1066:
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.
815:
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.
998:. 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 Knowledge 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
1171:. 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.
686:. 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.
906:
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.
855:
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.
814:
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
1065:
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
1048:
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
993:
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
860:
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
681:
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
1057:
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
1037:
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
616:
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
704:
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:
887:
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.
1258:
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.
673:. 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
1088:
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.
197:
911:
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
354:, This family is historically notable and many people will find current descendants interesting, which is part of the reason for Knowledge. She was a royal consort of Maharaja and not a deposed monarchy cruft.
1189:
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.
1040:
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
779:
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
763:
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
1167:
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
1112:. 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.
191:
158:
715:
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
513:
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
951:
Given the extensive effort at sourcing, coming to consensus about whether those sources establish notability or not feels like a better outcome than no consensus.
861:
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
833:
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
273:
598:, 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.
1145:. 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'.
750:
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.
313:
293:
105:
409:
Maharani consort NOT Maharani regnant. Your responses are model examples of the argument Notability is inherited, which as per Wiki policy...it is NOT!!!
517:(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
131:
126:
90:
135:
1038:
sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
768:
734:
118:
558:
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.
745:"Jayachamaraja married again, in 1944, after he became Maharajah, his second wife being Tripura Sundari Ammani, daughter of a Mysore nobleman. "
1146:
755:"the only son of Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar, the last ruling Maharaja of Mysore, and his second wife, Maharani Tripura Sundari Ammani Avaru,"
236:
who established notability aside from their royal titles post-independence, said Maharani's article is only a genealogical entry and also
1049:
actually get a little insight in the importance (notability if we use Knowledge-language) of a Maharani. She is an important part of the
865:
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,
723:
228:
Under the British Raj, the title of Maharani (Queen consort) was more of a ceremonial position in the Princely states of India. Unlike
728:"Wadiyar was the only son of Maharaja Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar, the last ruling king of Mysore, and Maharani Tripura Sundari Ammani."
415:
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;
1002:
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
559:
212:
179:
1241:
100% admin bias and takes more time than they needed ! What is the community value of these AfDs? So Happy to change delete :)
85:
78:
17:
760:
7. Again an obituary in The Telegraph on her son's death in 2013 with her being mentioned only genealogically as his mother.
657:
461:
Thanks to Oleryhlolsson for adding new references. There is now no justification whatsoever for this article to be deleted.
1218:. The refs with genealogical mentions are not sufficient for an independent article. While notability is not inherited,
1168:
857:
173:
1032:
is to me an indication of, that a Maharani, or at least this particular Maharani was important - even in her own right.
737:, the current titular Maharaja. The coverage related to the former Maharani is purely genealogical with a mention that
56:. A lot of mentions and brief comments do not rise up to the standard of significant coverage required to meet the GNG
1268:
1250:
1233:
1199:
1180:
1154:
1121:
1098:
1075:
1015:
963:
925:
897:
878:
846:
804:
695:
663:
630:
607:
582:
546:
470:
456:
434:
404:
386:
325:
305:
285:
265:
122:
99:
95:
60:
985:
did a pretty good job finding sources for the current information in the article. However, I cannot side with you or
940:
862:
791:
sections there, which completely eliminates the need for a stand-alone article about her. But nevertheless pinging
641:
169:
1285:
1150:
978:
764:
595:
526:
53:
40:
783:
to her husband's article is still the policy compliant action imo as all of this information is covered in the
1058:
individual in digital form between 2013 and 2019 makes me confident, that she may be mentioned (perhaps even "
989:
on this one due to Knowledge's policies and guidelines on notability. For starter, this article fails to meet
219:
1229:
1222:
doesn't apply and I didn't find anything significant about the subject outside the mention of her family. --
1195:
1094:
1071:
893:
874:
842:
691:
626:
542:
452:
373:
from one's family. Not to mention the article is completely unsourced which is also in direct violation of
1176:
1003:
921:
800:
776:
772:
739:"After six years, he married an Ursu, Tripura Sundari Ammani. She was the daughter of Bala Nanjaraja Urs."
578:
506:
430:
422:
382:
370:
321:
301:
281:
261:
114:
66:
1281:
1011:
36:
1246:
995:
883:
I'm not going into a lengthy debat on this but I do like to make a single note. It dosen't seem that
466:
410:
400:
359:
244:
searches have revealed nothing substantial aside from more genealogical and databasic entries. Fails
185:
999:
959:
869:, and in the future if more in-depth coverage is found the article can always be further expanded.
233:
205:
753:
6. Again an article about her son's life with only a genealogical mention that she was his mother
1264:
1223:
1211:
1191:
1090:
1067:
982:
889:
870:
852:
838:
819:
792:
687:
622:
538:
448:
351:
1172:
917:
796:
603:
574:
426:
378:
317:
297:
277:
257:
74:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1280:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1007:
241:
717:"The last time it happened was in 1961 when Maharani Tripura Sundari Ammani was expecting."
509:. It just so happens that most Queen Consorts have articles about them as they easily pass
395:
family but a senior member of the royal family !!! Btw, queen consort is default notable.
1242:
1210:
After going through the whole discussion above as well as the updated references added by
990:
986:
530:
505:
and just because one is notable it doesn't grant automatic notability to the other as per
462:
440:
396:
355:
743:
4. The fifth is a web blog about her husband life with again only a genealogical mention
1219:
1164:
1130:
1117:
955:
826:
of her own, then it would seem more than strange, if Knowledge should judge, that this
562:
1260:
827:
708:
651:
573:, which is basically all the three core content policies regarding biographies. Wow!
570:
534:
510:
374:
253:
245:
599:
229:
57:
1062:") in even more non-digital books and medias from the period 1942-2012 (70 years).
152:
1163:
She was never a politician and nor do any of the given sources state as such, so
1142:
902:
Not saying anything about future possibilities as the number of situations that
566:
249:
822:
judge, that Tripura Sundari Ammani is important and relevant enough to have an
810:
Well, I come to a somewhat different result. The sources cited, that mentions
425:...no the wife of a king is not notable by default for a stand-alone article.
1113:
497:
Nothing in an encyclopaedia is notable by default. The sheer existence of a
733:
3. Again from Bangalore Mirror: The article is about the birth of a son to
1035:
Well, as for the criterias for notability then the "Basic criteria" says:
1138:
767:, the Maharani of Mysore, granddaughter of a courtier and grandmother to
823:
722:
2. From Indian Express (RS): The coverage is about the death of her son
712:
392:
369:
Exactly. It was her husband that was notable, not her. Notability is
1084:
is the fact, that this article confirms, that older material about
795:
incase they want to change their vote after the new developments.
1276:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
719:. It isn't in-depth coverage and the article is not about her.
1024:
The sheer number of references that have turned up regarding
943:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
644:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
994:
her lifetime, then she might meet the secondary criteria
707:
1. From Bangalore Mirror (RS): The coverage is about the
148:
144:
140:
204:
726:
in 2013. She is again mentioned in only one sentence
443:
there seem to be more than enough sources regarding
954:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
650:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
991:the basic criteria for notability of an individual
916:and has been created through consumer submission.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1288:). No further edits should be made to this page.
312:Note: This discussion has been included in the
292:Note: This discussion has been included in the
272:Note: This discussion has been included in the
818:My second thought is, that when a service like
851:I must acknowledge that the effort put in by
218:
8:
106:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
274:list of People-related deletion discussions
1080:But what is furthermore interesting about
314:list of India-related deletion discussions
311:
294:list of Women-related deletion discussions
291:
271:
711:celebrations that take place annually in
1214:(thank you for this), I am inclined to
769:Yaduveer Krishnadatta Chamaraja Wadiyar
735:Yaduveer Krishnadatta Chamaraja Wadiyar
417:relationships do not confer notability
7:
724:Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wadiyar
501:is dependent on the existence of a
830:isn't worth an article of her own.
447:to justify an article on her own.
24:
1028:from the very modest timescale,
91:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1129:A historical figure and meet
561:So the article also violates
1269:06:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
1251:20:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
1234:19:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
1200:13:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
1181:17:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
1155:06:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
1133:. In my country Myanmar had
1122:02:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
1099:15:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
1076:20:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
1016:23:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
964:01:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
926:11:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
898:09:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
879:04:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
847:19:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
805:15:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
700:I would like to truly Thank
696:18:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
664:17:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
631:15:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
608:15:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
583:10:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
471:19:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
457:19:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
61:08:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
730:. Again a passing mention.
547:08:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
435:04:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
405:03:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
391:She is not a member of the
387:01:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
326:05:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
306:05:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
286:05:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
266:05:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
81:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1305:
771:. The article still fails
677:to her husbands article -
979:Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar
765:Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar
596:Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar
515:complete lack of coverage
54:Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar
1278:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
350:Thanks to nice work by
1086:Tripura Sundari Ammani
1026:Tripura Sundari Ammani
812:Tripura Sundari Ammani
445:Tripura Sundari Ammani
115:Tripura Sundari Ammani
67:Tripura Sundari Ammani
230:Maharani Gayatri Devi
79:Articles for deletion
413:clearly states that
238:completely unsourced
234:Maharani Vijaya Raje
1030:6 years - 2013-2019
781:delete and redirect
619:delete and redirect
352:User: Oleryhlolsson
1169:THEREMUSTBESOURCES
1060:in deapth-coverage
1051:Dasara festivities
949:Relisting comment:
909:World News Network
885:World News Network
858:THEREMUSTBESOURCES
837:for this article.
820:World News Network
966:
666:
662:
527:husband's article
328:
308:
288:
96:Guide to deletion
86:How to contribute
1296:
1226:
1137:, of the ruling
953:
946:
944:
863:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
654:
649:
647:
645:
525:sections of her
495:
223:
222:
208:
156:
138:
76:
34:
1304:
1303:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1286:deletion review
1224:
1147:185.205.141.120
1082:BangaloreMirror
1044:Then what is a
1004:WP:NOTGENEALOGY
967:
939:
937:
777:WP:NOTGENEALOGY
773:WP:NOTINHERITED
667:
660:
640:
638:
507:WP:NOTINHERITED
493:
423:WP:NOTGENEOLOGY
165:
129:
113:
110:
73:
70:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1302:
1300:
1291:
1290:
1272:
1271:
1253:
1236:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1158:
1157:
1124:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1063:
1055:Dasara rituals
1042:
1033:
1019:
1018:
952:
947:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
831:
816:
699:
698:
656:
648:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
611:
610:
585:
549:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
364:
363:
330:
329:
309:
289:
226:
225:
162:
109:
108:
103:
93:
88:
71:
69:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1301:
1289:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1274:
1273:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1257:
1254:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1237:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1212:Oleryhlolsson
1209:
1208:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1192:Oleryhlolsson
1188:
1185:I agree with
1184:
1183:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1125:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1091:Oleryhlolsson
1087:
1083:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1068:Oleryhlolsson
1064:
1061:
1056:
1052:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1034:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
996:WP:POLITICIAN
992:
988:
984:
983:Oleryhlolsson
980:
976:
972:
969:
968:
965:
961:
957:
950:
945:
942:
927:
923:
919:
915:
910:
905:
901:
900:
899:
895:
891:
890:Oleryhlolsson
886:
882:
881:
880:
876:
872:
871:TheRedDomitor
868:
864:
859:
854:
853:Oleryhlolsson
850:
849:
848:
844:
840:
839:Oleryhlolsson
836:
832:
829:
828:queen consort
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
808:
807:
806:
802:
798:
794:
793:TheRedDomitor
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
761:
758:
756:
751:
748:
746:
741:
740:
736:
731:
729:
725:
720:
718:
714:
710:
703:
702:Oleryhlolsson
697:
693:
689:
688:Oleryhlolsson
685:
680:
676:
672:
669:
668:
665:
661:
659:
653:
646:
643:
632:
628:
624:
623:TheRedDomitor
620:
615:
614:
613:
612:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
586:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
557:
553:
550:
548:
544:
540:
539:TheRedDomitor
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
499:Queen Consort
496:
491:
490:
486:
485:
472:
468:
464:
460:
459:
458:
454:
450:
449:Oleryhlolsson
446:
442:
438:
437:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
418:
412:
411:WP:INVALIDBIO
408:
407:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
389:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
367:
366:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
348:
344:
342:
337:
336:
332:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
310:
307:
303:
299:
295:
290:
287:
283:
279:
275:
270:
269:
268:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
221:
217:
214:
211:
207:
203:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
178:
175:
171:
168:
167:Find sources:
163:
160:
154:
150:
146:
142:
137:
133:
128:
124:
120:
116:
112:
111:
107:
104:
101:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
83:
82:
80:
75:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1277:
1275:
1255:
1238:
1215:
1187:Sunshine1191
1186:
1173:Sunshine1191
1134:
1126:
1109:
1085:
1081:
1059:
1054:
1050:
1045:
1036:
1029:
1025:
974:
970:
948:
938:
918:Sunshine1191
913:
908:
903:
884:
867:with history
866:
834:
811:
797:Sunshine1191
788:
784:
780:
762:
759:
754:
752:
749:
744:
742:
738:
732:
727:
721:
716:
706:
701:
683:
678:
674:
670:
655:
639:
618:
591:
587:
575:Sunshine1191
555:
551:
522:
518:
514:
503:King Regnant
502:
498:
492:
488:
487:
444:
427:Sunshine1191
416:
414:
379:Sunshine1191
371:NOTINHERITED
346:
345:
340:
339:
334:
333:
318:Sunshine1191
298:Sunshine1191
278:Sunshine1191
258:Sunshine1191
237:
227:
215:
209:
201:
194:
188:
182:
176:
166:
72:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1143:Shan States
1141:state, e.g
1041:notability.
1008:StellarHalo
971:Weak Delete
565:along with
556:Rajachandra
554:The editor
421:And as per
338:changed to
192:free images
1243:VocalIndia
1225:KartikeyaS
987:VocalIndia
975:Weak Merge
907:Also, the
785:Early life
519:Early life
463:VocalIndia
441:VocalIndia
397:VocalIndia
356:VocalIndia
347:Keep again
1282:talk page
1000:permastub
956:Barkeep49
494:See below
439:Actually
343:per below
242:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
1284:or in a
1261:Adamant1
1135:Mahadevi
1046:Maharani
941:Relisted
904:could be
675:redirect
652:Eddie891
642:Relisted
588:Redirect
552:Comment-
531:WP:BASIC
529:. Fails
159:View log
100:glossary
50:redirect
39:or in a
1220:WP:NPOL
1165:WP:NPOL
1131:WP:NPOL
824:article
600:Bearian
563:WP:NPOV
489:Delete:
198:WP refs
186:scholar
132:protect
127:history
77:New to
58:Spartaz
1256:Delete
1239:Delete
1216:Delete
1139:Saopha
789:Family
713:Mysore
709:Dasara
571:WP:NOR
535:WP:BIO
523:Family
511:WP:BIO
393:barbie
375:WP:NOR
254:WP:NOR
246:WP:BIO
170:Google
136:delete
977:into
594:into
592:merge
341:merge
213:JSTOR
174:books
153:views
145:watch
141:links
16:<
1265:talk
1247:talk
1230:talk
1196:talk
1177:talk
1151:talk
1127:Keep
1118:talk
1114:Ktin
1110:Keep
1095:talk
1072:talk
1012:talk
960:talk
922:talk
914:Wiki
894:talk
875:talk
843:talk
835:keep
801:talk
787:and
775:and
692:talk
684:keep
671:Keep
658:Work
627:talk
604:talk
579:talk
569:and
567:WP:V
543:talk
533:and
521:and
467:talk
453:talk
431:talk
401:talk
383:talk
360:talk
335:Keep
322:talk
302:talk
282:talk
262:talk
252:and
250:WP:V
232:and
206:FENS
180:news
149:logs
123:talk
119:edit
1053:or
973:or
747:.
679:but
590:or
220:TWL
157:– (
52:to
1267:)
1259:--
1249:)
1232:)
1198:)
1179:)
1153:)
1120:)
1097:)
1074:)
1014:)
1006:.
981::
962:)
924:)
896:)
877:)
845:)
803:)
757:.
694:)
629:)
621:.
606:)
581:)
545:)
537:.
469:)
455:)
433:)
403:)
385:)
377:.
324:)
316:.
304:)
296:.
284:)
276:.
264:)
256:.
248:,
240:.
200:)
151:|
147:|
143:|
139:|
134:|
130:|
125:|
121:|
1263:(
1245:(
1228:(
1194:(
1175:(
1149:(
1116:(
1093:(
1070:(
1010:(
958:(
920:(
892:(
873:(
841:(
799:(
690:(
625:(
602:(
577:(
541:(
465:(
451:(
429:(
419:.
399:(
381:(
362:)
358:(
320:(
300:(
280:(
260:(
224:)
216:·
210:·
202:·
195:·
189:·
183:·
177:·
172:(
164:(
161:)
155:)
117:(
102:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.