Shivkar Bapuji Talpade : These non-existing claims are limited to non-RS fringe sources while the subject has received minimal coverage from actual WP:RS only for disputing the idea of his unmanned airplane following the release of the movie Hawaizaada .  That's why I think we have a case for deletion.  When I attempted to search details about this person from the period before propaganda wave, I could find nothing.  [56] It was mainly after the release of the 2015 movie, Hawaizaada that he started receiving substantial coverage.  My research has been also confirmed by this source:- " Among the believers of the Hindu right, this absence of evidence is attributed to British control over the media, which seemingly edited Talpade’s invention out of history. But reports of the flight that do exist began proliferating just over a century later, in the 2000s, at the beginning of the fertile, ongoing period of the expansion of the economy and the reinvention of the Indian past. " [57] Editorkamran ( talk ) 13:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Aviation , India ,  and Maharashtra .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the article accurately debunks the claims, so what's the issue here?  Better keep it in it's current state and put it on watchlists than delete it and wait for some nationalist to come back, create it, and fill it with fringe-POV.  2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431 ( talk ) 13:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is not for fact-checking.  The only claim for which reliable sources exist is that this person did not invent airplane.  But for that we already have Hawaizaada movie article.  This person is not notable and inherited little notability from that movie.  Editorkamran ( talk ) 13:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep See the pre-movie version [58] there are sufficent pre-movie sources to establish  notability.  Doug Weller talk 14:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect I've delved all the way back to the beginning now and I don't see a reason to try to salvage this article even if possible.  I guess it's possible that there are some sources after the movie was publicised that have researched his history, but unless those are found... and even if they are, they'd probably be better off in the movie's article.  Doug Weller talk 16:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP ok, User:Vanamonde93 has convinced me about the sources he mentioned and the need to have this article.  The Deccan Herald is not a fringe news outlet, WP:HISTRS is irrelevant here.  Being published after the movie was released is irrelevant and  not policy or guideline based.  It certainly meets WP:GNG .  @ Editorkamran : I don't need or want a reply.  I think you've made your point clear.  @ Doug Weller : See my review of all of those sources : 1st source is a Deccan Herald article, it fails WP:HISTRS .  It claims " As the world rightly honours the Wright Brothers for their achievements, we should think of Talpade, who utilised the ancient knowledge of Sanskrit texts, to fly an aircraft, eight years before his foreign counterparts. " It is unreliable and also WP:FRINGE .  2nd source is Sentinels of the Sky.  Air Headquarter, Indian Air Force p. 2, 1999, which says " Based on these instructions, a fly - worthy machine was reportedly reconstructed by a native of Maharashtra Shri Bapuji Talpade and a demonstration of manned flight was conducted in Mumbai sometime in 1895. " [59] But it was unmanned right?  This source also fails WP:HISTRS and it is promoting WP:FRINGE views.  3rd is Asia: Asian Quarterly of Culture and Synthesis, American Asiatic Association, Published 1942, Page 40 but I cannot find this source anywhere.  4th source is A flight over Chowpatty that made history [60] which says " In 1895 an Indian pioneer flew what is said to be the first Indian plane in the air. The centenary year of the first successful flight, by the Wright brothers, was celebrated from December 17, 2003. But our own pioneer from Mumbai, Shivkar Bapuji Talpade, made an aircraft and had flown it eight years earlier. " Again, the violation of WP:HISTRS and WP:FRINGE .  5th source is "Pratāpa Velakara, Pāṭhāre prabhūñcā itihāsa: nāmavanta lekhakāñcyā sas̃́odhanātmaka likhāṇāsaha", by an unreliable publisher .  6th source is "A flight over Chowpatty that made history," which I already analyzed above.  7th source is " Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Volume 69. The Institute. 1989. p. 365. " but the source does not support the information.  [61] [62] [63] 8th one is Mukunda, H.S. (1974).  "A critical study of the work "Vyamanika Shastra"" but this source only says " Dr. Talpade (of Bombay) tried to make models under the guidance of Shastriji, but that he was not successful in making any of then fly.  " [64] This is just a passing mention. 9th and the final source is Rosen. 2010 but this source is published by far-right publisher Arktos Media . This book is merely repeating the debunked claim thus it is not reliable. [65] None of these sources satisfy the requirement of WP:GNG . The subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. " Editorkamran ( talk ) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Hawaizaada . I won't accept anything less than a few good quality history  scholarly sources that have provided significant coverage to the biography of this person. At present I am not seeing that here. Dympies ( talk ) 16:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The sources in the article contain substantive coverage that I believe would be undue in the article about the film; as such as I see this as a valid spinoff. The article accurately debunks the fringe claims, so I don't see why WP:FRINGE enters into this discussion at all; indeed it's interesting that the subject has, for a change, more coverage debunking the claims than endorsing them. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 21:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would add that when sourcing exists, we are serving our readers better by debunking fringe claims than by deleting them altogether. So what if the coverage arose after the movie? GNG is met, and we're doing better from a weight perspective by having a more detailed spinoff. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 22:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fact-checking website. This subject fails WP:GNG because all of the coverage constituting more than a passing mention comes from fringe unreliable sources before the movie was released. The reliable sources that have provided more than a passing mention to this subject are only focused on disputing the idea of his unmanned airplane following the release of the movie. Historians are still unwilling to provide any coverage to this subject but this absence cannot be overlooked since this is a historical subject. The subject can be limited to Hawaizaada , where it is already described that this subject lacks authenticity. Editorkamran ( talk ) 01:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's no reason to discount coverage of the historical events (or ahistoricity of the events) just because it's from after the movie. The movie drew attention to this narrative. The sources cover it. [66] [67] and [68] are not espousing any fringe nonsense, and provide substantive coverage of the topic; and they only tangentially refer to the movie. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 02:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Doug Weller : , as it's one of the rare occasions we disagree; I feel the movie article cannot cover the entire narrative (including the history of its supposed discovery and debunking) in as much detail as is warranted; and we have sources, linked above. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 02:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These are news sources, they don't meet WP:HISTRS as required for this historical subject. They were created in the light of the movie Hawaizaada for rejecting the false claim that the subject invented an airplane. 1st source is Business Standard which is rejecting the false claim following the news of " a film on Talpade's efforts, called Hawaizaada, directed by Vibhu Puri, will release later this month ". [69] 2nd source is New Republic, which is also dedicated to debunk only the disputed claim, was also created after " Bollywood film Hawaizaada, released a few weeks after Bodas’s paper was presented ". [70] 3rd source is Open The Magazine which is also rejecting the false claim and was created after the " Bollywood film on the subject, Hawaizaada, releases this week.  " [71] The subject is not notable and has inherited little notability from the movie. Any coverage before this movie was not more than a rejection in passing mention when it comes to coverage in reliable sources. Editorkamran ( talk ) 03:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] HISTRS is an essay, and in any case refers more to contemporary news coverage; retrospective news coverage in reliable sources is quite acceptable for determining notability. The sources I presented discuss the historical (or ahistorical) narrative on its own merits; the movie may have drawn attention to it, but the myth-making existed before the movie did. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 05:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What about an article on the myth itself? JoelleJay ( talk ) 05:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes "the myth-making existed before the movie did" but the coverage to that "myth-making", apart from passing mention, was provided only by poor quality sources in violation of WP:FRINGE as already analyzed above. They cannot be used for establishing WP:GNG . Editorkamran ( talk ) 05:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Surely we have an article on "spurious Vedic-based claims of powered flight" where the more detailed debunking would be better suited? Or even a "Hindutva science disinformation campaign" general page? JoelleJay ( talk ) 05:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay : Not really. It exists at Hindutva#Ahistorical premises, separatism . Specific examples wouldn't be needed because of WP:INDISCRIMINATE . Editorkamran ( talk ) 05:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay : There are some places where disinformation and pseudoscience are discussed. The issue is that for any such article to remain reasonable in scope, it cannot delve into detail into specific events; moreover, sources covering the entire topic do not investigate individual instances in detail. There is a specific ahistorical narrative here that has been debunked, and the entirety has received substantial coverage. I believe due weight is better served by a detailed article on a small topic, with summaries and passing mentioned elsewhere as necessary. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 17:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Vanamonde93 maybe this would be better as a page on the "event" or the myth, rather than on the person? JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay : I would have no objection to such a reframing; minus a couple of biographical sentences that really aren't terribly important, it'd be the same content. Titling it as a biography is so much easier though; what would you call it? Talpade heavier-than-air flight myth? Vanamonde ( Talk ) 20:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay : I think you are looking for Claims to the first powered flight . There is no mention of this subject there thus it is clearly possible to ultimately merge the needful details to that article at "Other claims" section. Editorkamran ( talk ) 08:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Here is another source summarizing the issue, scholarly this time. There's two entire paragraphs about this narrative. GNG is not in question here: and I believe the degree of detail included in the sources makes a merger inappropriate. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 17:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes this book from 2023 is among those already described in the nomination; "subject has received minimal coverage from actual WP:RS only for disputing the idea of his unmanned airplane following the release of the movie Hawaizaada ". It is merely citing the fake invention as an example of Hindutva fake history instead of making any biographical coverage of the person. Dympies ( talk ) 04:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Just one of the tons of false heroes hyped by fringe Hindutva groups but lacks any relevance among expert sources that could be used for verifying the notability. ScriptKKiddie ( talk ) 10:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Sources typically point to the movie. A lot of movies are fictional and it is a duty of political extremists to spread disinformation, while it is the job of fact-checkers to debunk them. However, Wikipedia is not a place for either. desmay ( talk ) 15:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Discuss reliability of sources on reliable sources noticeboard. BlackOrchidd ( talk ) 08:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and Merge to Claims to the first powered flight . There is a meaningful issue with the notability but important content can be preserved elsewhere. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk ) 10:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment We should absolutely not merge into Claims to the first powered flight ; that article is for claims taken seriously by reliable sources. This is not such a claim, and it would be a serious NPOV violation to merge it there. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 15:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Got to agree with that. I'm not sure whether these wild and contradictory claims meet notability standards as 'notably debunked' but they have absolutely no relevance to any article treating the history of aviation seriously. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 16:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which reliable source seriously states that Preston A. Watson, Richard Pearse and some more names from that article were the ones who invented the first powered flight? Dympies ( talk ) 16:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Talpade belongs on that list, and nothing to do with the notability of this article. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 15:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect or merge somewhere but don't keep standalone article. The Wright Brothers are the inventors of the plane that could be controlled by the pilot. Since every other "claim"  is false, there is no distinction among the claims at the end of the day.  CharlesWain ( talk ) 05:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia explicitly allows for articles about hoaxes or false narratives when they are supported by reliable sources , which is the case here.  Your comment has no basis in policy.  Vanamonde ( Talk ) 15:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Only fact is that Wright brothers are the inventors.  Rest of the claims are false.  You are saying this article on Talpade is so fringe that it does not need to be mentioned along other false claims but at the same time you are saying it needs separate article when we have articles on both his movie and alternative claims on invention of powered air flight.  I don't find sense in your argument.  CharlesWain ( talk ) 08:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per ScriptKKiddie.  Or otherwise merge it to Claims to the first powered flight per WP:ATD .  Shankargb ( talk ) 13:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I hate having to post this many times at an AfD, I really do.  But Claims to the first powered flight exists because there are a handful of claims that have grounds for legitimacy (for instance; not using a rail like the Wrights did) that aren't accepted but are taken seriously.  The examples listed there are all manned , powered flights that actually happened, even if they weren't first in any sense.  Merging Talpade's legend there is a flagrant violation of NPOV and FRINGE: we don't have a single reliable supporting the claim that he even flew an unmanned aircraft.  If this is merged anywhere, it should be the article about the film, but I still strongly prefer a standalone.  Vanamonde ( Talk ) 17:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG as already evidenced from analysis of the sources.  Redirect or merge it anywhere but this cannot be kept as a stand alone article.  Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 13:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Spartaz Humbug!  02:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep seems notable historical figure.  Though not many but source is still there. - Admantine123 ( talk ) 17:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Admantine123 : Not really.  This is subject is just an example of Hindutva fake history and earliest mention of this subject comes from Vaimānika Shāstra (written in 1952).  The coverage is limited to the claim about his fake invention.  Dympies ( talk ) 02:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect To the movie page.  I agree that stand-alone page can be too much but redirect can be still preserved.  Srijanx22 ( talk ) 18:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep subject meets GNG with sources provided.  GNG is about coverage; not about the achievement of a person.  If there are false claims or disputes; this can be described in the article.  109.37.131.169 ( talk ) 08:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect I understand the concerns over having separate page but this can be still merged or redirected to the articles about the claims or the movie.  Azuredivay ( talk ) 08:46, 1 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus