Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarinidevi

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 speedy delete per WP:G5 $Salvio giuliano$ 08:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tarinidevi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Similar case to Devamala (Shunga dynasty), Bhanumati (Kushana Empress) and Kimveka (Mahabharata) in that there are no sources that support WP:V let alone WP:GNG. There are a lot of people called 'Tarinidevi' or 'Tarini Devi' in history but I can't find any that were the wife of Pulakeshin II. According to this edit, the article was on Bharatpedia but got removed by an admin. If this isn't acceptable enough for Bharatpedia's verifiability standards, I can't see why we should accept it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Royalty and nobility, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to the succession section of her husband Pulakeshin II. The detail provided suggests that there are sources, but perhaps in Sanskrit, which will not work well with searches in Latin script. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you so certain that this isn't a hoax, especially given the deletion of all of the previous similar articles like Devamala (Shunga dynasty) for the same reason? Also, doesn't retaining unverifiable content essentially violate WP:V and WP:NOR, which are policies? Please link us to at least one reliable source which proves that this is a legitimate topic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:BURDEN applies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect. Peterkingiron makes a persuasive argument. I feel that a redirect would be much more appropriate than outright deletion in this case.Historyday01 (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His argument would be convincing if there were at least one WP:RS verifying at least one sentence of this article. Merging this to another article just simply moves the problem. Had someone added this text to another article in the first place, it would have been reverted with the edit summary WP:NOR, please cite a source or similar and no one would bat an eyelid. What sourced content do we lose if we delete this article? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that even Bharatpedia didn't consider this article worthy of retaining so not sure why we would think otherwise. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Searched Google Books and Scholar for several variants including Devanagari and IAST:
- Tarini Chalukya
- Tāriṇī Cālukya
- Tarini Calukya
- तारिणी चालुक्य
- Tarinidevi Chalukya
- Tāriṇīdevī Cālukya
- Tarinidevi Calukya
- तारिणीदेवी चालुक्य
Zero mentions of this person. Plus, we have reasons to believe that the creator is a sock of a user banned several times for unsourced additions including hoaxes. utcursch | talk 20:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BURDEN requires content added to be sourced, so everything that was merged would be deleted immediately. JoelleJay (talk) 23:03, 9 March 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.