Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayalakshmidevi

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 $Salvio giuliano$ 08:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jayalakshmidevi

[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. Nothing in Google Books to verify the existence of this person. Of course, Dhruva Dharavarsha must have had a mother but anyone insisting that her name was 'Jayalakshmidevi' needs to provide a reliable source or this is just a piece of original research, in violation of Wikipedia policy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 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)} 09:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For precisely these reasons. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to the succession section of her husband. The detail provided suggests that there are sources, but perhaps in Sanskrit, which will not work well with searches in Latin script. Nevertheless the content is purely genealogical, which we do not normally allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 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)} 18:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge/redirect as per the argument by Peterkingiron.Historyday01 (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Peterkingiron.Nocturnal781 (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which sourced content would you consider merging and to where? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any sources on Google Books / Scholar with the spellings "Jayalakshmi", "Jayalakṣmī", "Jayalaksmi", "Jayalakshmidevi", "Jayalakṣmīdevī", or "Jayalaksmidevi". Given the article creator's history, this is likely a hoax. utcursch | talk 08:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Also searched for the Devanagari variants जयलक्ष्मी राष्ट्रकूट and जयलक्ष्मीदेवी राष्ट्रकूट. 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 20:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per arguments of BTKCD, Spiderone, and utcursch. Kazamzam (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per BURDEN and the searches by the nom and Utcursch. 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.