Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tripura Sundari Ammani

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 redirect to Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar. A lot of mentions and brief comments do not rise up to the standard of significant coverage required to meet the GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tripura Sundari Ammani

Tripura Sundari Ammani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Under the British Raj, the title of Maharani (Queen consort) was more of a ceremonial position in the Princely states of India. Unlike Maharani Gayatri Devi and Maharani Vijaya Raje who established notability aside from their royal titles post-independence, said Maharani's article is only a genealogical entry and also completely unsourced. WP:BEFORE searches have revealed nothing substantial aside from more genealogical and databasic entries. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:NOR. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep changed to merge per below Keep again Thanks to nice work by User: Oleryhlolsson, This family is historically notable and many people will find current descendants interesting, which is part of the reason for Wikipedia. She was a royal consort of Maharaja and not a deposed monarchy cruft. VocalIndia (talk)

Exactly. It was her husband that was notable, not her. Notability is NOTINHERITED from one's family. Not to mention the article is completely unsourced which is also in direct violation of WP:NOR. Sunshine1191 (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is not a member of the barbie family but a senior member of the royal family !!! Btw, queen consort is default notable. VocalIndia (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maharani consort NOT Maharani regnant. Your responses are model examples of the argument Notability is inherited, which as per Wiki policy...it is NOT!!! WP:INVALIDBIO clearly states that person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A; relationships do not confer notability. And as per WP:NOTGENEOLOGY...no the wife of a king is not notable by default for a stand-alone article. Sunshine1191 (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually VocalIndia there seem to be more than enough sources regarding Tripura Sundari Ammani to justify an article on her own. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Oleryhlolsson for adding new references. There is now no justification whatsoever for this article to be deleted. VocalIndia (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: See below Nothing in an encyclopaedia is notable by default. The sheer existence of a Queen Consort is dependent on the existence of a King Regnant and just because one is notable it doesn't grant automatic notability to the other as per WP:NOTINHERITED. It just so happens that most Queen Consorts have articles about them as they easily pass WP:BIO due to the significant coverage of their lives, because well... they're Queens. But this not a hard and fast rule and is definitely not applicable here due to the complete lack of coverage (zero refs). The entire article, right from her marriage to the children born out of it is purely genealogical material and is already covered under the Early life and Family sections of her husband's article. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. TheRedDomitor (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- The editor Rajachandra who has made the most edits to the article including adding most of the information, formatting etc claims to be the son-in-law of said Maharani.[1] So the article also violates WP:NPOV along with WP:V and WP:NOR, which is basically all the three core content policies regarding biographies. Wow! Sunshine1191 (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge into Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar, her husband's article as we have been doing lately. Again, my preference is to merge and save genealogical information, but my stance is a minority opinion. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated above, all the verified genealogical material present in this article such as her marriage and children are covered in her husband's article and the rest of it like her childhood information and qualification as a bride is all unverified original research. So how about if we just delete and redirect. TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I would find it reightfully understandable that many users of this encyclopedia would expect an article about a queen consort of a reigning monarch, but as long as this article was completely unsourced I tended to recomend a redirect to her husbands article - but then I began searching for sources (so far only in English so there might very well be additional relevant sources in local Indian languages), and I found a number of sources on various aspects in the article, so I've now added 10 sources to the article, and therefore my recommendation can only be keep. There are still some unsourced statements in the article and if some unsourced statements needs to be removed, then I would leave this part to other users to deal with. For the matter of the article itself (regardless of some unsourced statements or not) it has proven itself both notable and well sourced. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to truly Thank Oleryhlolsson for their exemplary efforts in finding refs for the article. However as the nom and the first person to raise the question of the article's notability it is my duty to emphasise on the latest developments. So here is a rundown of the 10 new sources added:

1. From Bangalore Mirror (RS): The coverage is about the Dasara celebrations that take place annually in Mysore with the emphasis being on 2017's celebration and the current titular Maharani being pregnant at the time. Maharani Tripura Sundari is only mentioned in one sentence as "The last time it happened was in 1961 when Maharani Tripura Sundari Ammani was expecting.". It isn't in-depth coverage and the article is not about her.

2. From Indian Express (RS): The coverage is about the death of her son Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wadiyar in 2013. She is again mentioned in only one sentence "Wadiyar was the only son of Maharaja Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar, the last ruling king of Mysore, and Maharani Tripura Sundari Ammani.". Again a passing mention.

3. Again from Bangalore Mirror: The article is about the birth of a son to Yaduveer Krishnadatta Chamaraja Wadiyar, the current titular Maharaja. The coverage related to the former Maharani is purely genealogical with a mention that "After six years, he married an Ursu, Tripura Sundari Ammani. She was the daughter of Bala Nanjaraja Urs."

4. The fifth is a web blog about her husband life with again only a genealogical mention "Jayachamaraja married again, in 1944, after he became Maharajah, his second wife being Tripura Sundari Ammani, daughter of a Mysore nobleman. ".

5. It is about her great-grandson wanting to build a memorial for Lancers who fought in Haifa. She isn't even mentioned once by name throughout the article.

6. Again an article about her son's life with only a genealogical mention that she was his mother "the only son of Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar, the last ruling Maharaja of Mysore, and his second wife, Maharani Tripura Sundari Ammani Avaru,".

7. Again an obituary in The Telegraph on her son's death in 2013 with her being mentioned only genealogically as his mother.

The remaining three refs are also similar genealogical mentions which repeat the same info already stated above. All 10 refs put together only prove four things: She was the second wife of Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar, the Maharani of Mysore, granddaughter of a courtier and grandmother to Yaduveer Krishnadatta Chamaraja Wadiyar. The article still fails WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTGENEALOGY as she has absolutely no notability on her own, independent of these four people. I have checked for sources in Kannada too and couldn't find anything that hasn't already been covered here. A delete and redirect to her husband's article is still the policy compliant action imo as all of this information is covered in the Early life and Family sections there, which completely eliminates the need for a stand-alone article about her. But nevertheless pinging TheRedDomitor incase they want to change their vote after the new developments. Sunshine1191 (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I come to a somewhat different result. The sources cited, that mentions Tripura Sundari Ammani under one name or another (there don't seem to be one single form of her name, that all sources use, so the variation in the name makes it a little difficult to make a 'complete' search for digital oneline sources regarding Tripura Sundari Ammani) are all from the period 2013-2019. No relevant older sources than this have so far been found online. The reasonable conclusion from this must be, that a lot of material hasen't been digitaliced yet and/or been made avaliable online. Whit such a number of sources from 2013 to 2019 there are bound to be plenty more sources from before september 2013 in printed form, eg. one would expect one or more obituaries (or reports from Tripura Sundari Ammani's death and funeral) from the year 1982. Therefore I'm most confident, that adequate in-deepht sources for Tripura Sundari Ammani exists in some printed form somewhere in India.

My second thought is, that when a service like World News Network judge, that Tripura Sundari Ammani is important and relevant enough to have an article of her own, then it would seem more than strange, if Wikipedia should judge, that this queen consort isn't worth an article of her own.

For these reasons (and others that I haven't got the time to write more closely about, since my library close in six minutes) I most certainly still recomends a keep for this article. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I must acknowledge that the effort put in by Oleryhlolsson in finding sourcing is exemplary, but I still don't think it is enough to Keep the article as a stand-alone page in it's present state. As well assessed by the nom above, all the sources put together only provide genealogical intel but nothing in-depth about her life other than a ceremonial position. THEREMUSTBESOURCES is an argument with many probabilities. The only thing that I find certain here is that in it's current state, the article is nothing more than a genealogical entry. Everything else kept aside, my major concern is that at the time of British rule and for a small period post-independence, India had more than 500 princely states which is a guarenteed 400+ consorts. Keeping the article in it's current state means that it is quite likely to become an excellent OTHERSTUFFEXISTS model for hundreds of more genealogical entries. The way I see it the solution is simple; Redirect the article to her husband's for now, with history, and in the future if more in-depth coverage is found the article can always be further expanded. TheRedDomitor (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going into a lengthy debat on this but I do like to make a single note. It dosen't seem that World News Network has articles about every consort of Indian rulers - far from, so I don't see the argument, that one articles like this would constitute a claim for hundreds of "similar" articles as a serious problem that necessarily should be a cause for consern. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying anything about future possibilities as the number of situations that could be are vast; sources may be found, may not be found, may end up becoming a OTHERSTUFFEXISTS model, may not end up becoming said example...who knows. The present fact is that in it's current state the article is a genealogical entry and a redirect to her husband's article is the conventional thing to do. Also, the World News Network ref is really not that big a deal. WNN is a global news aggregator, not original publisher. The articles that have been added here are the same ones aggregated there and the information about her is literally titled Wiki and has been created through consumer submission. Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete or Weak Merge into Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar: Oleryhlolsson did a pretty good job finding sources for the current information in the article. However, I cannot side with you or VocalIndia on this one due to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on notability. For starter, this article fails to meet the basic criteria for notability of an individual due to lack of sufficient significant coverage. All the sources used in the article except one only talk about her as trivial mentions in passing while the only one that discusses her in detail is just genealogical information. If there is evidence that she exercised any political authority during her lifetime, then she might meet the secondary criteria WP:POLITICIAN. I tried to find more sources online and even searched for sources in Hindi and Kannada but nothing came up unfortunately. This is not that surprising since a vast majority of queen consorts of princely states of South Asia seldom get written about outside of genealogical information and that is why Wikipedia often does not have separate articles for them. There might be some books out there somewhere that discuss this Maharani in more details but since we have not found them yet, this article is more likely than not going to remain a not useful permastub for a long time. Since all the info in this article could be put into her husband's page, I feel it would be better to delete as per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. StellarHalo (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer number of references that have turned up regarding Tripura Sundari Ammani from the very modest timescale, 6 years - 2013-2019 is to me an indication of, that a Maharani, or at least this particular Maharani was important - even in her own right.

Well, as for the criterias for notability then the "Basic criteria" says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. So when we argue and disagree on this then it's all a matter of what we judge to be relevant when the word "signinficant" is used, and to what extent we wish to use the word "may" in favor or in disfavor of notability.

Then what is a Maharani and may she be notable in her own right, and not just as the wife of her husband? From the article we get some informations regarding her duties, and how she perfomed these - unfortunately this particular part of the article is so far mostly unsourced, but from BangaloreMirror September 2017 we do actually get a little insight in the importance (notability if we use Wikipedia-language) of a Maharani. She is an important part of the Dasara festivities or Dasara rituals and even though we so far only have identified this one source regarding this (still from the period 2013-2019), then it at least tells me, that there can be found informations other than of "purely genealogic content" - and as I pointed out in a previous answer, the number of references for this individual in digital form between 2013 and 2019 makes me confident, that she may be mentioned (perhaps even "in deapth-coverage") in even more non-digital books and medias from the period 1942-2012 (70 years).

I've tried to find a copy of "Who's Who in India", and I can see, that one from the year 1973 can be found in The Royal Library in the capital city of my homecountry, but I don't know when I next time might come near this library, and I wouldn't actually be surprised, if she isn't mentioned in this reference work. The problem here is of course, that she is/was a woman, and even if her life may have been filed with various rituals and tasks important to the local population and/or the princely state of Mysore, then this would easily be considered as less relevant for a work with focus on politics, administration, business and military etc. - so even with the best intentions with this encyclopedia, we risk to repeat the perspective of previous times on what is relevant or not - merely on the basis on, how much people from previous times have received coverage in medias from the latest decade or two, and thus disregarding many important tasks the the female part of the population have had throughout time. So as for now, if the question is whether we should keep the article on its own or not, the to me, it is sufficient that we so far only have identified one source that deals with her duties as a Maharani. I can easily accept this state of affairs until more, better and more comprehensive sources in time may turn up. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But what is furthermore interesting about BangaloreMirror is the fact, that this article confirms, that older material about Tripura Sundari Ammani do exist and can be found in some way or another. If this wasn't the case, it would have been impossible for the newspaper to give an accurate account on things that Tripura Sundari Ammani took part in almost 60 years ago. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Based on the sources that have been identified and shared upstream. Sufficiently proves notability of a historical figure. Good work everyone in the sourcing and the narrative. Ktin (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A historical figure and meet WP:NPOL. In my country Myanmar had Mahadevi, of the ruling Saopha state, e.g Shan States. Saopha have the same power as king. Mahadevi is the chief queen consort of Saopha, they have power in their own and regarded as the 'mother of Shan state'.185.205.141.120 (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She was never a politician and nor do any of the given sources state as such, so WP:NPOL does not apply whatsoever. For those who have voted Keep i am wondering what policy has been regarded while making the assesment because from what i can see it is a mere speculation that THEREMUSTBESOURCES. I have already provided quite a detailed account above showing that all of the sources identified are nothing more than passing mentions. No in-depth coverage other than a speculation that they may turn up in the future. Speculation isn't a guarentee and in such a case a redirect is the appropriate action. Its quite evident that this discussion has been stretched long enough and thus, as the nom, I request an admin to take a decision on the matter, whatever it may be. Sunshine1191 (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sunshine1191 on the matter of a decision. Admin asked for possible consensus on 22 October 2020. We have given our statements and oppinions, and I don't see, that there is much more than this to be said for the time being. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• After going through the whole discussion above as well as the updated references added by Oleryhlolsson (thank you for this), I am inclined to Delete. The refs with genealogical mentions are not sufficient for an independent article. While notability is not inherited, WP:NPOL doesn't apply and I didn't find anything significant about the subject outside the mention of her family. --KartikeyaS (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 100% admin bias and takes more time than they needed ! What is the community value of these AfDs? So Happy to change delete :) VocalIndia (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't seem notable outside of the family. Which is reflected in the low quality of the available sources. I'd also be fine with a redirect to the target already suggested above. Whatever leads to there not being an article anymore. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2020 (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.