Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uruvi

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. —SpacemanSpiff 15:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uruvi

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

Reason Thikthik15 (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC) This article is full with wrong information there are no character in Mahabharata as Uruvi.She is completely a fictional character.[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The original creator of this AfD had blanked the page and it was closed based on that. The creator is still trying to get the page deleted using invalid speedy deletion criterion. I think it it's better to open this back up. -- GB fan 17:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Is the assertion here that this character never existed, and is just made up in a fictional reimagining of religious tales? That's not a reason for deletion per se, as the Good Samaritan never existed either... Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator definitely has a case, but has not been making it clearly. Uruvi is apparently the protagonist of an apparently popular novel based on parts of the Mahabharata and published in 2013. Her husband Karna is a significant character in the Mahabharata, but Uruvi herself seems to have been the novelist's own invention. Notability is not completely impossible but, unless the author lifted at least Uruvi's name from the Mahabharata, would be completely dependent on the novel and reactions to it. PWilkinson (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:The matter is not about being fictional character or not this is about history. I do not bother about Mahabharata but I obviously bother about history.The wikipedia page is showing Uruvi as a character of Mahabharata.Who married to Karna despite knowing the fact that he was a lower caste man.How is this possible before 5000 year ago!! It was impossible in ancient India.At the ancient India caste system was strictly followed. If I take Mahabharata as a fictional book it is not possible even that.That is why I think this page is given full of wrong information about history.Also at the ancient India suta (lower caste) was allowed to marry once.For further detail check the wikipedia page of Vrushali (original wife of Karna ) according to author of Mahabharata whatever is his name.For all of these reason I think this page is spreading wrong information about history thus I think this page shold be deleted.Thikthik15 (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete: Searching Google Scholar is confirming what was said above about Uruvi being a character who was only recently created to fit in to the events of the Mahabarata. The article needs to make that clear; as it stands, it is effectively a hoax. We sadly neither have an article on the creator of the character nor the book in which she appears, and so a merge is not appropriate, but I am not convinced that the character is sufficiently notable to support her own article; Google Scholar throws up a rather extensive discussion of her in an MA thesis (not strictly reliable, I don't think) as well as two more passing mentions in very minor journals. (I have had to limit my searches to English language sources; maybe there will be more in other languages.) This suggests that she might be notable at some point, but probably not now. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not part of the original Mahabharata. A new fictional character.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But I don't know that how this page would be deleted as the administrator of the absent from the discussion.Even I send him/her a massage in talk page but he/she do not respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thikthik15 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:44, 21 July 2016 (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.