Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sengol

Sengol

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Trivial topic that hugely violates WP:NRVE, since there is no pre-2023 source that describes the sceptre as anything beyond a gift presented to Nehru. Can be merged with the Indian Parliament page. SubtleChuckle (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SubtleChuckle (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Support to merge: Agreeing with the statement but would reject deletion.
139.5.240.112 (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support to Keep: I believe that deleting the article is too extreme. A simple disclaimer would be sufficient. This would allow us to keep the article open in case someone comes up with evidence that the item in question was more than just a gift presented to Nehru.

Here is an example of a disclaimer that could be added to the article:

"The following article discusses the possibility that the item in question was more than just a gift presented to Nehru. However, there is no concrete evidence to support this claim. The article is presented for informational purposes only."

By adding a disclaimer, we can keep the article open while still acknowledging the lack of concrete evidence. This would allow us to be transparent about the information that is available and to avoid making any definitive claims. Prateek23021995 (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Prateek23021995 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The problem is that we do not have reliable sources for the 'Background and 1947 ceremony' part, and getting rid of it would mean that 3/4 of the article is gone. If we are to keep this article, there should be no mentions of the rajaji et al story and should just be mentioned as 'XYZ claims that the sengol was ...'. SubtleChuckle (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support to keep.The sources are reliable, even if they came from this year. Less important historical artifacts have their own articles, so there seems no reason for deletion. Jagmanst (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are merely newspaper from 2023 quoting religious establishments and ruling party. How is that reliable? SubtleChuckle (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its not an historic artifact. It was a gift maybe one of the hundreds or thousands received during independence. 36.255.229.7 (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are contemporary newspaper sources that confirm that Nehru was given the sceptre by religious people, perhaps one of many gifts/gestures at the time, as pointed out. The story about Mountbatton giving it to Nehru in an official ceremony looks fabricated.

The artifact seems to have been relatively unimportant one, historically (though important enough to be kept in a museum).However with the current government making it a central part of the new parliament, it has now become a significant object.

So I suggest article is re-written with accurate facts. The re-branding of an unimportant historical object/event into something more important is interesting in itself. Jagmanst (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The obvious 'stories' that masquerade as facts should be removed, in which case the article becomes small enough that it might well be a subsection of the parliament page.

SubtleChuckle (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing pretty easy WP:GNG compliance here with some of the news sources[1][2][3][4]. WP:NRVE is met from these sources, and I suspect there are some contemporary sources from around the 1947 ceremony, if that happened. There are some wiki sources that need to be replaced and a copyedit needed to smooth over the prose, but that can be fixed. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The news sources are merely newspaper quoting the ruling party, that isn't reliable. We need some contemporary sources that mention the event as anything beyond the gifting to Nehru, in which case we could keep it.

SubtleChuckle (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...but the sources I linked don't quote the Modi government extensively? This article is pretty critical of it, saying that the 1947 ceremony claim is false. Potentially there is more sourcing to be had about this? I suspect WP:NPOV is the main issue of this article, not notability. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you get rid of the fabricated stories present in the article, (those involving Rajaji and Mountbatten), the article becomes trivial enough to be a subsection of either the Sceptre page or the new parliament page. SubtleChuckle (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Satisfies WP:GNG. Covered extensively by various news agencies. Has ample WP:RS. Rasnaboy (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Satisfies WP:RS. Extensively covered by various Newspapers, News channels and News agencies. Satisfies WP:GNG. 67.83.187.221 (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC) — 67.83.187.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]