as X does not make X notable. As I said above, I read that some model was described fantafabulous. So if we read that several times, does that make this term Fantafabulous notable?
You are yet to source the thing you placed on the page. Apart from that it is -- for the Nth time I say that -- unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not not a newspaper. Newspapers are full of such "special" POV terms like this one - here on Wikipedia there is a policy: WP:NPOV. Many people are described kings: King of soccer, -cricket, -pop, -football and so on, and it doesn't mean we have to create articles for them, especially considering the fact that they're misleading and WP:HOAX. I can't believe I'm fighting against such things: This is a sign of how Wikipedia is in danger of becoming a fansite. Shahid • Talk2me 19:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. You're missaplying WP:NPOV. NPOV concerns the content of an article, not the name of the article or the term the article discusses. According to your argument, Greatness, Idiot, etc. should be deleted because "they're not npov." "Bollywood Queen" or "Queen of Bollywood" is a widely used term and a notable neologisms just like all of these neologisms. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? Check Idiot on the net, in books, in dictionaries, and you will find a definition. Please find a definition for Queen of Bollywood -- the fact that people are described this way in a very POV and fansite manner, does not make it a format/notable term. Please explain to me what QOB is -- I wanna know. The fact that Priyanka Chopra, merely a newcomer, is described the queen of the industry, does not explain the so-called term, because it is not a term. First cite sources which will describe what it means. And the fact is that it means nothing. They call some actress: "This Queen of Bollywood is..." And btw, you say, "Almost every popular actress and singer in Bollywood throughout her career was called The Queen of Bollywood." - which is your POV. You did not cite sources, and the fact that Hema Malini, the most successful actress in the history of Bollywood, is not described as queen, only contradicts your POV and shows how POV this list and this "article" are. Please cite sources, and only then compare QOB (which is a joke) to Idiot, which you will find even in the worst dictionary in the world. Shahid • Talk2me 19:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, either as a dab page or as more than a stub. The original (improperly speedied) disambiguation page complied with WP:D and WP:MOSDAB (under MOSDAB, disambiguation pages are not to have external links - and citations are external links). We don't go by personal preference in Wikipedia, we go by policies and guidelines such as WP:V (do multiple reliable sources, such as National Public Radio, which I cite in the The Queen of Bollywood RfD discussion the triggered this, refer the "Queen of Bollywood"? The answer is "yes."), WP:NOR (disambiguation pages by Wikipedia definition are not OR whatsoever), and assume good faith, which seems to be lacking in the nom and the multiple edits by the same person in this discussion. So imagine my surprise when I return to the discussion five hours later and find that the dab page has been replaced by a stub. Had it been a fully-fledged, fully-sourced, article, which under Wikipedia policy would actually be superior to a dab and addressing nom's concerns, we can all call it a night and say that Wikipedia's policies - all of them have been satisfied and that Wikipedia itself has been improved. Unfortunately, the stub is no substitute for the appropriately-formed dab page, and it has been abundantly clear by the editor trying to control this discussion that it would not squelch the fire that appears to have been going on since my suggestion of creating the dab page in the first place (funny, no words from the nom at RfD regarding the redirect that prompted my suggestion in the first page), its speedy deletion despite having no CSD grounds in its tag, and the complete unwillingness for one editor to even consider the possibility that news organizations from the other side of the world are even using the phrase in the occasional, non-biased, news reports that they offer (please see the few diffs that I put in the RfD discussion as I seriously doubt that anybody familiar with any of the sources would say that they come from fansites). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Check again - Queen of Soul and Godfather of Soul are redirects as those epithets apply exclusively to them. Had either nickname been widely attributed to more than one person via WP:RS, it would have been a dab page instead per WP:D. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a way either. Too many actresses are called Queens... So what? This will lead to constant additions of fangush, and as it is known by BLP actors standards, excessive praise and POV. It means nothing, it's just an insignificant way to praise actress who seem some kinf of a success, and by no means implies that they are mostly/especially/particularly.
An example is Priyanka Chopra, she is relatively a newcomer, who hasn't been that successful. And some newspaper (which is clearly a tabloid) called her "Queen of Bollywood". On the other hand, there is Hema Malini, who is widely known as the most successful actress in Bollywood; she hasn't been described "Queen". Now, compare the two, it's clear who is the more successful, however, the Queen factor on Priyanka's page implies as if Priyanka is more popular and more successful.
Another note I'm repeating too many times: this is not a formal term, it's just an occasional way. It is not like in Madonna's case, who is the only one to be described as Queen of Pop. It is a common use for too many actresses - by different journalists and their POV. Collecting it here into one and choose all those who have been called like this so far (huh... any new article can describe different actresses as Queens, and everytime it will have to be updated :)).
The reson it is proposed for deletion is not only the fact that it's unencyclopedic individually, but also consists of wrong, false and misleading information, which is POV and OR at best. Shahid • Talk2me 16:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's formal or informal is not relevant to the discussion: it is whether it complies with WP:V using WP:RS and that the dab page also complies with WP:D and WP:MOSDAB. The fact that several or many actresses can be reliably and objectively sourced as having been associated with that title in articles by objective, reliable, news media means that not only does "Queen of Bollywood" meet WP:V using WP:RS, and those news sources stating that it "has been (widely, in the case of two of the people in question) applied" to the person is an objective, NPOV criterion for inclusion. It's easy to weed out the nonreliable, POV, tabloid sources (of which National Public Radio and CBS News are not). In addition, stating that that the articles on the dab page lack the mention (and cites) after removing them yourself is not exactly kosher in the context of this or the previous DRV discussion. Shalid, you are dancing around the topic itself: regardless of your personal preference of the topic, if the use of a specific term has been documented in international news sites, such as the BBC, CBC, CBS News, and the Los Angeles Times in their news articles - and anybody familiar with these examples will tell you that they are not prone to tabloid journalism - does that not meet the WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS criteria? If the only sources containing the phrase "Queen of Bollywood" were fanzines, forums, and personal sites, I'd be in full agreement with Shalid, but there are too many reliable sources reporting its use to simply sweep it away - in this case, it would still be best to either 1) note which reliable sources are stating which person is dubbed "Queen of Bollywood" and (based on Shalid's argument above) make sure that each person documented by those RS are actually listed in the dab page (doing this is not OR by any stretch of Wikipedia definition - I know, for I read the article for the dozenth time yesterday), or 2) write a fully-cited and fully-formed article that documents the history and the use of the term (since Shalid insists that it is indeed a widely used term, I'd suggest that a history of the use of that widely-used term would satisfy his stated objection rather nicely, for the use of the term will not go away as it is getting worldwide traction, and as writer of this proposed option, he would have control of the wording so that he can assure that it is NPOV in his eyes as well). The best of both worlds would be to have the second option as Queen of Bollywood and to convert the dab page into a list article, which then can have the citations that Shalid would like - and the citations that seems to have been removed from the other articles, according to B.Wind. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Whether it's formal or informal is not relevant to the discussion" - that's your mistake. It is the most relevant factor to the discussion, because it's just a gushing comment, very POV, misleading and is used occasionally for actresses, even if they're not the most popular - that's why it is WP:POV and WP:OR. You can't assure that this is used to describe some specific actress. Newspaper can say whatever - journalists usually have no rules like NPOV. They are just keen to praise the subject, to express how popular he is. Describing them this was definitely does not make them queens, and they do not become the most popular actresses in the industry, as the title implies. Unlike tabloids, Wikipedia does have a policy, WP:NPOV. Also, we are not here to collect random gushing "terms" into one and create an article about them. Queen of Soul does not have an article, a redirect is not an article, and now go and create an article "Queen of Soul" writing something like "Queen of Soul is often...," and you will se how it is deleted within an hour. Not because it's incorrect, but because it's unencyclopedic.
Now, when will it be appropriate? When you find a reliable source saying "QOB is a term used to .... The term is... and appears..." - but you cannot find it. You cannot find an evidence for its notability to stand on its own. So I'll quote the words of DaGizza, "Not one of these sources talk about the term generically. What this dab page is essentially doing is WP:SYN"
In addition to being misleading, WP:HOAX, POV, OR (see my above explanations) -- it is above-all, unencyclopedic. And that's the most important thing, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This is fancruft at its best. Shahid • Talk2me 19:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Unencyclopedic" is in the mind of the beholder, and that "argument" is a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which itself is not a valid argument for deletion any more than WP:ILIKEIT is an argument for keeping it. Also, you might want to check what WP:SYN actually says - again disambiguation pages cannot be syntheses any more than a dab page could be a coatrack article. As for the others you seem to be repeating, after reading WP:HOAX I fail to see by the way Wikipedia defines the term how it applies here; the oft-repeated OR argument is refuted by the articles in the reliable sites mentioned in the discussion of the DRV, the RfD discussion, and the sites that were mentioned above (and which seem to be completely ignored by you). The fact is that there is a middle ground in this discussion, and two different editors (Brewcrewer and yours truly) have offered them to you in an attempt to lower the heat of discourse and resolve the controversy, because... whether you like it or not, it is inevitable that there will be either a dab page or a standalone article for "Queen of Bollywood" because of the sheer number of citations in the Google search - if you succeed in blackballing all three options presented here, it is only a matter of time that a similar (and I predict, more intense) battle occurring when someone else initiates the next article. A major suggestion from a disinterested person who is more interested in solving problems on Wikipedia instead of creating new problems or amplifying continuing ones: please take my suggestion above to heart - the term is, and has been, bandied about for years, if not for decades, and (so far) I have found close to 40 uses of the terms in news organization based on the side of the world away from India. You can either fight it or you do the constructive thing and have some constructive control and actually contribute and edit to it. My suggestion to avoid having going through this all over again shortly after the close of the AfD since you seem to be quite knowledgeable about the term (and most likely the history of its use): write the cited history of the term (more than a stub would be best) and then replace the dab page with it. It would be actually the most civil option here and you could actually tailor the new article to address all your reservations. Think about it: the AfD is scheduled to go a week (and the first arbitrary break was placed less than a day after posting) - it is highly unlikely that this will be either a speedy delete or speedy keep... and, frankly, a positive resolution is better than seven days of battle, and you've had one so far. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I correct myself about WP:HOAX - see WP:HOAX#Verifiability and (for Shalid's point of view) WP:HOAX#Articles about hoaxes. Both do come into play as the term is verifiable by reliable sources, and if Shalid believes that it is a widely held hoax, the latter section actually encourages the creation of an article about it. Also... has anybody noticed that the red link in the dab page has turned blue? It seems an article for the CD (which, by the way, would meet WP:MUSIC as Asha Bhosle certainly does) has been created. Judging by its contents, the least that should be at Queen of Bollywood would be a redirect to the article for the CD (according to the stub that is there)... but that should be determined only after this AfD has run its course. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm Shahid, not Shalid. Secondly, you say, "... the term is verifiable by reliable sources." It is not - it is just a phrase being used. The term itself does not have any sources describing its meaning. Shahid • Talk2me 23:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

147, firstly I concede that some of those who believe the article should be deleted are occasionally showing signs of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which should be ignored as you say. Having said that, the arguments and policies you refer to are rather insipid. You say that the "sheer number of citations in the Google search is a reason for keep. Firstly, you are talking about Google hits, not citations. Using the word citation makes it appear as if you are referring to policy but you are not. Secondly WP:GHITS is well established to have flaws, particularly when we are talking about when the article is encyclopedia, not notable. Google hits is still reasonable (but still not perfect) when it comes to decide whether something is notable or not. As it is, nobody is discussing its notability in this AfD.

You then say that it is inevitable such an article will be created again. FYI, it has taken more than 7 years (over 2 million articles have been created on other subjects on Wikipedia already) for somebody to create this page. So why has it taken so long for this article to be created when in your opinion it obviously should exist.

Also, you do realise thousands of similar pages with no value whatsoever can be created along the same lines. Okay, I can make up a phrase off the top of my head, "King of Horror" (41000 ghits) or "Master of Comedy" (80000 ghits) or "Prince of Football" (38000). Now all of these phrases which I just made up have plenty of references in newspaper articles, youtube videos, blogs etc. I can make up thousands more. I can make a King, Queen, Sultan, Raja of Bollywood, Hollywood, Kollywood, and every other ollywood. I can make one for every sport, every movie genre and God know what else. If it wasn't for WP:POINT I would make all of these articles just to show how ridiculous this is and how Wikipedia's credibility and reputation could seriously be on the line. GizzaDiscuss © 02:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment opinion change: I now believe it to be salveagable. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time magazine (2003) referring to Aishwarya Rai – also appears at Queen of Bollywood (TIMEasia, 2003)

Queen of Bollywood: Review of Bride and Prejudice - CBC, February 25, 2005

Aishwarya Rai's rise to stardom - Suniti Singh, BBC News, June 9, 2008

The Vocal Vamp of Bollywood – Newsweek interview with Asha Bhosle, May 9, 2008

From Bollywood to Hollywood - Emily Flynn, Newsweek, November 30, 2007

“The World’s Most Beautiful Woman? It’s Aishwarya Rai, Queen of Bollywood” – “60 Minutes”/CBS News (aired Jan. 2, 2005)

Dvd.co.uk listing for Bhosle’s greatest hits CD, The Very Best of Asha Bhosle, the Queen of Bollywood, one of many stores with listings and pictures of this CD CDuniverse has this listing of her CD

BBC Radio 3 – Awards for World Music 2006: Asha Bhosle and Kronos Quartet (India/USA)

Promotional listing for Asha Bhosle and Kronos Quartet from the Sydney Opera House (2006)

London Daily Telegraph article on Rai’s movie, Provoked

Brittanica.com article on Rai

NOTE: The New York Times refers to Asha Bhosle as the "queen of Bollywood song" at Pop and Rock Listings – NY Times, April 11, 2008 while National Public Radio echoes the citation reported by Guinness Book of World Records in this entry.National Public Radio audio report with the phrase “known as Queen of Bollywood Music” in the linked audio report transmitted in 2004

All of the above are from reliable, objective (not fan-based) sites as anybody with more than a passing knowledge of these can attest. In addition, I have found these from sites that seem to be reliable, objective sources (per Wikipedia policy), but I do not know enough about them to state definitively that they fall in the same realm of repuation as the above sites (maybe those with more intimate knowledge could chime in as to whether or not they are):

Reigning queen of Bollywood - Indiainfo.com (2006)

Watch Rani Mukherji have a gala time on Amul Star Voice Of India - Indian Television news release (2007)

Asha Bhosle: Queen of Bollywood – LA Weekly (2008)

Kronos Quartet and Asha Bhosle - CD review in SF Weekly, September 14, 2005

Reigning queen of Bollywood not taking it easy - The Hindu/New Delhi News, December 21, 2005

Arts Hub (Australia) article on scheduled performance in Sydney and Melbourne, 2007

Please keep in mind that this was done only in the space of only 15 minutes, about the time I spent writing this post (oh... I'm sorry, but earlier, I tried my hardest to locate the definition of a particular term, but no reliable source has even used "fangush" on any of its pages and sites, let alone define it. I must conclude that the term is also to be interpreted by the reader). Either way, while this is not an election (and as posting under an IP, thanks to a computer that rejects cookies, my !vote will most likely be downplayed), I am sure that the closing admin will take a closer look at all the points that all the posters have made and make his/her decision on the basis of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, including WP:RS and WP:V.147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was hoping for that as well, and added some sources, but this one editor insists that the article be a classic dab page which aren't supposed to have sources (don't ask). I tried to explain to that editor that modifying his/her stance might minimize the chances of the article being deleted, but to no avail. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although it's still far too generic a term, and I believe this will just become another List of Bollywood actresses or somesuch, I now believe the page to be minimally salveagable. Please refer to the changes (note: references and more bland text) I have put through for some of the pretenders. Sources should be supplied for the others, or I shall remove them. If a dab page shouldn't have references, then I propose we ceased to categorise it as one - I've done that, for the record. IMHO, there's only one thing left to do: rename this article List of Bollywood 'Queen's. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would also like to add that whether or not Hema Malini has ever been referred to by this title is neither here nor there. If her career success is not a subjective appraisal by nom, there should by rights be a source out there, on-line or paper, which bestows her that praise which can be cited. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Brewcrewer, I am with you on this. At the risk of redundancy of repetition, the original dab page was written in response to a suggestion in a WP:RfD discussion of the redirect page The Queen of Bollywood after it was noted that several news organizations reported several womens as being dubbed "Queen of Bollywood" and a long time editor (the IP above) actually included three or four citations. So after three hours of Google and Yahoo searching, I wrote the dab page, which was improperly speedily deleted three hours later (see WP:DRV for discussion); the deletion was reverted the next day. Since dab pages cannot have citations on them, I tried to add the citations and one sentence statements referring to the reports in the linked articles when User:Shshshsh, signing here as Shahid repeated reverted before threatening me with 3RR - I agreed to hold off under the disposition of the DRV (it was closed yesterday). Since then, it's been one filibuster after another, and the whole thing has been at loggerheads.
Ohconfucious' (and Brewcrewer's) approach will do the job well - a standalone stub that accounts for the term "Queen of Bollywood" (which also is used for one of Asha Bhosle's 2004 CD) and its use in international news sources - that is an NPOV criterion, not POV, not OR. But based on the hysteria that had been going on since the attempt to solve a problem a mere three days ago, I seriously doubt that Shshshsh and his friends have any intention to resolve it, thus the loggerhead. I encourage their assistance in filling it out; the IP had an excellent suggestion as to writing this as a history of this widely-bantered term (again, an NPOV article if properly treated). No such luck - the only thing that I'm sure of is that unless there is a middle ground agreement, this will return to DRV if this debate is closed early, regardless of decision by the admin. Thank you both for your attempts to put out this all-too-hot fire; let us hope that more people appreciate them as well. B.Wind (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The next three days I will have to keep other commitments (as this whole thing has blindsided me at the very beginning), both on Wikipedia (I am in the middle of organizing a review of about 520 redirects that were created by a now-banned editor, for example - those who might be interested can find those at RfD - check the log for June 4 for the start of it), but when/if I can, I'll dig out the citations not already mentioned above by the IP and leave the rewriting to your - and Shshshsh's - (and the IP's) hands, should either of you are willing to "run with it." I hope I will be permitted to add the citations when I return. B.Wind (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frustrating, I know. Wrt the suggestion to track the evolution of the term, I would humbly speculate that to be a waste of time. I'm not sure there's all that much history to be had there. The term is so dreadfully generic, as so many people make a claim for it. For every genre that is created, someone will quickly proclaim someone else "King" or "Queen", so I can bet you anything that the expression is as old as "Bollywood". Ohconfucius (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break 2[edit]

What is "Queen of Bollywood"? Please cite sources for this random phrase itself. Apart from being false, OR, and a collection of journalists' POV, it is unsourced. The fact that actresses are called QOB doesn't make it notable or formal. It is not a term having a definition - it is just a phrase used by random journalists who make their best to praise actresses. This unencyclopedic term implies the actresses are the most successful as well - it's actually the opposite. Yeh, Hema Malini is the most successful actress in Bollywood (I can cite sources), but is not called QOB, while Priyanka Chopra, a newcomer, who hasn't been that successful at all, is described Queen (huh!)
Now, I ask again, what is Queen of Bollywood? Do you have sources describing the definition of the phrase? What are the criteria to be called Queen of Bollywood? Her talent, her success, her charm or maybe her sexy body? Is there any basis for calling an actress Queen of Bollywood? Except for saying "Queen of Bollywood X", do the journalists say why they are called like this? There certainly aren't such things, which means that it is a mere POV of the writer. Again, is there any source writing "Queen of Bollywood is... it applies to... it's been used"? There is no.
Ohconfucius, your message was amazingly precise:

"Simply because there are so many 'Queens of Bollywood' must surely imply there isn't an 'acknowledged' one. That being the case, this would be no more than marketing hyperbole, or a mere personal opinion of a journalist - either way, it falls foul of WP:NPOV. It won't be long before devotees of one actress or another comes and adds their own WP:OR as to why so and so is the undisputed Queen."

The current version has not changed at all - your message still stands, and is very relevant to this QOB article, the title itself is a problem. Yu yourself did not talk about citing sources, you talked about the term itself being POV, I can't see how the situation has changed then. Newspapers and tabloids do not have an an POV policy, Wikipedia does, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The situation will never change, unless there is an official approval of the term, and even then -- it is still unencyclopedic. Shahid • Talk2me 12:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a real term, please tell me what it is, and cite sources. I want to know (as said bt Dagizza): what is the QoB? What is the criteria for becoming one in the future? The nicknaming of various Bollywood actresses as QoB is purely random and is nothing more than a coincidence.
There are no newpapers articles, journals articles or books that talk about this QoB. It is not formal, nor does it have a definition. I yet to have seen any reliabe sources that start off with the sentence "The Queen of Bollywood is a term... the queen of bollywood is also blah blah". What the sources say instead is stuff like Aishwarya Rai is the Queen of Bollywood or Lata Mangeshkar, known as the Queen of Bollywood... Not one of these sources talk about the term generically. What this dab page is essentially doing is WP:SYN. We are not authorised to invent new terms and define them on our own.
So I once again ask you, what is the QoB? And what is the criteria for becoming one in the future? Please cite sources when answering the question. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 12:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t matter that the QofB is or is not a well defined thing. It, itself, need not even be notable in itself. We are not debating a standalone article. Even if it is purely random, fanciful, erroneous, ridiculous, the fact is that the term happens and it is easily a conceivable search term. WP:SYN does not apply to the organisation of navigation aids for existing content. The term appears in reliable sources, therefore we are not inventing it. It doesn’t matter what a QoB is, and the criteria should only be a citation in a reliable and reputable source, others would perhaps two. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well you clearly did not know how to answer the question. And it actually does matter. All of what you said in regard to the page itself is correct: it is purely random, fanciful, erroneous, ridiculous.
And I'm adding that it is very POV, OR, as well as misleading and false. All these constitute the reason to why this random unencyclopedic phrase does not deserve an article. All those criteria apply to every page, whether an article or dab. And not, it not even a dab.
I have no idea why you think a dab page is necessary for what is only a loose label given in the media. If people want to find the actresses then they type in the names or search categories as simple as that. Nobody will type "Wueen of Bollywood". Having a dab page on such a fan label, sends out a totally wrong message about this site. This is fancruft at best. Shahid • Talk2me 13:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calling another's statement "fanciful" and "ridiculous" is what "sends out a totally wrong message about this site." This WP:CIVIL problem is exasperated by you repeating your mantra about OR and fancruft without (seemingly) reading other editors repeatetly pointing out your policy misconceptions. But let me try again. 1)OR does not apply - only sourced information is in the article 2)"fancruft" does not apply - we decide notability, not importance 3)"false" does not apply - the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (wp:v). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Calling another's statement..." - please read the entire thread before accusing other editors of incivility. I was actually quoting SmokeyJoe's description.
Yes, I'll keep with my mantra, so please have a read, and I want to know if you can answer my questions:
A) OR - The term implies the actresses are the most successful and undisputed queens of Bollywood, but it's actually the opposite. Hema Malini is the most successful actress in Bollywood (I can cite sources), but is not called QOB, while Priyanka Chopra, a newcomer, who hasn't been that successful at all, is described Queen. That's POV, that's WP:OR.
B) Fancruft - OK, I'll go on with the notability issue now.
C) False - "does not apply"?? WP:HOAX is one of the major criteria for deletion.
Now - notability - except for being misleading, false and unencyclopedic - it is non-notable. It is a collection of journalists' POV. The fact that actresses are called QOB doesn't make it notable or formal. It is not a term having a definition - it is just a phrase used by random journalists who make their best to praise actresses. They do not explain what the term means.
I would like you to answer some questions, which I have repeatedly asked and wasn't told of anything new:
What is Queen of Bollywood? Do you have sources describing the definition of the phrase? What are the criteria for being called the Queen of Bollywood? An actress' talent, success, charm or maybe her sexy body? Is there any basis for calling an actress Queen of Bollywood? Except for saying "Our beautiful Queen of Bollywood X, is going to act in a film...", do the journalists say why the actresses are called like this? There certainly aren't such things, for the simple fact that it is a mere POV of the writer, and thus, non-notable. Many poetic words and phrases are used to praise people. Newspapers do that daily. Wikipedia, BTW, is not a newspaper.
But if these poetic words/phrases were discussed themselves, it'd be another story. However, there are no newpaper articles, journal articles or books that talk about this QoB. It does not have a formal approval, nor does it have a definition. I yet to have seen any reliabe sources that start off with the sentence "The Queen of Bollywood is a term... the queen of bollywood is also blah blah". What the sources say instead is stuff like "Aishwarya Rai is the Queen of Bollywood" or "Lata Mangeshkar, known as the Queen of Bollywood..." Not one of these sources talk about the term generically. It is not discussed individually, and even the journalists do not bother to explain it.
If you want to have a Wikipedia article on it, you should at least know what the title means. The notability of this phrase/term will never be established, unless there is an official approval of the term (definition, particular inclusion, individual description), and even then -- it is still unencyclopedic. So I (come with my mantra) finally once again ask you, Brewcrewer: what is the QoB? And what is the criteria for becoming one in the future? Please cite sources when answering the question. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 22:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what a QOB is, and it doesn't make a difference. We only report what is stated in reliable sources. Reliable sources refer to different people in Bollywood as the QOB, and right now that is the premise of the article. An article about a subject doesn't have to give all the answers about the subject, they only provide what is backed up with reliable sources. If one day a reliable source has a write-up on how exactly define QOB, it can be added to the article at that time. But a notable subject doesn't have to have the answers to all the questions before it is a valid article. A valid article is an article that is based on a notable subject and is sourced with reliable sources. It is highly likely that one day someone will attempt to define what exactly is a QOB. Indeed, it is also likely that it has been defined, but the source has yet to be found. But the point is, the exact definition isn't a prerequisite for it to be a valid article. See Wikipedia:There is no deadline. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know what it is - it clearly means that the term is non-notable. Random phrases do not become worth an article or notable only after being mentioned to praise someone. As for your note, "doesn't have to give all the answers about the subject" - the question "What is Queen of Bollywood?" does not ask you all the answers, but very, and actually the most, basic detail. Shahid • Talk2me 10:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For another example of an article about something that is widely informally discussed but doesn't officially exist, see NCAA Division I-A National Football Championship - and even the cited collection in the article is incomplete regarding the inclusion of various "national champions" prior to 1968 (in fact, the stated rule for inclusion in the article is more POV than that of the original QOB disambiguation page). B.Wind (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So do I. I'm very aware of this article. The only thing this article does is again discussing the popular actresses of Bollywood, and in order to explain how popular they are - they are using this metaphor called QOB (again - that's what this term implies - that these actresses are the most popular, while the most popular actresses in the history of Bollywood are not called QOB; they often do that when it comes to young beautiful and moderately successful actresses). It is particularly laughable that its main idea is the nest" queens...
Another expression of POV -- Preity, one of the most popular Bollywood actresses has been added only today by you. This shows how funny this is. There must be many other actresses who've been overlooked or unnoticed. Both cases show how problematic this page is. Shahid • Talk2me 10:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the last post demonstrates the lack of good faith that had been going on from the beginning from an editor who has been trying to assert ownership of the topic. The more constructive, more civil thing to do is to correct any perceived omissions is to add what's missing from the article and not just protest or complain about it repeatedly. Over the hundreds of AfDs I've seen and participated in over the past three or four years, this is the only one that I've seen in which the nominating editor has had the urge to respond to each and every comment made by people who were either in favor of keeping the article or even acknowledging points against deletion (usually the filibustering is by someone who is trying to save the article against all odds), and most closing admins take such behavior in the discussion in consideration when it's decision time (and most likely the discussion at DRV will also be considered as well). B.Wind (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to edit a "subject" which doesn't even deserve to have an article, because I think it's POV, OR, misleading and all the descriptions I have already given it. This is something I appreciate, but definitely not this. Shahid • Talk2me 17:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you have not such problem editing a sourced article - several times, I must add - that shows the Zee Cine Awards having an "official" award called... is everybody ready for this?... "Queen of Bollywood." Sorry, repeating the same thing over and over in light of increased evidence to the contrary doesn't add to your arguments: it diminishes them. After over 50 edits to this discussion, how many people are going to read each and every one of them when the AfD is closed? Also, if you still believe that there is no "official" use of the term in addition to those that have been already cited, you'll need to remove all such uses, including the cited award in the article that you've edited. I reiterate: one way or another, there will be a bluelink here (thanks to both the award and album... at least) whether you want it here or not. So, which do you think would be the most prudent action: dig in you heels or realize that your input in this article would indeed be most helpful and help make sure that it is the most objective, complete article that it could be? Or would you like to see the other shoe drop? I'd rather we work together and have it done right (with many thanks for the hard work from Ohconfucious and Brewcrewer). B.Wind (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which award? Are you talking about Queen of Hearts, which had been given to only two actresses before it was closed? Well it has nothing to do with QOB. There isn't an award called Queen of Bollywood, and even if there was, it wouldn't mean nothing, because the award would talk for itself, and would have nothing to do with the non-notable and misleading phrase QOB, which is used by journalists. Shahid • Talk2me 09:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see... You mean the recent Special Award... Fine - you can create this category for the award. But it still has nothing to do with this QOB, which is just a phrase being used randomly by journalists; a phrase that doesn't have a definition. Also very well staed by Ohconfucius, "the word 'queen' [is] not capitalised" - which means that this is not a term that can stand on its own.
BTW, the award was given to non other than... Gauri Khan! And BTW, she is not an actress. Shahid • Talk2me 10:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - you voted to keep, so it's obvious you would say that, but the fact is that all of what was written by those who voted to delete, is still relevant - nothing has changed. The phrase is still a random phrase in violation of WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:HOAX, WP:NOT.
You still cannot answer (with sources obviously) the questions, "What is Queen of Bollywood?" and "What are the criteria for becoming one?". Those questions have been raised almost by every editor here.
And most importantly, User:Ohconfucius himself, still votes delete. (Note, I know it's not a voting, but it's the easiest verb to use in such a case.) Shahid • Talk2me 18:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does this "relist" mean? Shahid • Talk2me 21:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. Notability is not established becuase the phrase is not a term, and it is undefined. Could you please tell me what Queen of Bollywood is? And what is the criteria for becoming one? Please cite sources when answering. Shahid • Talk2me 21:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of all those tags, is IMO, uncivil and verging on an abuse of the system. I'm not sure _who_ added them (I didn't check) but that opinion isn't uncivil. Hobit (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the "article". Could you please tell me what Queen of Bollywood is? And what is the criteria for becoming one? Please cite sources when answering. Shahid • Talk2me 21:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you just start out accusing people of being uncivil and then want answers to your questions? I'll right, I'll bite. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,501031027-524507,00.html uses it, as one would expect, to indicate the biggest female star in Bollywood. Its the title of a Time magazine article for goodness sakes. Hobit (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to accuse of - it is a fact. You did not answer the question actually. You said, "as one would expect, to indicate the biggest female star in Bollywood." Could you please cite sources for that? Without a ref, it's your assumption, and is considered OR. You found a source calling an actress QOB. Does the source indicate why she is called QOB? Does the source explain what Queen of Bollywood is? You can call whomever in every way you want to, whether it's X, Y or Z. But it doesn't make X, Y or Z notable. This case is the same; actresses are just described QOBs randomly in tabloids and newspapers. It is not a formal term, nor is it discussed individually. It has no definition, and thus it is not notable. Shahid • Talk2me 21:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't believe, and don't know what to say. If a phrase does not have a definition, nobody knows what it is, and is essentially a random phrase used occasionally in tabloids to glorify actresses who in many cases are not even that popular, I can't see notability. It is clearly not a term, it is not discussed individually, nothing can be written about it except "journalist A said actress B is QOB". The sources only feature articles about actresses, who are just coincidentally called "Queen of Bollywood" by some journalists, who make their best to present utmost praise. Making an article of something that does not exist, something that cannot be explained, makes me doubt whether Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and puts this fact at risk. Shahid • Talk2me 23:22, 23 June 2008 (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.
More