Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Queen of Bollywood

1860:, 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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 2804:. 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 1103:- 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 348:

The Guinness book of world records often describes people using major praise, so I don't know how it is related, and how it helps us to conclude that such a term should be individually created on Knowledge (XXG). You have to understand that, it is just a common way (of whoever, be it a newspaper or book) to praise people. Everybody who sees success in some field is occasionally and expectedly described as the king/queen of this field. It's natural, but it isn't encyclopedic, and by all means cannot be used in an encyclopedia, for the simple fact that newspapers are written by journalists who can write and describe things in whatever way they want to and believe in, butan encyclopedia should maintain a

2454:

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.

192:

to it is fan cruft at best. Whether we are all fans of Bollywood or not and this is mentioned in national newspapers, this encyclopedia should be written neutrally and avoid labelling people with POV comments like that. Besides this 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. Such a page is highly problematic and people will begin listing their favourite actresses who they believe are the "Queen". Having a dab page on such a fan label, sends out a totally wrong message about this site.

1759:

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

1385:

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

1380:, 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 Knowledge (XXG) policy would actually be superior to a dab and addressing nom's concerns, we can all call it a night and say that Knowledge (XXG)'s policies - 2289:

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 Knowledge (XXG) policy and guidelines, including

1487:

DRV, and at the nom's talk page) saying "POV" or "hoax" when it's clear that it can be neither. For their argument to make sense, they must deal with the stated citations from the various international news organizations... and hyperbole (as stated a couple of times above - "all" and "every actress..." in the assertion are hyperbole unless the universal statement can be definitively demonstrated by the same reliable sources.

3369:

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.

277:- Game of the Year is a formal term, which even has a definition, and is practically an award; the name itself is often described individually. QoB is just a simple description that magazines/fansites/newspapers use to praise popular actresses from time to time. It is not formal, nor is it (nor its use) particularly discussed as a term. It is unencyclopedic, POV, false, a hoax, and as you yourself said: original research. 1789:. 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, Knowledge (XXG) does have a policy, 2577:. It is a real term in use in reliable sources. Should be a dab page, or might be converted to a tabulaated list if there are many associations. These things are important to wikipedia for navigational purposes. Just because some people consider the term of little value, it doesn't mean that others will find it useful in navigating. For a similar vague term currently serving as a excellent navigateion aid, see 1737:). 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 1793:. 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. 2887:- Just a collection of random hyperbolic mentions in newspaper articles and press releases and so forth, usually by the film company that hired the actress and so forth. If it was a universal reference to some person we can make a redirect to that person, but in this case, we just have a copllection of mentions, and no general reference about the etymology etc of the name. 2751:

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. Knowledge (XXG), BTW, is not a newspaper.

1598:. The fact that these actresses have been called "The Queen of Bollywood" is information that can and should be mentioned in their various articles (properly cited, of course - and with, perhaps, a small statement to the effect that other actresses have been dubbed this as well). To equate this to similar articles... we have an article on 579:. If "almost every popular actress/singer in Bollywood throughout her career was called 'The queen of Bollywood'", as the nominator maintains, that in of itself makes it a notable term and concept. The inclusion of unsourced POV content is something that should be taken care of, but deletion of the article is not the solution. -- 48:. 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. 1973:

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

3130:

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'

2718:

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

2514:

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

2374:

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

1891:

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

1758:

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 Knowledge (XXG) definition - I know, for I read the article for the dozenth time yesterday), or 2)

1673:

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

1658:

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

699:

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

191:

and learn about writing from a neutral viewpoint. What I didn't like about the nature of the discussion is that you didn't assume good faith, particularly on my part once I became aware you weren't a newbie. From a neutral viewpoint "Queen of Bollywood" is a name created by fans. A whole page devoted

3035:

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

2953:

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,

2831:

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?"

2643:

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.

2525:

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

2468:

The next three days I will have to keep other commitments (as this whole thing has blindsided me at the very beginning), both on Knowledge (XXG) (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

2341:

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

1972:

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

1851:

I fail to see by the way Knowledge (XXG) 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

1749:

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

1473:

At this stage, I must point out that of the first 50 revisions of this discussion page, 26 have been posted by the nominating editor... and not one of them have addressed either the fact that the article is a disambiguation page (whose format is defined by Knowledge (XXG) policy and guidelines), not

1384:

of them have been satisfied and that Knowledge (XXG) 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

506:

It's also good to note that many other actresses have been called Queens but do not appear on the list. Meaning, they were just ignored by the creator of the page. So he either overlooked some names because he doesn't like an actress, or -- did not notice. Both cases show the problematicness of such

347:

As for the Queen of Bollywood Music, it is again just a way they use to praise the singer. And it's fine, but Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia. We cannot describe her as a Queen, nor can we create an article for that. Can you find references for Queen of Bollywood being a specific/individual term?

3368:

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

2644:

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. --

2541:

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

1968:

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 Knowledge (XXG) already) for somebody to create this page. So why has it taken so long for this article to be created when in

1486:

be OR), and there seems to be no attempt to answer my questions regarding the cited sources that he repeatedly removed from the Wikilinked articles. In fact, I'm not even sure that the questions were truly acknowledged. I am reading people from a cluster of editors (two of them tag teaming here, at

933:

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

658:

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

3462:

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

2758:

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

2669:

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

2548:

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

2453:

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

1796:

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

1193:

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

916:

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,

420:

nomination discussion. His removal of the citations (diffs of three of such are in the DRV discussion) without bothering to look at them is clear evidence of that bad faith, and such repeated reports in the international news sites refuses his claims of "unencyclopedic, POV, false, a hoax, and ...

1964:

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.

1864:

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...

1274:

is a core policy and cannot be substituted. Even if the article is pretty well souced, as it is now, it is basically a useless stub, and being called the "Queen of Bollywood" is still just a POV stab by the media. Google "Queen of Hollywood" and you get 500,000 hits, so being "king" or "queen" of

155:

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,

3044:

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,

2985:

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

2430:

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

2288:

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

2109:

Notes for Shahid - I apologize for misreading your name before posting the other night and assure you that my misspelling was not intentional in nature. Second (as I had only fifteen minutes to do an internet search between class sessions), here is a list of citations from (from the viewpoint of

604:

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

2750:

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

2603:

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

2487:

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,

2690:

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

1781:"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 3491:

Use of the phrase, while established, does not mean that the phrase is worthy of either an article or a dab page. For an article, there must be sources that talk about the phrase, not merely use it. I see none. For a dab page, this seems to fail the "Deciding to disambiguate" guideline on

3167:. Please take notice of the overhaul of the article that took place after most of the delete! votes were cast. The rationales given do not apply to the article in its current state. Indeed, we are basically left with only one editor (the nom) who refuses to budge from his postion. Kudos to 3467:

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 Knowledge (XXG) is an

1509:

sources. Right now, only one of the entries has some sort of vague source, but that clearly isn't sufficient. I don't understand why you removed the sentence that I inserted. It's sourced, and it doesn't conflict with your plans for the article. In fact it enhances "your" article.

433:) without further interference by nom. If there are missing entries, they should be added, but simply listing people who are reported by international news organizations being dubbed "Queen of Hollywood" (which, by the way, is a NPOV qualification for the list) does not violate 2759:

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.

2469:

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

487:

Now, Queen of Bollywood is not a formal term, it is an occasional way to praise a popular actress, just like you would call a popular female singer Queen of Music. Everybody who sees success in some field is occasionally and expectedly described as king/queen of this field...

2239:

to be reliable, objective sources (per Knowledge (XXG) 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):

946:

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

2599:

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

1670:, 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. 1324:

Queen of Bollywood but are about Bollywood actresses and then the words Queen of Bollywood appears in them. That is a crucial difference. This is what changes it from being encyclopedia to a dictionary entry. So even if it has to anywhere I would prefer it to be in

2960:

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.

1458:

while at the same time reverting the inclusion of such citations in a one sentence addition in the articles that are mentioned in the dab page. This is the essence of bad faith, not on your part, but on the part of the editor who is trying to have it both ways.

659:

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 Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, there are no better and worse, but only facts.

1023:

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

500:, who is the most successful Bollywood actress of all-time; it's quite possible that she does not appear in any of those tabloids as Queen of Bollywood. And if an article like this exists, it will invalidate her success. That's an example of POV in this case. 605:

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

3199:- 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. 994:

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 Knowledge (XXG) editors. You are now comparing QOB to FL, while you are not authorised to invent new terms.

2661:

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,

2854:- 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). 1725:, 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 1852:

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

2740:. 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. 1531:

Whether dab, whether an article, the information, the list is POV, and belongs to a fansite. It's totally unencyclopedic, and you still have not cited sources about the term. Brewcrewer, in your version, the "sources" in this article were not

2990:

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).

1952:, 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 212:, a POV term at its best. Yes it a dab page but just because someone is given a term by the media does't mean it should appear har. Perhaps on their page, but only if it is to be found in an actually encyclopedia, not a gossip site. I'm an 462:, and in doing so you are personally attacking me. Thirdly, I have read most of the articles you mentioned; I'm very aware of this. But the fact that newspapers use these terms does not mean an encyclopedia can do that. So, first of all - 378:, a deletion review prompted by the improper speedy deletion of a disambiguation article. Editors are urged to read the discussion there (as well as the comments of the admin who rejected speedy deletion - these comments can be found on 1210:, 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 2604:

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

1433:

Interesting that you would say that, Brewcrewer - please note the sourcing mentioned both in the DRV (I posted links to diffs in which the nominating editor repeatedly reverted the inclusion of multiple citations) and the RfD of

345:, a newspaper can use as a source of information, and Knowledge (XXG) can use it as a source of information, but Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper. BTW, these are merely tabloid newspapers with many gossip columns and sections. 845:

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.

2954:

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

1041:

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

955:

per Knowledge (XXG) 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?

3304:. 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. 1918:

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.

2447:

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

1198:, 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 1118:. 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 3036:

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

3202:

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.

2658:

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.

1356:(under MOSDAB, disambiguation pages are not to have external links - and citations are external links). We don't go by personal preference in Knowledge (XXG), we go by policies and guidelines such as 3114:, 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. 1202:. 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 1548:? Apart from articles where actresses are just called "Queen of Bollywood", do you have sources which explain the term itself? I'm sure you will either not answer or just say something different. 938:

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 Knowledge (XXG) (for example, consider the term

3334:

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.

2066:, which each have a clear meaning that has been established over time, this is just a phrase that can refer to basically any popular Bollywood actress. We don't have a disambiguation page for 1154: 1717:

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

1677:

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.

496:

That term is used to describe popular actresses, and the problem is that readers will conclude that the list consists of the most popular. But everything is possible, and take for example

1812:, POV, OR (see my above explanations) -- it is above-all, unencyclopedic. And that's the most important thing, because Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia. This is fancruft at its best. 2986:

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

323:? These were most of the sources that I cited as using the phrase "Queen of Bollywood" (and in the case of one individual, "Queen of Bollywood Music" - a term that itself was used in 1239:. No content remaining, just an unsourced statement of opinion. No prejudice against revisiting as a proper article, but right now there's nothing there to hang a viable article on. 2578: 3088:

in the namespace. However, I've noted a number of uses of the 'title' with the word 'queen' not capitalised - let's not forget to clearly point out the generic nature of the term.

2526:"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 1386: 2235:

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

2515:

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,

1536:

Queen of Bollywood but Bollywood actresses, and then the words Queen of Bollywood appear in them. Both of you, please explain to me what QOB is -- I wanna know. The fact that

2114:

that I was able to pick out from the morass of fansites, blogs, and forums while searching the phrase "Queen of Bollywood" (and excluding most referring to Asha Bhosle's CD,

1666:, 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 132:

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,

121: 3005:

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.

3320:

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.

1674:

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 :)).

2851: 2000:

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

249:

degree of officialness asserted in the GotY article. Maybe if this article talked about the first person to be referred to with the title, the circumstances, etc. --/

548: 458:- first of all, most of what you have written here is not even related to this AfD. Secondly, you accused me of personally attacking you, without even citing a 375: 2712:"Calling another's statement..." - please read the entire thread before accusing other editors of incivility. I was actually quoting SmokeyJoe's description. 2400:

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

2315:

Well, so it has happened as I had feared: instead of being improved as I had hoped, some editor have added yet more hyperbole to the names, without stating

1977:

I would make all of these articles just to show how ridiculous this is and how Knowledge (XXG)'s credibility and reputation could seriously be on the line.

1158: 160:

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,

2422:

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

470:

a magazine/fansite/tabloid/newspaper. Just the other day I read an article describing some model Superfabulous... Would you now create an article called

3205:

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.)

740:

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.--

2935:, shows the phrase 'Queen of Bollywood' used in a very good example of press jingoism and headline creation. Overall, I would still favour deleting. 1011:

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

3423:

as well. There's the question of whether there even is a definition of QoB; I don't see this as a problem for creating an article on the term (see

1110:

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. Knowledge (XXG) is

2169: 1767:

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.

509:

Good to note that the creator had been adding this link to several articles of actresses, which is considered to be POV and excessive praise in

3354:

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.

88: 83: 2977:

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

1286: 876: 215: 92: 3110:, 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 2691:

notability, not importance 3)"false" does not apply - the threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, not truth (wp:v). --

3278:

Notability seems established by citations. Also remove all the darn tags at the top of the article. Whoever added them should be slapped

2557:

a tabloid. The situation will never change, unless there is an official approval of the term, and even then -- it is still unencyclopedic.

1544:

missing, does not explain the so-called term, because it is not a formal term. They call prople in different ways. Would you find a source

3007: 2115: 2913: 2298: 1905: 1866: 1768: 1643: 1390: 1077: 75: 2488:

someone will quickly proclaim someone else "King" or "Queen", so I can bet you anything that the expression is as old as "Bollywood".

1145:. NPOV concerns the content of an article, not the name of the article or the term the article discusses. According to your argument, 2228:

National Public Radio audio report with the phrase “known as Queen of Bollywood Music” in the linked audio report transmitted in 2004

1308:

Literally hundreds or even thousands of new pages can be based on something very similar to this entry and none of them will satisfy

17: 2805: 482:

is the best singer in the world." - So what? Can we go and add that? Definitely not - because, Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia.

2192: 1634:

are redirects as those epithets apply exclusively to them. Had either nickname been widely attributed to more than one person via

3240: 3178: 2815: 2698: 2375:

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

2349: 1517: 1419: 1172: 902: 853: 747: 685: 640: 586: 561: 2118:

as most of the listings at commercial sites simply show the title as "Queen of Bollywood" or "Asha Bhosle, Queen of Bollywood"):

1122:. I can't believe I'm fighting against such things: This is a sign of how Knowledge (XXG) is in danger of becoming a fansite. 797:

people who are successful in thir job. Many newspapers usually write gushing comments. Do you really think it's encyclopedic?

3447: 2222: 324: 261: 3080:

Now that an award of that name from a notable organisation has been shown to exist, it strengthens no end the argument for

2765:

The notability of this phrase/term will never be established, unless there is an official approval of the term (definition,

1404:

I, the stubber, have no problem with its expansion to include specific names that are referred to as the QOB. However, they

1114:

not a newspaper. Newspapers are full of such "special" POV terms like this one - here on Knowledge (XXG) there is a policy:

3400:

The article has been improved quite a bit, and I believe the provided sources establish the use of the term in each case.

2686:

Calling another's statement "fanciful" and "ridiculous" is what "sends out a totally wrong message about this site." This

294: 3350:

So you just start out accusing people of being uncivil and then want answers to your questions? I'll right, I'll bite.

2850:

For another example of an article about something that is widely informally discussed but doesn't officially exist, see

3523: 2165:“The World’s Most Beautiful Woman? It’s Aishwarya Rai, Queen of Bollywood” – “60 Minutes”/CBS News (aired Jan. 2, 2005) 1412:'s exclusion of citations was not intended for a POV situation like this where having the title QOB isn't clear-cut. -- 156:

while it's clearly not the case. In addition to that, the page is full of bias, some of the most popular actresses who

36: 2371: 1948:

147, firstly I concede that some of those who believe the article should be deleted are occasionally showing signs of

700:

their fields, that does not mean we have to create articles for King of X, Queen of Y, King of Z, Queen of Bollywood.

3496:. In other words, no one would go to the "Queen of Bollywood" article expecting to see one of these other articles. 2071: 1900:

would be a redirect to the article for the CD (according to the stub that is there)... but that should be determined

1828: 2067: 180:- I'm glad that you want the improve wikipedia B.Wind, I welcome you to improve this site but you need also to read 1540:, merely a newcomer, is described the queen of the industry, while the most successful actress in Bollywood ever, 133: 3463:

discussed individually, nothing can be written about it except "journalist A said actress B is QOB". The sources

2177: 2075: 1292: 882: 221: 3505: 3479: 3453: 3380: 3363: 3345: 3329: 3315: 3291: 3266: 3249: 3216: 3187: 3153: 3125: 3097: 3062: 3026: 3000: 2972: 2944: 2904: 2863: 2843: 2824: 2796: 2707: 2681: 2653: 2630: 2590: 2568: 2497: 2482: 2463: 2413: 2388: 2376: 2358: 2332: 2306: 2262: 2104: 2087: 2042: 2021: 1987: 1930: 1913: 1874: 1823: 1776: 1688: 1651: 1615: 1559: 1526: 1496: 1468: 1428: 1398: 1339: 1300: 1265: 1248: 1225: 1181: 1133: 1089: 1072: 1006: 965: 928: 911: 890: 862: 808: 756: 711: 694: 670: 649: 628: 595: 570: 534: 450: 363: 336: 288: 267: 229: 204: 171: 57: 3522:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

1949: 1857: 1832: 2078:, which I'm sure many Bollywood actresses have been called at one time or another. This is in the same vein. 1283:

for what I mean. Even if sourced, this is still unencyclopedic mediacruft. Tabloids are not reliable. I'm an

379: 79: 3351: 2932: 2427: 2302: 2253: 2122: 1909: 1870: 1772: 1647: 1435: 1394: 1389:

as I seriously doubt that anybody familiar with any of the sources would say that they come from fansites).

1369: 507:

pages and highlight the fact that they are anything but misleading lists, full of bias, POV and confusuion.

193: 2213: 1741:

in their news articles - and anybody familiar with these examples will tell you that they are not prone to

2773:

description), and even then -- it is still unencyclopedic. So I (come with my mantra) finally once again

2747:

I would like you to answer some questions, which I have repeatedly asked and wasn't told of anything new:

1505:

the article that you reverted. This term, which as you see, people have strong opinions about, cannot go

3093: 3012: 2940: 2897: 2715:

Yes, I'll keep with my mantra, so please have a read, and I want to know if you can answer my questions:

2493: 2409: 2384: 2328: 2283: 2249:

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

2217: 2038: 2017: 1897: 1760: 1726: 1439: 1365: 1085: 71: 63: 2754:

But if these poetic words/phrases were discussed themselves, it'd be another story. However, there are

2164: 3040:, including the cited award in the article that you've edited. I reiterate: one way or another, there 1896:

as Asha Bhosle certainly does) has been created. Judging by its contents, the least that should be at

1478:

there is a violation of the NPOV policy (and I claim that a properly presented and formatted dab page

3245: 3183: 3031:

Yet you have not such problem editing a sourced article - several times, I must add - that shows the

2820: 2703: 2354: 1522: 1424: 1289: 1177: 1054:

Not one of these sources talk about the term generically. What this dab page is essentially doing is

907: 879: 858: 752: 690: 645: 591: 566: 218: 3045:

complete article that it could be? Or would you like to see the other shoe drop? I'd rather we work

1960:

Using the word citation makes it appear as if you are referring to policy but you are not. Secondly

1865:

and, frankly, a positive resolution is better than seven days of battle, and you've had one so far.

1853: 1836: 3436: 2889: 2763:

If you want to have a Knowledge (XXG) article on it, you should at least know what the title means.

2649: 2586: 2319:. What I was expecting in the manner of improvements to this dab page would be along the lines of " 2182: 2083: 1843:

actually says - again disambiguation pages cannot be syntheses any more than a dab page could be a

1162: 1104: 471: 250: 2203: 1706: 1693:

Whether it's formal or informal is not relevant to the discussion: it is whether it complies with

1409: 1353: 405: 129: 3424: 1742: 1611: 1244: 3301: 2982: 2687: 2248: 1974: 1961: 1893: 1861: 430: 184: 2519:

is the most successful actress in Bollywood (I can cite sources), but is not called QOB, while

2270: 2227: 2542:

actress or another comes and adds their own WP:OR as to why so and so is the undisputed Queen.

2059: 1984: 1631: 1443: 1336: 1069: 484:

You can add many reliable sources, but it doesn't mean that you can add everything using them.

29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3420: 3085: 2917: 2726: 2550: 2187: 2005: 1884: 1880: 1848: 1844: 1809: 1790: 1271: 1142: 1119: 1115: 870: 614: 459: 434: 149: 3501: 3168: 3089: 3058: 2996: 2936: 2859: 2489: 2478: 2459: 2405: 2380: 2324: 2243: 2126: 2100: 2034: 2013: 1492: 1464: 1081: 961: 446: 332: 242: 53: 3493: 3416: 2978: 2928: 2605: 2554: 2432: 2423: 1840: 1800: 1782: 1377: 1373: 1317: 1309: 1111: 1057: 610: 606: 510: 467: 438: 417: 413: 409: 349: 342: 238: 181: 145: 141: 3359: 3325: 3287: 3235: 3173: 3032: 2810: 2693: 2520: 2344: 1663: 1599: 1537: 1512: 1414: 1372:

RfD discussion the triggered this, refer the "Queen of Bollywood"? The answer is "yes."),

1261: 1195: 1167: 897: 848: 742: 680: 635: 581: 556: 479: 394: 303: 3412: 2921: 2401: 2316: 2290: 2188:

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

2111: 2009: 1786: 1722: 1698: 1635: 1455: 1361: 1313: 1038: 952: 188: 137: 2370:

Although it's still far too generic a term, and I believe this will just become another

2916:

one which could go some way to determine or define what the term is. However, there is

2645: 2582: 2530:

source writing "Queen of Bollywood is... it applies to... it's been used"? There is no.

2141: 2079: 1295: 885: 224: 3401: 2294: 2008:. It won't be long before devotees of one actress or another comes and adds their own 1718: 1702: 1694: 1639: 1438:(in which 147.70.242.40 gives links to articles from four reliable sources, including 1357: 1349: 382:). Keep in mind that disambiguation pages do not cite articles, and attempts to add a 3469: 3370: 3335: 3305: 3256: 3206: 3143: 3115: 3016: 2962: 2912:-on having reviewed the potential links for inserting into the article, I found only 2833: 2786: 2671: 2620: 2558: 2444: 2183:

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

2055: 1920: 1813: 1678: 1627: 1607: 1549: 1447: 1240: 1215: 1211: 1190: 1150: 1123: 996: 918: 798: 701: 660: 633:

Agreed. So remove everything that is unsourced. Have the article without the list. --

618: 524: 353: 278: 161: 789:

There are no sources for that claim, because it's not a term as I said - it is used

2284:

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

1978: 1330: 1063: 109: 3228:

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

3131:

not capitalised" - which means that this is not a term that can stand on its own.

2832:

does not ask you all the answers, but very, and actually the most, basic detail.

3497: 3054: 2992: 2855: 2516: 2474: 2455: 2397: 2096: 2063: 1667: 1603: 1541: 1488: 1460: 1376:(disambiguation pages by Knowledge (XXG) definition are not OR whatsoever), and 1207: 957: 497: 475: 442: 328: 49: 2523:, a newcomer, who hasn't been that successful at all, is described Queen (huh!) 2404:

out there, on-line or paper, which bestows her that praise which can be cited.

3355: 3321: 3283: 3135: 2987: 1326: 1257: 1044:"The Queen of Bollywood is a term... the queen of bollywood is also blah blah" 939: 2132: 2004:, or a mere personal opinion of a journalist - either way, it falls foul of 2001: 1602:, we do not have an article on "Queen of Soul"... and we have an article on 1146: 400: 319: 241:, but that aside I don't see this as being much different than the article 3419:

for the same reason- the use of reliable sources. The article maintains a

917:

which belongs to fansites, mazgazines, tabloids, but not an encyclopedia.

3352:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,501031027-524507,00.html

2435:

for discussion); the deletion was reverted the next day. Since dab pages

1730: 388: 314: 309: 3053:(with many thanks for the hard work from Ohconfucious and Brewcrewer). 2608:. We are not authorised to invent new terms and define them on our own. 1348:. The original (improperly speedied) disambiguation page complied with 2142:

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

416:

on his. Please also note attempts by the same editor to dominate this

1590:

should we have articles that use this term in their titles. What we

2146: 2155: 515:

BTW, if the term is so notable, would you find a source describing

376:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2008 June 14#Queen of Bollywood

1839:

is an argument for keeping it. Also, you might want to check what

1835:, which itself is not a valid argument for deletion any more than 1280: 1161:" is a widely used term and a notable neologisms just like all of 2670:

totally wrong message about this site. This is fancruft at best.

1797:

the term generically. What this dab page is essentially doing is

1214:, which you will find even in the worst dictionary in the world. 3516:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1276: 3084:. Its existence arguably demolishes all allegations of failing 1582:- My take on the situation is that we should not have a dab... 298: 951:

answering the questions directly. Sorry - they are objective

2802:

I don't know what a QOB is, and it doesn't make a difference

1847:. As for the others you seem to be repeating, after reading 2785:? Please cite sources when answering the question. Thanks, 2722:

B) Fancruft - OK, I'll go on with the notability issue now.

2619:? Please cite sources when answering the question. Thanks, 1659:

means implies that they are mostly/especially/particularly.

1586:

should we have an article entitled "Queen of Bollywood"...

2212:

refers to Asha Bhosle as the "queen of Bollywood song" at

2174:, one of many stores with listings and pictures of this CD 293:

Which of the following are, by your definition, fansites:

3415:, we have passed that criterion. The article also passes 3171:

for the outstanding work that was done to the article. --

2581:. "NPOV issues" is never a good reason for deletion. -- 2439:

have citations on them, I tried to add the citations and

1329:(transwiki maybe) but even then it needs a firmer usage. 2924:. I still cannot escape the conclusion that it is still 2473:

I will be permitted to add the citations when I return.

1346:

Strong keep, either as a dab page or as more than a stub

404:

have been reverted by nom, who quickly followed up with

374:

The nomination and argument by nom is a continuation of

2549:

tabloids do not have an an POV policy, Knowledge (XXG)

1763:

and to convert the dab page into a list article, which

1275:

something is still a popular term. See the articles on

1153:, etc. should be deleted because "they're not npov." " 675: 116: 105: 101: 97: 2579:

List of persons considered father or mother of a field

1450:

is trying to have it both ways by claiming that there

2443:

referring to the reports in the linked articles when

384:

single sentence cited by an international news agency

140:, magazine/fansite-style written fangush, as well as 2172:

The Very Best of Asha Bhosle, the Queen of Bollywood

2116:

The Very Best of Asha Bhosle, The Queen of Bollywood

2033:

opinion change: I now believe it to be salveagable.

423:

Speedy keep disambiguation page, permit addition of

3233:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 2783:

what is the criteria for becoming one in the future

2617:

what is the criteria for becoming one in the future

1052:

Lata Mangeshkar, known as the Queen of Bollywood...

3406:The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is 2719:all, is described Queen. That's POV, that's WP:OR. 2244:Reigning queen of Bollywood - Indiainfo.com (2006) 2271:Reigning queen of Bollywood not taking it easy - 2170:Dvd.co.uk listing for Bhosle’s greatest hits CD, 1206:POV. You did not cite sources, and the fact that 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3526:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2852:NCAA Division I-A National Football Championship 2214:Pop and Rock Listings – NY Times, April 11, 2008 2123:Time magazine (2003) referring to Aishwarya Rai 1829:"Unencyclopedic" is in the mind of the beholder 3282:with a wet noodle. That's just out of control. 3134:BTW, the award was given to non other than... 3011:is something I appreciate, but definitely not 2263:Kronos Quartet and Asha Bhosle - CD review in 1015:what the First Lady describes. The First Lady 2396:I would also like to add that whether or not 2012:as to why so and so is the undisputed Queen. 1046:. What the sources say instead is stuff like 429:about this (which in itself does not violate 8: 3106:Which award? Are you talking about Queen of 1638:, it would have been a dab page instead per 245:- the only difference being that there is a 2156:From Bollywood to Hollywood - Emily Flynn, 3468:encyclopedia, and puts this fact at risk. 2981:of the topic. The more constructive, more 2729:is one of the major criteria for deletion. 2553:, and Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, 895:no comprende what you're trying to say. -- 549:list of India-related deletion discussions 441:- in fact, it follows both quite closely. 1701:and that the dab page also complies with 3427:for example). I think the article needs 1969:your opinion it obviously should exist. 1831:, and that "argument" is a variation of 1320:, the "sources" in this article are not 547:: This debate has been included in the 519:? Or better, does this term has its own 327:- it's in my copy of the 1986 edition)? 3411:; this means that with the addition of 2742:They do not explain what the term means 2535:, your message was amazingly precise: 2151:interview with Asha Bhosle, May 9, 2008 1048:Aishwarya Rai is the Queen of Bollywood 1606:, but not one on "Godfather of Soul". 934:page, which by Knowledge (XXG) policy 2445:User:Shshshsh, signing here as Shahid 1879:I correct myself about WP:HOAX - see 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 2806:Knowledge (XXG):There is no deadline 2734:misleading, false and unencyclopedic 2732:Now - notability - except for being 1454:be independent, NPOV citations from 490:Resons why this list is POV and OR: 2323:", nothing more and nothing less. 2321:was referred to this title by on 2254:Asha Bhosle: Queen of Bollywood – 1019:the wife of a president. Now what 523:in an encyclopedia or dictionary? 474:? Many reputable newspapers say, " 464:Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia 24: 2931:to be meaningful. A link such as 1883:and (for Shalid's point of view) 1808:In addition to being misleading, 2426:discussion of the redirect page 2220:echoes the citation reported by 1256:, no encyclopediatic content. -- 2431:deleted three hours later (see 2072:Most talented Bollywood actress 1892:(which, by the way, would meet 3255:What does this "relist" mean? 2725:C) False - "does not apply"?? 2223:Guinness Book of World Records 2147:The Vocal Vamp of Bollywood – 2133:Queen of Bollywood: Review of 2068:Most popular Bollywood actress 1270:I stand by my vote of delete. 325:Guinness Book of World Records 1: 2920:in that definition, although 2265:SF Weekly, September 14, 2005 2204:Brittanica.com article on Rai 1904:this AfD has run its course. 1885:WP:HOAX#Articles about hoaxes 1754:reliable sources are stating 1476:by Knowledge (XXG) definition 613:, inaccurate, misleading and 2372:List of Bollywood actresses 2110:Knowledge (XXG) precedents) 2076:Prettiest Bollywood actress 1594:have are articicles on the 793:to describe people who are 3543: 2377:List of Bollywood 'Queen's 1546:describing the term itself 1474:one has demonstrated that 3506:23:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3480:23:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3454:22:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3381:21:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3364:21:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3346:21:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3330:21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3316:21:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3292:21:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3267:21:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3250:20:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3217:18:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3188:18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3154:10:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC) 3126:09:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC) 3098:02:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC) 3063:00:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC) 3027:17:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 3001:17:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2973:10:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2945:03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2905:02:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2864:03:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2844:10:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2825:23:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2797:22:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2708:20:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2682:13:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2654:13:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2631:12:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2611:So I once again ask you, 2591:12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2569:12:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2510:arbitrary section break 2 2498:08:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2483:07:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2464:07:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2414:05:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2389:03:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2359:03:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2333:03:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2307:02:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2105:20:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 2088:16:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 2043:03:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2022:10:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 1988:02:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 1931:23:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 1914:21:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 1875:00:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 1824:19:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1777:19:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1689:16:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1652:19:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1616:14:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1560:06:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1527:06:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1497:05:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1469:05:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1429:02:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1399:02:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1340:00:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1301:23:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1266:19:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1249:18:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1226:19:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1182:19:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1134:19:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 1090:03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 1073:08:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1007:06:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 966:06:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 929:19:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 912:18:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 891:18:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 863:18:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 809:17:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 757:18:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 712:17:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 695:17:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 671:17:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 650:17:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 629:17:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 596:17:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 571:15:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 535:16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 451:15:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 364:16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 337:15:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 289:12:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 268:11:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 230:11:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 205:10:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 172:10:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 58:00:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC) 3519:Please do not modify it. 3408:verifiability, not truth 2196:article on Rai’s movie, 2137:- CBC, February 25, 2005 32:Please do not modify it. 2929:too generic a neologism 2441:one sentence statements 1750:best to either 1) note 425:one cited sentence each 380:Talk:Queen of Bollywood 2933:this LA Weekly article 2428:The Queen of Bollywood 2194:London Daily Telegraph 2178:this listing of her CD 1436:The Queen of Bollywood 1370:The Queen of Bollywood 1368:, which I cite in the 654:mmm what? the article 427:to each of the article 3421:neutral point of view 3165:Note to closing admin 2218:National Public Radio 1881:WP:HOAX#Verifiability 1727:National Public Radio 1440:National Public Radio 1366:National Public Radio 1141:. You're missaplying 869:Whatever happened to 350:neutral point of view 271:(changed my opinion) 1596:individual actresses 1446:), which means that 421:original research." 412:on my talk page and 198:♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 2956:the nest" queens... 2922:one could assume it 2775:ask you, Brewcrewer 2279:, December 21, 2005 2160:, November 30, 2007 2135:Bride and Prejudice 1312:. Apart from being 3425:Killer application 3138:! And BTW, she is 2127:Queen of Bollywood 2125:– also appears at 1898:Queen of Bollywood 1761:Queen of Bollywood 1743:tabloid journalism 1159:Queen of Bollywood 386:such as CBC, BBC, 72:Queen of Bollywood 64:Queen of Bollywood 44:The result was 3450: 3442: 3252: 3049:and have it done 2664:it not even a dab 2129:(TIMEasia, 2003) 2060:Godfather of Soul 1739:Los Angeles Times 1632:Godfather of Soul 1444:Los Angeles Times 1378:assume good faith 573: 552: 264: 256: 138:original research 3534: 3521: 3476: 3446: 3440: 3413:reliable sources 3377: 3342: 3312: 3263: 3243: 3238: 3232: 3230: 3213: 3181: 3176: 3169:User:Ohconfucius 3150: 3122: 3023: 2969: 2900: 2892: 2840: 2818: 2813: 2793: 2701: 2696: 2678: 2627: 2565: 2352: 2347: 2317:reliable sources 2112:reliable sources 1927: 1845:coatrack article 1820: 1709:. The fact that 1685: 1556: 1520: 1515: 1456:reliable sources 1422: 1417: 1362:reliable sources 1222: 1175: 1170: 1130: 1003: 953:reliable sources 925: 905: 900: 856: 851: 805: 750: 745: 708: 688: 683: 667: 643: 638: 625: 589: 584: 564: 559: 553: 543: 531: 414:personal attacks 398:, CBS News, and 360: 285: 260: 254: 243:Game of the Year 202: 201: 168: 130:speedily deleted 119: 113: 95: 34: 3542: 3541: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3524:deletion review 3517: 3470: 3451: 3371: 3336: 3306: 3257: 3241: 3236: 3226: 3207: 3179: 3174: 3144: 3116: 3033:Zee Cine Awards 3017: 2963: 2918:no universality 2910:Another comment 2898: 2890: 2834: 2816: 2811: 2787: 2779:what is the QoB 2699: 2694: 2672: 2621: 2613:what is the QoB 2559: 2521:Priyanka Chopra 2512: 2350: 2345: 2176:CDuniverse has 2095:per Mangostar. 1921: 1814: 1679: 1664:Priyanka Chopra 1600:Aretha Franklin 1576: 1574:Arbitrary break 1550: 1538:Priyanka Chopra 1518: 1513: 1420: 1415: 1316:and inherently 1216: 1196:Priyanka Chopra 1173: 1168: 1155:Bollywood Queen 1124: 997: 919: 903: 898: 854: 849: 799: 748: 743: 702: 686: 681: 661: 641: 636: 619: 587: 582: 562: 557: 525: 517:the term itself 480:Whitney Houston 395:Time (magazine) 354: 304:Time (magazine) 279: 265: 195: 194: 162: 115: 86: 70: 67: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3540: 3538: 3529: 3528: 3511: 3509: 3508: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3457: 3456: 3445: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3295: 3294: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3231: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3203: 3200: 3191: 3190: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3132: 3101: 3100: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 2958: 2948: 2947: 2907: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2760: 2752: 2748: 2745: 2730: 2723: 2720: 2716: 2713: 2667: 2659: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2609: 2601: 2594: 2593: 2546: 2545: 2531: 2524: 2511: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2450: 2449: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2391: 2362: 2361: 2336: 2335: 2277:New Delhi News 2226:in this entry. 2210:New York Times 2120: 2119: 2107: 2090: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2025: 2024: 1950:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1833:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1806: 1794: 1675: 1671: 1662:An example is 1660: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1626:Check again - 1619: 1618: 1575: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1387:RfD discussion 1343: 1342: 1303: 1268: 1251: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1165:neologisms. -- 1108: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 942:, which is an 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 676:problem solved 607:unencyclopedic 599: 598: 574: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 514: 508: 501: 489: 486: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 346: 259: 232: 207: 142:unencyclopedic 128:This page was 126: 125: 66: 61: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3539: 3527: 3525: 3520: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3495: 3490: 3487: 3486: 3481: 3477: 3475: 3474: 3466: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3455: 3449: 3443: 3439: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3410: 3409: 3403: 3399: 3396: 3395: 3382: 3378: 3376: 3375: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3343: 3341: 3340: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3313: 3311: 3310: 3303: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3274: 3273: 3268: 3264: 3262: 3261: 3254: 3253: 3251: 3248: 3247: 3244: 3239: 3229: 3225: 3224: 3218: 3214: 3212: 3211: 3204: 3201: 3198: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3189: 3186: 3185: 3182: 3177: 3170: 3166: 3163: 3162: 3155: 3151: 3149: 3148: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3123: 3121: 3120: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3076: 3075: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3043: 3039: 3038:all such uses 3034: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3024: 3022: 3021: 3014: 3010: 3009: 3004: 3003: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2989: 2988:filibustering 2984: 2980: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2970: 2968: 2967: 2959: 2957: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2908: 2906: 2902: 2901: 2894: 2893: 2886: 2885:Strong delete 2883: 2882: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2839: 2838: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2823: 2822: 2819: 2814: 2807: 2803: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2794: 2792: 2791: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2746: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2728: 2724: 2721: 2717: 2714: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2706: 2705: 2702: 2697: 2689: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2679: 2677: 2676: 2668: 2665: 2660: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2632: 2628: 2626: 2625: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2607: 2602: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2566: 2564: 2563: 2556: 2552: 2543: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2534: 2529: 2522: 2518: 2509: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2452: 2451: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2420: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2392: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2373: 2369: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2360: 2357: 2356: 2353: 2348: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2299:147.70.242.40 2296: 2292: 2286: 2285: 2281: 2280: 2278: 2274: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2260: 2259: 2257: 2251: 2250: 2246: 2245: 2241: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2229: 2225: 2224: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2206: 2205: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2195: 2190: 2189: 2185: 2184: 2180: 2179: 2175: 2173: 2167: 2166: 2162: 2161: 2159: 2153: 2152: 2150: 2144: 2143: 2139: 2138: 2136: 2130: 2128: 2124: 2117: 2113: 2108: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2091: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2056:Queen of Soul 2053: 2050: 2049: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1997: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1986: 1985: 1982: 1981: 1976: 1970: 1966: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1932: 1928: 1926: 1925: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1906:147.70.242.40 1903: 1899: 1895: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1867:147.70.242.40 1863: 1859: 1855: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1821: 1819: 1818: 1811: 1807: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1795: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1769:147.70.242.40 1766: 1762: 1757: 1753: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1686: 1684: 1683: 1676: 1672: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1644:147.70.242.40 1641: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1628:Queen of Soul 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1578: 1577: 1573: 1561: 1557: 1555: 1554: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1525: 1524: 1521: 1516: 1508: 1504: 1503:can't support 1500: 1499: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1427: 1426: 1423: 1418: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1391:147.70.242.40 1388: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1360:(do multiple 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1341: 1338: 1337: 1334: 1333: 1328: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1306:Strong Delete 1304: 1302: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1294: 1291: 1288: 1282: 1278: 1273: 1269: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1252: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1235: 1234: 1227: 1223: 1221: 1220: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1192: 1188: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1180: 1179: 1176: 1171: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1131: 1129: 1128: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1106: 1105:Fantafabulous 1102: 1099: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1071: 1070: 1067: 1066: 1062: 1061: 1059: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1040: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1004: 1002: 1001: 993: 967: 963: 959: 954: 950: 945: 941: 937: 932: 931: 930: 926: 924: 923: 915: 914: 913: 910: 909: 906: 901: 894: 893: 892: 889: 888: 887: 884: 881: 878: 872: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 861: 860: 857: 852: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 810: 806: 804: 803: 796: 792: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 758: 755: 754: 751: 746: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 713: 709: 707: 706: 698: 697: 696: 693: 692: 689: 684: 677: 674: 673: 672: 668: 666: 665: 657: 653: 652: 651: 648: 647: 644: 639: 632: 631: 630: 626: 624: 623: 616: 612: 608: 603: 602: 601: 600: 597: 594: 593: 590: 585: 578: 575: 572: 569: 568: 565: 560: 550: 546: 542: 536: 532: 530: 529: 522: 518: 512: 505: 502: 499: 495: 492: 491: 485: 481: 477: 473: 472:Superfabulous 469: 465: 461: 457: 454: 453: 452: 448: 444: 440: 436: 432: 428: 426: 419: 415: 411: 407: 403: 402: 397: 396: 391: 390: 385: 381: 377: 373: 365: 361: 359: 358: 351: 344: 340: 339: 338: 334: 330: 326: 322: 321: 316: 312: 311: 306: 305: 300: 296: 292: 291: 290: 286: 284: 283: 276: 273: 272: 270: 269: 263: 257: 253: 248: 244: 240: 237: 233: 231: 228: 227: 226: 223: 220: 217: 211: 208: 206: 203: 200: 199: 190: 186: 183: 179: 178:Speedy delete 176: 175: 174: 173: 169: 167: 166: 159: 153: 151: 147: 143: 139: 135: 131: 123: 118: 111: 107: 103: 99: 94: 90: 85: 81: 77: 73: 69: 68: 65: 62: 60: 59: 55: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 3518: 3515: 3510: 3488: 3472: 3471: 3464: 3437: 3432: 3428: 3407: 3405: 3397: 3373: 3372: 3338: 3337: 3308: 3307: 3279: 3275: 3259: 3258: 3246:(yada, yada) 3234: 3227: 3209: 3208: 3196: 3184:(yada, yada) 3172: 3164: 3146: 3145: 3142:an actress. 3139: 3118: 3117: 3111: 3107: 3081: 3077: 3050: 3046: 3041: 3037: 3019: 3018: 3006: 2965: 2964: 2955: 2925: 2909: 2899:bananabucket 2896: 2888: 2884: 2836: 2835: 2821:(yada, yada) 2809: 2801: 2789: 2788: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2755: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2704:(yada, yada) 2692: 2674: 2673: 2663: 2623: 2622: 2616: 2612: 2600:coincidence. 2574: 2561: 2560: 2547: 2540: 2532: 2527: 2513: 2470: 2448:loggerheads. 2440: 2436: 2393: 2367: 2355:(yada, yada) 2343: 2342:no avail. -- 2320: 2312: 2287: 2282: 2276: 2272: 2269: 2264: 2261: 2255: 2252: 2247: 2242: 2236: 2232: 2231: 2221: 2209: 2207: 2202: 2197: 2193: 2191: 2186: 2181: 2171: 2168: 2163: 2157: 2154: 2148: 2145: 2140: 2134: 2131: 2121: 2092: 2051: 2030: 1995: 1993: 1983: 1979: 1971: 1967: 1957: 1953: 1947: 1923: 1922: 1901: 1888: 1816: 1815: 1799: 1798: 1764: 1755: 1751: 1746: 1745:- does that 1738: 1734: 1714: 1710: 1681: 1680: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1552: 1551: 1545: 1533: 1523:(yada, yada) 1511: 1506: 1502: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1451: 1425:(yada, yada) 1413: 1408:be sourced. 1405: 1381: 1345: 1344: 1335: 1331: 1321: 1305: 1285: 1284: 1253: 1236: 1218: 1217: 1203: 1199: 1186: 1178:(yada, yada) 1166: 1138: 1126: 1125: 1100: 1068: 1064: 1056: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1024:coincidence. 1020: 1016: 1012: 999: 998: 948: 943: 935: 921: 920: 908:(yada, yada) 896: 875: 874: 859:(yada, yada) 847: 801: 800: 794: 790: 753:(yada, yada) 741: 704: 703: 691:(yada, yada) 679: 663: 662: 655: 646:(yada, yada) 634: 621: 620: 592:(yada, yada) 580: 576: 567:(yada, yada) 555: 544: 527: 526: 520: 516: 503: 493: 483: 463: 455: 424: 422: 399: 393: 387: 383: 356: 355: 341:Please read 318: 308: 302: 281: 280: 274: 251: 246: 235: 234: 214: 213: 209: 197: 196: 177: 164: 163: 157: 154: 134:unreferenced 127: 45: 43: 31: 28: 3429:improvement 3090:Ohconfucius 2937:Ohconfucius 2769:inclusion, 2738:non-notable 2533:Ohconfucius 2517:Hema Malini 2490:Ohconfucius 2406:Ohconfucius 2398:Hema Malini 2381:Ohconfucius 2325:Ohconfucius 2064:King of Pop 2054:Unlike the 2035:Ohconfucius 2014:Ohconfucius 1668:Hema Malini 1604:James Brown 1542:Hema Malini 1482:be POV and 1208:Hema Malini 1082:Ohconfucius 498:Hema Malini 476:Celine Dion 236:Weak delete 3300:Please be 3136:Gauri Khan 2771:individual 2767:particular 2208:NOTE: The 1958:citations. 1902:only after 1837:WP:ILIKEIT 1448:nom editor 1364:, such as 1327:Wiktionary 1037:There are 940:First Lady 408:regarding 144:, blatant 3112:Bollywood 2979:ownership 2646:SmokeyJoe 2583:SmokeyJoe 2273:The Hindu 2256:LA Weekly 2080:Mangostar 2002:hyperbole 1707:WP:MOSDAB 1410:WP:MOSDAB 1354:WP:MOSDAB 1147:Greatness 873:? I'm an 418:bad faith 401:The Hindu 320:The Hindu 3433:deletion 3404:states: 3047:together 2891:Blnguyen 2736:- it is 2688:WP:CIVIL 2198:Provoked 2158:Newsweek 2149:Newsweek 1975:WP:POINT 1962:WP:GHITS 1894:WP:MUSIC 1731:CBS News 1608:Blueboar 1241:23skidoo 1107:notable? 944:informal 936:does not 431:WP:UNDUE 389:Newsweek 315:CBS News 310:Newsweek 185:WP:UNDUE 122:View log 3441:endaliv 3086:WP:NPOV 3078:Comment 2926:waaaaay 2727:WP:HOAX 2394:Comment 2368:Comment 2313:Comment 2031:Comment 2006:WP:NPOV 1887:. Both 1854:like it 1849:WP:HOAX 1810:WP:HOAX 1791:WP:NPOV 1711:several 1580:Comment 1272:WP:NPOV 1200:nothing 1143:WP:NPOV 1120:WP:HOAX 1116:WP:NPOV 871:WP:NPOV 656:is just 435:WP:NPOV 406:threats 275:Comment 255:endaliv 89:protect 84:history 3498:gnfnrf 3494:WP:DAB 3489:Delete 3473:Shahid 3417:WP:NOR 3374:Shahid 3339:Shahid 3309:Shahid 3260:Shahid 3242:crewer 3210:Shahid 3180:crewer 3147:Shahid 3119:Shahid 3108:Hearts 3055:B.Wind 3020:Shahid 2993:B.Wind 2966:Shahid 2856:B.Wind 2837:Shahid 2817:crewer 2790:Shahid 2781:? And 2700:crewer 2675:Shahid 2624:Shahid 2615:? And 2606:WP:SYN 2562:Shahid 2475:B.Wind 2456:B.Wind 2437:cannot 2433:WP:DRV 2424:WP:RfD 2402:source 2351:crewer 2258:(2008) 2216:while 2097:Edison 2093:Delete 2062:, and 2052:Delete 1998:delete 1996:Strong 1956:, not 1924:Shahid 1841:WP:SYN 1817:Shahid 1801:WP:SYN 1783:WP:POV 1721:using 1697:using 1682:Shahid 1592:should 1553:Shahid 1519:crewer 1489:B.Wind 1484:cannot 1480:cannot 1461:B.Wind 1452:cannot 1421:crewer 1374:WP:NOR 1318:WP:POV 1310:WP:ENC 1287:Editor 1254:Delete 1237:Delete 1219:Shahid 1189:Check 1174:crewer 1157:" or " 1127:Shahid 1078:Here's 1058:WP:SYN 1000:Shahid 958:B.Wind 922:Shahid 904:crewer 877:Editor 855:crewer 802:Shahid 749:crewer 705:Shahid 687:crewer 664:Shahid 642:crewer 622:Shahid 588:crewer 563:crewer 528:Shahid 443:B.Wind 439:WP:NOR 410:WP:3RR 357:Shahid 343:WP:NOT 329:B.Wind 282:Shahid 239:WP:NOR 216:Editor 210:Delete 182:WP:POV 165:Shahid 117:delete 93:delete 50:Daniel 46:delete 3435:. --/ 3356:Hobit 3322:Hobit 3302:civil 3284:Hobit 3197:Reply 3051:right 2983:civil 2291:WP:RS 2074:, or 2010:WP:OR 1980:Gizza 1862:civil 1787:WP:OR 1756:which 1752:which 1723:WP:RS 1699:WP:RS 1636:WP:RS 1534:about 1332:Gizza 1322:about 1314:WP:OR 1281:Queen 1258:Soman 1212:Idiot 1194:that 1191:Idiot 1187:What? 1163:these 1151:Idiot 1139:Reply 1101:Reply 1080:one! 1065:Gizza 1039:WP:RS 1013:clear 949:avoid 615:false 521:entry 456:Reply 247:minor 189:WP:OR 150:false 120:) – ( 110:views 102:watch 98:links 16:< 3502:talk 3465:only 3431:not 3402:WP:V 3398:Keep 3360:talk 3326:talk 3288:talk 3280:hard 3276:Keep 3237:brew 3175:brew 3094:talk 3082:keep 3059:talk 3042:will 3013:this 3008:This 2997:talk 2941:talk 2914:this 2860:talk 2812:brew 2808:. -- 2695:brew 2650:talk 2587:talk 2575:Keep 2551:does 2494:talk 2479:talk 2471:hope 2460:talk 2410:talk 2385:talk 2346:brew 2329:talk 2303:talk 2295:WP:V 2293:and 2237:seem 2101:talk 2084:talk 2039:talk 2018:talk 1994:weak 1954:hits 1910:talk 1871:talk 1785:and 1773:talk 1765:then 1733:are 1729:and 1719:WP:V 1715:many 1705:and 1703:WP:D 1695:WP:V 1648:talk 1640:WP:D 1630:and 1612:talk 1514:brew 1507:sans 1493:talk 1465:talk 1442:and 1416:brew 1406:must 1395:talk 1358:WP:V 1352:and 1350:WP:D 1296:wiki 1279:and 1277:King 1262:talk 1245:talk 1204:your 1169:brew 1086:talk 962:talk 899:brew 886:wiki 850:brew 795:some 791:only 744:brew 682:brew 678:. -- 637:brew 583:brew 577:Keep 558:brew 545:Note 511:BLPs 460:diff 447:talk 333:talk 225:wiki 148:and 106:logs 80:talk 76:edit 54:talk 3478:• 3448:Δ's 3379:• 3344:• 3314:• 3265:• 3215:• 3152:• 3140:not 3124:• 3025:• 2971:• 2842:• 2795:• 2680:• 2629:• 2567:• 2555:not 2528:any 2233:All 1929:• 1858:not 1856:or 1822:• 1747:not 1735:not 1713:or 1687:• 1588:nor 1584:nor 1558:• 1382:all 1293:the 1224:• 1132:• 1112:not 1050:or 1005:• 927:• 883:the 807:• 710:• 669:• 627:• 611:POV 554:-- 551:. 533:• 468:NOT 437:or 362:• 299:BBC 295:CBC 287:• 262:Δ's 222:the 170:• 158:are 146:POV 3504:) 3452:/ 3444:// 3362:) 3328:) 3290:) 3096:) 3061:) 3015:. 2999:) 2943:) 2903:) 2862:) 2777:: 2756:no 2652:) 2589:) 2496:) 2481:) 2462:) 2412:) 2387:) 2379:. 2331:) 2305:) 2103:) 2086:) 2070:, 2058:, 2041:) 2020:) 1912:) 1889:do 1873:) 1775:) 1650:) 1642:. 1614:) 1510:-- 1501:I 1495:) 1467:) 1397:) 1290:of 1264:) 1247:) 1149:, 1088:) 1021:is 1017:is 964:) 880:of 846:-- 617:. 609:, 513:. 504:B) 494:A) 466:, 449:) 392:, 352:. 335:) 317:, 313:, 307:, 301:, 297:, 266:/ 258:// 219:of 187:, 152:. 136:, 108:| 104:| 100:| 96:| 91:| 87:| 82:| 78:| 56:) 3500:( 3438:M 3358:( 3324:( 3286:( 3092:( 3057:( 2995:( 2939:( 2895:( 2858:( 2744:. 2666:. 2648:( 2585:( 2544:" 2539:" 2492:( 2477:( 2458:( 2408:( 2383:( 2327:( 2301:( 2297:. 2275:/ 2099:( 2082:( 2037:( 2016:( 1908:( 1869:( 1805:" 1771:( 1646:( 1610:( 1491:( 1463:( 1393:( 1260:( 1243:( 1084:( 1060:. 960:( 478:/ 445:( 331:( 252:M 124:) 114:( 112:) 74:( 52:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Queen of Bollywood - Knowledge (XXG)

Index