Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Devamala

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Löschen. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 01:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Devamala

Devamala (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

DRC-B5 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I received a message from @Lights and freedom: about the notability of this topic. After seeing, I see very rare sources about her, no historic achievements or contributions. So, she is not at all notable to me. Comments? Dibyojyoti^{let's chat} 07:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

No sir please don't delete it. Please do not delete that article pleaseGomateshwari (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Is there some reason you feel she is notable enough for an entire stand alone article. Is there something she has done to warrant such treatment? Is there a large amount of coverage on her from sources that are seen as reliable? (News articles, books, scientific papers, ect from sources with a good history of fact checking) Pure Evil (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen (or Quick Delete) No claim of notability, the only hint of notability is by relation which is not a good reason to keep. At best, redirect to the article on her husband and have her mentioned there if he is notable. Pure Evil (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. Being a queen is a claim of notability. Lights and freedom (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pure Evil: Indeed, again, there is a credible claim of significance in the article, so A4 cannot be used. It is a lower bar than actual notability; this article has to be deleted through RfD. --IWI (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. I don't see an unsourced claim to be a queen as a valid claim of notability. "A credible claim of significance is a statement in the article that attributes noteworthiness, or information written about the subject in reliable sources."

IMO, being a queen consort is not noteworthy on its own and there is nothing about reliable sources.. Are you saying that just stating a person is a queen is makes that a noteworthy claim? It the queen of the ball sufficient as a claim? What level of queen is the cut off? Pure Evil (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was she a queen? or a queen consort. The historic difference in naming is terribly small but the level of notability between the two is huge. Being the wife of the King and ruling the land with him are very different. Most (not all) historic queens were consorts with little affect on history. Those that ruled as the head of state (Liz 1/2, Victoria, Beatrix, Cleopatra) are certainly notable. More recent Consorts (Carmilla, Maxima, Rania. Philip) tend to be notable as there is a large amount of media coverage on them to pull from but past consorts will often fail to get more than passing coverage. There are many modern first spouses (which a consort essentially is) who are not notable on there own and are redirected to the article for the spouse due to limited local coverage on them. In this case, there is no hint that she was a co-ruler and not a consort. Stating that she ruled with her husband would be a claim of notability.Pure Evil (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being a queen consort is definitely a claim of notability. I am aware that she is not a queen regnant, and I didn't say that. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but the ~~sources I see was about the reference~~ that "she was the queen consort". I didn't see much information about her.

@Lights and freedom: Just the correction, I see at the article of her husband about her reference as "queen". I checked many sources. I guess the sources of the dynasty include about her as queen of the reign. Nothing more than that.

Dibyojyoti^{let's chat} 17:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DRC-B5 Where is this reference? Can you provide a link? Lights and freedom (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(change conflict) Both would be a credible claim of significance, this doesn't mean she is "notable", just that the article cannot be quickly deleted. --IWI (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue here is that I have a higher requirement on what claims are acceptable. There need to be a cut off as to what claims are valid and which are just idle fluff. It is bad enough that as written, almost no article can be deleted as A4 as the creator will almost always see the subject as notable and that is enough to invalidate the reason. To accept just any claim, no matter how petty, just makes the reasoning less than useless (negative useful?) Pure Evil (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pure Evil: It's ok to disagree with the quick deletion policy, but that is how it is applied. A4 is not, in fact, even about whether the subject is notable or not; that is for RfD. Any claim of significance that is not obviously false in an article will fail A4 and have to go here. --IWI (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DRC-B5 Can you provide a link to this reference? Or are you talking about a Wikipedia article (if so then it doesn't count, and could be fake). Lights and freedom (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No reference I found. w:en:Agnimitra has reference about her. Nothing found on her spouse. Dibyojyoti^{let's chat} 17:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked on Wikidata for the sources but nothing such I got. Dibyojyoti^{let's chat} 17:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen – I cannot find enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. --IWI (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen – Even says itself that "history mentions her in small words" so this person is rarely talked about in history (unless I am interpreting that incorrectly) Ang erxi ety 15:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 07:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.