Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudramurti Ahir

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. Sourcing for WP:N (or indeed, WP:V) was found wanting. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rudramurti Ahir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Single sentence article with no reference. The subject is not notable, fails WP:GNG. Google search only results in mirror sites of Wikipedia and a very few other sites. Most of them are unreliable, and the others don't have enough content establish notability. KCVelaga (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - This figure was a king of the Abhira Kingdom sometime between 250 and 415 AD. I'm not sure if tribal kings are automatically assumed to be encyclopedic but my inclination is that they are. However, I'm having trouble finding good information. Here is mention in one book[1]. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I can only see snippet view of that book, Smmurphy, but the title isn't promising - it is about a myth. - Sitush (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I only see a snippet as well - and I agree that it is a terrible reference. The source I gave is, I think, using the name Rudramurty as the name of a god identified with Shiva (see also: [2]).
• The underlying issue stays the same. If there is enough information to identify this figure - that is if reliable sources describe the figure, however briefly, and if he was a king of some stature, then I think he is could be encyclopedic. In the K.S. Singh source, Rudramurti is mentioned alongside Ishwarsen (also Ishwar Sen) and Shivdatta (whose page is here: Śūdraka). Looking for these figures, I find one or two more sources, but I'm not sure if those are less dubious than Singh. In those sources, Rudramurti doesn't seem to be mentioned. So what we have is a single source possibly copied a few times. I won't !vote delete at this point, as I'm happy to be swayed back. But looking closely, there really doesn't seem to be anything here.
• I can think of various reasons this could have been fabricated and various ways in which it could have been fabricated. In particular, the ur-source for Rudramurti is probably the same as the sources for Śūdraka, stories and myths of uncertain accuracy. So I looked for more about Śūdraka to see what I could find. One source discussing Śūdraka/Shivdata also mentions a general Rudrabhuti in the service of Saka Rudrasimha (see Rudrasimha I). So Rudramurti could be a misspelling of Rurabhuti. In general, our knowledge of the Abhira kings seems to derive from a small number of inscriptions (for instance [3], describing inscription 1137 here [4] - Rudrabhuti is mentioned in inscription 963 in that same booklet). Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NSOLDIER Generals are notable. reliable source from Anthropological Survey of India mentions him as the army chief and a king. These 2 books are strong enough for me to keep this stub.^[1][2]--DBigXrayᗙ 06:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, the problem is that the "states" series of The People of India is, unlike the "national" series, not considered to be reliable. They mostly plagiarise the Raj era stuff, which itself is unreliable for a bunch of reasons. Also, while NSOLDIER does suggest that generals etc are inherently notable, that is based on It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: ... It is a fair presumption for the modern era but if we actually cannot find much in the way of sourcing for someone who lived ca. 1600 years ago, and all we can find is passing mentions in dubious sources, then it is an equally fair presumption that we are not now going to do so. I'm really undecided about this. - Sitush (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the kind comments Sitush. Yes, this was not an easy choice, but I would prefer to take sides with the Anthropological Survey of India and trust their expertise. IMHO, if there are ambiguity at an AfD it is better to err on the safer side i.e. to keep. We have to decide on what already exists and if that is promising. This source is promising enough for me. hence I decided to keep. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you aware that your two citations above are from the same source? They're both Volume 38, Part 1 of the "Rajasthan" part of the states series. And, as I said, AnSI is not reliable in that series. There was a reason why Cambridge University Press were unwilling to pursue their collaboration after the initial "national" series publications. - Sitush (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I've just done a search of JSTOR, eg@ this, but can find no mention of him, including under alternate spellings such as Aheer and Rudramurthy. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Sitush and nom.∯WBG^converse 12:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've looked high and low but can find nothing that would get this person over the GNG bar, nor even reliably confirm his military status. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2019 (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.