Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarvatata

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 merge to Hathibada Ghosundi inscriptions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvatata[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)

I recently reviewed and failed this at Talk:Sarvatata/GA1. My reasoning there is very clear but having reviewed it, I don't think its actually notable at all. The article centres on an individual Sarvatata and the whole premise of the article is the inscriptions on an old carving. The dynasty section is unsourced, and the article even starts with an opinion "was possibley". The rest of the article is a translation inscriptions from the stone. No evidence of WP:GNG. This is more appropriate for academic discussion and a research paper but not wikipedia as it is an opinion piece, certainly doesn't pass WP:NBIO >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 09:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 09:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made changes and also given the source for dynasty section. Is that right or not. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Srimant ROSHAN The page is not notable. The sentence Some scholars consider him to have been a part of the Kanva dynasty. However, there is no evidence to support this claim. Instead, there is an inscription which names Gajayana as his gotara or dynasty name, though it also is unclear.. There is no evidence that this person is notable per WP:NBIO. This article serves to tell us that there's an inscription somewhere that mentions a person thats all. We need more information beyond knowing that the individual exists. The community will now decide the future of this article per the discussion here. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 16:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, kings are inherently notable. Second, this one appears in multiple RS. It's hard to top having his name carved on walls 2400 years ago and people are still writing about him today. Central and Adams (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair the article has been cleaned up and additional sources have been found. Originally it was speculated that the individual could have been a king on the basis of the ruins. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (would prefer to merge somewhere) -- The sources cited appear to be RS, though I do not know if they actually support what is said. Ultimately, the subject is the interpretation of a single inscription, about a person of whom (as far as I can tell) we otherwise know nothing else. If he could clearly be linked to a dynasty, I would have suggested merging to that, but the link is apparently dubious, so that there is no obvious merge target. "King" is an ambiguous term. It could be a translation of rajah, which means a local ruler, potentially only of similar status to a country gentleman. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hathibada Ghosundi inscriptions, if there really is (as appears) no evidence for this figure aside from these inscriptions. Furius (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to be agreement that the article content should be kept, but there is an emerging split between whether it should be merged to an appropriate target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hathibada Ghosundi inscriptions. As pointed out, the word "king" is a translation, and I'll point out notability is derived from sources, not "inherent" proclamations. No proof this local ruler existed without these notable inscriptions, such as they are. Any speculation not directly related to and ascribed to reliable secondary sources is synthesis and as such cannot form the basis of an article on English Wikipedia. Better to Merge or Redirect so when better scholarship is eventually available, this search term is referenced. BusterD (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kings (and other such political leaders) are generally considered to fall under WP:NPOL as a head-of-state, but this is very bare bones at the moment. I would not feel comfortable voting either keep or delete. Can anyone find any more info on him? Curbon7 (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The main premise of this person being a King is the engraving/inscription. However, as others have pointed out, the term "King" has very lose connotations when referring to tribal/rural/ethnic communities at a certain period of history. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 13:30, 26 August 2022 (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.