Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinayak Dev

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. Daniel (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vinayak Dev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Sockpuppet creation. Subject did exist, but contents of article is fabricated from the sources. None of the text matches the attributions. Possibly can be cleaned up and would be willing to withdraw the nomination, but should not be in main space in present condition since bordering on hoax. I don't believe draftifying is appropriate here (not the purpose of draft space, misuses AfC and the sockpuppet creator is indef blocked). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Yes, there is misleading material in there, in summary, a vandalised account. Third reference gives quite a bit of information and validates some material. The Accession section is part BS. Fly in the sky, delete it. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - I accepted this draft, and either did not know or did not notice that the creator was a sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If he was a real ruler of a kingdom, he passes WP:NPOL. Source can be found in Hindi language. We should wait more comments form other editors who has knowledge on the History of Suryavansh Sankara dynasty. VocalIndia (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It might not be a good idea to wait, per WP:TNT. Geschichte (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I would question whether a Rajah is a significant enough ruler to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2021 (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.