Sengol : 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) — Prateek23021995 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] 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 [34] [35] [36] [37] .  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 ] It doesn't seem to be confirmed that the 1947 ceremony isn't real.  WP:NPOV needs to be considered here.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 07:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mountbatten was at Karachi, Pakistan on the claimed time.  All the available sources (written in 40s/50s) mentions the event to be taking place at Nehru's residence which clearly proves that it was not a Official/Ceremony.  It was merely a gift presented to Nehru by a religious establishment.  SubtleChuckle ( talk ) 07:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "And since India had decided to hold its celebrations on the midnight of August 15, it would have been impossible for Mountbatten — who was still Viceroy — to be present in both Karachi and New Delhi on the same day. Mountbatten administered the oath to Jinnah a day earlier in Karachi and then went to India." http://tribune.com.pk/story/1160291/pakistan-created-august-14-15/ SubtleChuckle ( talk ) 07:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As the story has been claimed by some sources and disputed by others, there appears to be some form of controversy.  The section can be reframed to reflect this.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 06:55, 29 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 ] Smerge : per< SubtleChuckle > WP:NRVE No verifiable source yet (other than a news article’s unverifiable and anecdotal claims) on the authenticity of the current sceptre’s (from Allahabad Museum/Parliament) claimed lineage as being from 1947.  Sengol can have a wiki entry but section on 2023 should be removed/edited to include a ‘unverified/contested’ warning.  MeowMeow77 ( talk ) 13:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The topic has been extensively covered by various news agencies.  Satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:RS .  I think it's an extremely important topic needing it's own page.  PadFoot2008 ( talk ) 02:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I believe there is sufficient SIGCOV to to keep the article.  While there might be dubious claims about the origin of the sceptre, now that a Afd has been raised, the supporters of keeping the article have 7 days to find reliable proof.  To the nominator: I would suggest you now step away from the article and now let the Afd run its course.  Your current edits are now bordering on edit warring and being disruptive; the supporters spend more of their edit time replacing content that you remove than actually allowing them time to firm up the article with RS sources.  No need to BLUDGEON the article while it goes through the Afd process.  I also make the good faith observation that your edits seem very advanced for an account of such a young age.  Equine-man ( talk ) 07:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Important historic object and widely covered in news.  Has enough number of RS.- Nizil ( talk ) 07:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Object of historical and current importance, added a reference to TIME's article published on 15th August 1947.  Satisfies WP:RS and WP:GNG .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:7400:56:2E8B:B441:4A94:CEE3:2A6C ( talk ) 10:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I do not think deletion of this article is  good idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tu it to man ( talk • contribs ) 15:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep :Sengol shows remarkable significance presence of South India in India Histor of Independence [38] , It's a symbol of Democracy from very beginning, keeping it far better option rather than deleting a peace of Democracy — Preceding unsigned — Abhishekd189 ( talk 18:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Satisfies WP:RS and WP:GNG .  Even if Nehru 1947 event has contested claims, the 2023 Modi event is widely reported and well sourced.  The New York Times has noted it as an object that has come to encapsulate the meaning of the new Indian Parliament.  It is object of historical and current importance, added a reference to NY Times article published on May 28th, 2023.  RogerYg ( talk ) 21:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "At a Hindu prayer ceremony during the inauguration (which also included an interfaith ceremony later), Mr. Modi prostrated himself in front of a scepter, an object that has come to encapsulate the meaning of the new Parliament — a new beginning from an ambitious builder, one determined to shed not just the remnants of India’s colonial past, but also increasingly to replace the secular governance that followed it." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerYg ( talk • contribs ) 21:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Asking for improvement is fine but this one clearly passes WP:GNG .  This The Hindu article is about Sengol as mentioned in ancient Tamil literature.  Possibly, a deeper search into history books & journals would reveal more details about it.  -- Mixmon ( talk ) 22:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:RS . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 06:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Did some refactoring but no vote. This should fix the broken reference syntax and some other issues. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep :As per abobe discusssions BlackOrchidd ( talk ) 06:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability . Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. RV ( talk ) 08:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Sengol is an object that is similar to the Mace of the United States House of Representatives . It may have been treated as a walking stick in the past. But, the current government has installed it as a symbol of parliament's power -- PastaMonk 01:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong to Keep This is a current event many new generation people don't know the history of Sangol and it is getting current notable media attention for the new Indian parliament.  People wanted to know more even what is described here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaushlendratripathi ( talk • contribs ) 13:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Historic events are not relevant.  Currently, this staff is considered as the symbol of parliamentary authority by the elected government of India.  For this reason has as much importance as the staff of Parliament in other democratic countries -- PastaMonk 15:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge as per the WP:NOTNEWS policy. 119.152.238.112 ( talk ) 05:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Smerge : per< SubtleChuckle > WP:NRVE , evidence not available in history as a devolution ceremony.-- Irshadpp ( talk ) 18:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Nom has misunderstood WP:NRVE .  There is no need for any pre-2023 source to establish notability, since the topic has received more than enough coverage in 2023.  Maduant ( talk ) 20:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There seems to be a strong consensus to keep the article.  When will the decision be made?  Jagmanst ( talk ) 06:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ "Modi Opens India's New Parliament Building as Opposition Boycotts" .  The New York Times .  2023-05-28 .  Retrieved 2023-05-28 .  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: keep