Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supriya

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. But subject to editorial consensus she can be mentioned in the Karna article. Sandstein 09:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supriya

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete:- This page should be deleted because in the original epic this character was never mentioned. Karna have only one wife. This character is a later edition. It is created by novelist Shivaji Sawant in his book Mirtunjaya. Before this book her character was never mentioned not even in the folkfore. At 7th century Sudra was allowed to marry once that is why it was impossible for Karna to marry twice. In the article we can see a quoto by queen Gandhari where she mention at the frst sentence that Behold, the wife of Karna and mother of Vrishasena look carefully in the sentence it mention wife of Karna not wive of Karna this is another prove that Karna have only one wife. In this view this character is a pure later edition thus this article should be deleted. Ishi2345 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:- I agree with Ishi2345 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC). At the original epic there was no Supriya. Karna have only one wife whose name never mentioned in the epic. As Karna's birth name was Vrisha for that his wife would be called Vrishali or Vrushali. For more information check the wikipedia page of Vrushali. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vividha22 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable character. I know absolutely nothing about this subject, but I found this article because of this edit to another article, which appeared to me to be promoting a novelist called Siwaji Savant. I then went to investigate and undid a similar edit to Supriya, which also seemed fishy to me, so it's been on my watchlist ever since. I have no reason not to trust the opinions above, so I'm voting delete. I've also standardised the format of this AFD and am about to link it in today's log, so more people can find it. Graham87 11:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the nominator's rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not see any proof that Shivaji Sawant was the first person to introduce "Supriya" as wife of Karna. Even if he made it up, the thing is discussed by various other publications (click on urls).

Kotru, Umesh; Zutshi, Ashutosh. Karna The Unsung Hero of the Mahabharata. Leadstart Publishing PvtLtd. ISBN 9789352013043.
Nicolson, Mac. Loved by the Sun. Notion Press. ISBN 9789352067114.
Deepa Prabhu (13 November 2013). "Book Review: Karna's Wife, The Outcast's Queen". iDiva.com.

We must not discuss whether the character did exist or not (that is not our work, we don't do original research), but whether it is notable or not. Anup [Talk] 07:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all these fictional works, including Sawant's? Vrushali herself finds little mention in the original Mahabharata. So how do you gauge extended fictional characters of mythology? I would say that if they find significant mentions in historic texts then they should be considered notable. Supriya doesn't seem to get to that level yet. Maybe more and more fanfiction would churn around her and then few centuries ahead she could be notable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: What about "merge" with Karna article? I do not mean to corrupt historical beliefs held by followers of the religion based on epic Mahabharata. I'm just saying that this thing has received some coverage in multiple publications and we should summarize those information in our encyclopedia article. We will make it explicit in there that, Supriya has no mention in ancient texts and found only in works of A, B, C, ..D writers. Anup [Talk] 09:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that a discussion is already started by you for merge of Vrushali article to Karna. Include this one in on-going discussion? There are many versions of Mahabharata, and I've read none of them (minutes before downloaded Vyas's one translated by K. M. Ganguly, ctrl+f found no mention of both wives). Anup [Talk] 09:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am against mentioning anything in Karna based on fanfictions. Do we have any historic book mentioning Supriya anywhere? What are you going to write? That Karna who is a mythological character of a 400 BCE text has a wife who is mentioned in 21st century AD fictional books? That will be a joke!
I myself have no knowledge of where else has Supriya been mentioned. Pining @Redtigerxyz: for that.§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we are writing here a replica of historical epic (that we will consider only epic and contents within discussed by others). I want it to be "sum of all available knowledge" including all prevalent major view-points. And that will not be a "joke" but "knowledge" on a topic from 400 B.C up to present. Anup [Talk] 10:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your way of handling mythological characters. Notable and academic view-points should be mentioned. Rest all should stay out of an encyclopaedia. For example, recent depictions of Shiva in soap operas show him to be a six-packed hunky figure. Until that becomes a standard depictions few centuries ahead I don't think it should find mention in his attributes. A lot of mythological characters on WP get edited based on these soap operas, what screenplay is added to such shows to get TRP and get female audiences weeping eventually finds it way on WP. You may check out histories of some minor characters of Ramayana, wives of Laxman, Bharata and Shatrughna for such editing trends. These wives have not been getting any attention historically in literature from academics. But maybe they are being played by hot chicks on some tv show and hence their narratives on WP have changed from "is a character from Ramayana" to "is an important character from Ramayana". Cheers to the PR strategies of media houses. I won't be surprised if Supriya also has started just like that based on some melodrama that’s being aired somewhere on some channel. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome your disagreement. I disagree with your analogy of "Supriya" subject of multiple publications with characters appearing in TV soap-operas. Wikipedia is based on published reliable sources (not any other kinds).

If you believe all these publications are a work of fiction; it still need to be summarized in our article. Will you agree for a "In popular culture" section? Where we could summarize these knowledge from various publications.

I do not intend to invoke 'otherstuffsexist', but your stand here and at Vrushali article is complete opposite to each-other. Both are a similar topic and not mentioned by name in Mahabharata, and quality of sources for them are almost equivalent. Anup [Talk] 14:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment on the content related to Supriya when the exact content is proposed. Karna is always subject to fans and the article keeps fluctuating a lot. I have given up keeping that article clean as it never happens. So I will most probably not object to any kind of crappy stuff also written on that article.
I accept the contradiction in both stands. But that has been because Vrushali's emergence as karna's wife predates that of Supriya or Urvi. Frankly I have never read anything about Urvi. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I never heard of any of the wives of Karna. As far as the topic of Hindu religion goes, my knowledge is very much limited to the glorious DD National's Mahabharata and Ramayana. My comments in here are totally based on what I get out of our policies and guidelines.

I think, we at the very least are able to write that the name of Vrushali, Supriya and Urvi emerged as wives of Karna only in XX century (or X,Y,Z year respectively) in works of XXX, YYY, and ZZZ. If sources are not 'academic' research, we can push all these stuffs in popular culture where I believe we can write more than any other character of Mahabharata. Anup [Talk] 15:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Karna: The epic Mahabharata does not name Karna's wives; though his sons are named. The Stri Parva does record her sorrow, she is unnamed. Even the name Vrushali is a recent invention; like Supriya or Urvi. We can state these three names in the Karna article. I am not against having articles on recent mythological inventions. We do have an article on a recent Hindu goddess who emerged in the last century, but developed cult status and notability. However, IMO Supriya does not have that notability currently to have a standalone article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Karna: There are not enough verifiable contents to justify a standalone piece for subject under discussion. There are some coverage in multiple publications listed above (should be some more what I was unable to find), but they provide the almost identical contents in them for this topic which doesn't go beyond 4-5 sentences. It should better be merged with the related existing article, Karna per MERGEREASON#3. Anup [Talk] 06:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:- I completely agree with the nominator. There is no reason to merge this article to Karna because she was not wife of Karna. As Mahabharata clearly state Karna have only one wife.For verification we can take Gandhari's lamentation as a prove. In Stri parva Queen Gandhari must record his wife's sorrow without mentioning her name.

Behold, the wife of Karna and mother of Vrishasena, is indulging in piteous lamentations and crying and weeping and falling upon the ground! Even now she exclaims, "Without doubt, thy preceptor’s curse hath pursued thee! When the wheel of thy car was swallowed up by the Earth, the cruel Dhananjaya cut off thy head with an arrow! Alas, fie (on the heroism and skill)!" That lady, the mother of Sushena, exceedingly afflicted and uttering cries of woe, is falling down, deprived of her senses, at the sight of the mighty-armed and brave Karna prostrated on the earth, with his waist still encircled with a belt of gold. Carnivorous creatures, feeding on the body of that illustrious hero, have reduced it to very small dimensions. The sight is not gladdening, like that of the moon on the fourteenth night of the dark fortnight. Falling down on the earth, the cheerless dame is rising up again. Burning with grief on account of the death of her son also, she cometh and smelleth the face of her lord!

-Stri parva: chapter 21. (For more information check this: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m11/m11020.htm.)

Queen Gandhari's statement is a clear prove that Karna has only one wife. As Mahabharata did not mention her name scholar called her as Vrishali . The name Vrishali makes sense because Karna's original name of was Vrisha or Brisha as per original epic, hence his wife would be called as Vrishali also called as Brishali or Vrushali. At this point we can say that whatever mention in this article of being Supriya mentioned in Mahabharata as second wife of Karna is completely wrong. Now we should think why we can not call Karna's wife as Supriya. Now we have to anlyse what Mahabharat sate about Karna's wife ( the original wife). The Mahabharata state that the wife of Karna was from suta clan and their marriage was arranged by Karna's father. But this article state that she was friend of Bhanumati. She expressed her desire to marry Karna on seeing him at Bhanumati's swayamvara ( self choice ceremony). But at the time of self choice ceremony of Bhanumati there is no reference of her any friend. Let alone her that friend who want to marry Karna.

Now at last we can say that this article provide only wrong information about the largest poem of the world that's why it should be deleted.Tupur16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't care whether Supriya or Vrushali or Blah-blah-blah did exist or not. And we are not discussing here the question of existence (because WP:NOR); but whether the subject of article meets Wikipedia's notability standard for inclusion or not. Your deletion rationale therefore is not pertinent to matter under discussion. Anup [Talk] 15:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article even did not meet notability. This character have no importance not in folk not even in any soap opera. For your kind information [Talk]. We can not give any wrong information through wikipedia. Thus whatever is written in the page are right or not that even matter here. Thank for your contribution and disagreement. But you should not be rude to anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tupur16 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should open and read WP:Notability guideline (it'd help you to formulate more convincing arguments). The "wrong information" in your comment is open multiple interpretations. Do you think Wikipedia should not have an article on Flat Earth (because it is proven to be untrue)? Wikipedia doesn't write anything new. It only summarize key contents from multiple reliable publications. "Wrong information" in context of Wikipedia would be something what has not already been published by any reliable source.

When you write messages on talk/discussion pages, sign it by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of message. Anup [Talk] 17:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome your argument Anup [Talk] 17:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC). But Flat Earth have its own notability. But the character called Supriya not have any importance in the original epic not in any folkfore. Original epic have no mention about her in folkfore she is only wife of Karna. She have not any importance in anywhere. This character just don't deserve a article. Thus I suggest to delete this article. The chacter is completely unnoticed. Tupur16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated assertion on the 'original epic' and 'folklore' suggests that you still have absolute zero idea of Wikipedia's notability guideline. "Completely unnoticed" argument is totally flawed since there already has been listed in beginning of this discussion few sources which mention the subject of article. Unfortunately, talking to you doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and I will most probably stop posting any further reply to you. Anup [Talk] 04:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you still find I have zero idea of Wikipedia's notability guideline. But for you kind information I know about this before signing in to wikipedia. According to wikipedia's notablity guidence If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Did you find any significianc coverage in any reliable source for this article. I am repeatedly mention original epic and folkfore just because we can find source only from there. I don't know except this from when you are going to find any significianc coverage for this article. If you find anything like this that please provide it except don't argue aboout it anymore. Thank u for replying and voice your own opinion about this matter. Anup [Talk] 04:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC). Tupur16 (talk)[reply]

Delete:- I have very little knowledge about this matter. But when I found this matter after the moment I browse the character's name in internet. After some research I come to the conclusion that this page should be deleted. Because the character is completely non notable and unverified. Ominictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ominictionary (talk • contribs) 13:41, 10 October 2016 (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.