Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pushpavati

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 delete - WP:CSD#G5, besides everything else brought up in the discussion. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpavati[edit]

[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 the content is copied at least partly from Bharatpedia. My searches are unable to establish WP:V let alone WP:GNG. Please note that this article did previously have one source but it was removed due to not supporting any content. I strongly oppose a redirect or merge to Harsha until a reliable source is presented to confirm that Pushpavati existed and was his wife. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 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)} 09:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to her husband, rather than delete. I expect that any sources that exist are in Sanskrit, which may well hinder searching in Latin script. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 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? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:BURDEN applies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/redirect~~ Similar to the other similar discussions, I feel this is much more appropriate than deletion.Historyday01 (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you're here from Sanskrit search please. I trust that means you've got some evidence to confirm that this person existed to warrant the retention of a huge amount of what is otherwise WP:OR and very contradictory OR too. For example, this article says Pushpavati or Harshavardhanpriya was the wife of Emperor Harshavardhana who had no children at all but only one wife. then... Some stories say that Emperor Harshavardhana had married two wives but in some legends they mention Pushpavati. then... Later, Pushpavati bore two sons to Harshavardhana. Both of their sons, were killed by her husband, Harsha's minister, Arunāsva. Are we not better going off what WP:RS say rather than adding these bizarre ramblings to Harsha, which is a well referenced article? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. No mention in any reliable source. Searched Google Books for several variants including IAST and Devanagari: Pushpavati Harsha / पुष्पवती हर्ष / Puṣpavatī Harṣa / पुष्पावती हर्ष / Puṣpāvatī Harṣa / Puspavati Harsa. The creator is likely a sock of a user blocked several times for creating hoaxes. utcursch | talk 20:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, multiple people have searched in multiple relevant languages and come up with nothing. Merge !votes are nonsensical. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so a lot has changed since this AfD was first filed. The creator of this article, User:Gomati Sharma, is now confirmed as a sockpuppet of vandal/hoaxer User:Shravani Chatterjee. From the investigation linked above by Utcursch, it's clear that this article is just another part of that same vandalism/hoax spree and clearly none of its contents are true. Merging all of these unsourced paragraphs into Harsha would be in complete violation of WP:V and morally wrong. WP:DON'T PRESERVE links us to several policies which tells us that this controversial material should be removed rather than preserved. Pinging @Historyday01: and @Peterkingiron: in case they wish to change their !vote in light of what has happened since and following the Sanskrit searches above, which yielded zero coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just struck my vote.Historyday01 (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no references seen Christopheronthemove (talk) 17:20, 11 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.