Talk:Rohitashva

Issues
This page has one inaccessible citation. I will propose a deletion as outlined in WP:PROD. Llacb47 (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The citation is perfectly accessible.

The following is what I wrote at WP:REFUND:


 * The reasons advanced for deletion appear to be either untrue or unproven and, in both cases, technically invalid.
 * Firstly the article was not unsourced. When I encountered this article whilst doing new page patrol, I rewrote the article and added a reference citing page 79 of The Indian Advertising Year Book (Our India Directories & Publications, 1962), which is a prima facie reliable source (ie unless you know something about that source that I don't) that makes the topic verifiable. Furthermore "unsourced" is not a valid grounds for deletion. As long as the topic of an article is verifiable in the sense that at least one reliable source exists somewhere, we do not delete that article only because that source does not appear in the article.
 * Secondly, as regards notability: (1) (a) Lohitsya appears to be at least potentially capable of satisfying GNG and likely to do so. Firstly "Lohitsya" appears to be a transliteration of a word from an Indian language (possibly Hindi or something like that) originally and normally written in a non-Roman script (possibly sanskrit). As I do not know the correct spelling in the Indian script, I have no choice but to infer that there is likely to be coverage in reliable sources written in that script (which will use symbols that bear no resemblance to the letters of our alphabet) which will not appear in a Google search for the transliteration "Lohitsya" because Google does not transliterate a query written in Roman script into any other script. Furthermore "Lohitsya" is not the only or even the most common transliteration into Roman script. The transliterations "Lohitasya" and "Rohitasva" both bring up a much larger number of relevant results in GBooks that appear to refer to the same son of King Harischandra. And there may be many more transliterations I don't know about. There is no evidence that the nominator or admin searched for any of these per WP:BEFORE. (b) The nature of this topic makes it very likely that additional coverage exists, possibly offline or in a spelling that I am not aware of. Mythological figures, especially when they are a prince and the son of a king, like "Lohitsya", normally receive the sort of coverage that would satisfy GNG easily and by a wide margin. It would be truly astonishing if such coverage does not exist somewhere. Under WP:NRVE, we do not delete articles if it is likely that significant coverage exists offline or in some other form (such as the aforementioned unknown spelling in a foreign script) that we cannot get at with Google. (2) Lohitsya is notable because he has to be presumed to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. (I can imagine half the readers of this page now saying "A mythological figure can satisfy WP:BIO? Witchcraft!", but I am afraid it is true.) It has to be born in mind that folklore, mythological and legendary figures are not fictional characters. They are prima facie distorted versions (sometimes grossly distorted versions) of real historical people who really existed, and in any event, they are, for at least a period of time, absolutely believed to have lived their lives in exactly the way the legend describes by the members of the nation or religion in question. (For a more familiar example, most of the legend of King Arthur was fabricated by Geoffrey of Monmouth, but it is obvious that the Romano-British must have had a leader at the Battle of Mount Badon (which is briefly mentioned by the more or less contemporary Gildas), and that leader was "Arthur" to all practical intents and purposes and would satisfy WP:SOLDIER and WP:POLITICIAN.) Unless I am provided with evidence to the contrary, I have to infer that "Lohitsya" may have been the name, or may be the pseudonym, of a real prince who really existed, however inaccurate other parts of the myth might be. (I cannot say for certain such evidence does not exist as I have limited familiarity with this particular myth, but I can apply my knowledge of the general characteristics of myths to take an educated guess). (3) Even if I was wrong about the above (and I don't think I am), mere lack of notability is a grounds for merger and redirection, not deletion. There was valid sourced content in this article which ought to have been WP:PRESERVEd, if necessary by merger to the parent topic, which is probably our article on King Harischandra. The page name would also be a valid redirect from an alternative spelling or plausible typo, having appeared in the book I cited above.
 * As I have intimated, there are a few problems with this article (such as the page name is not clearly the COMMONNAME spelling, and there may be a case for merger and redirection to the parent topic). I would be grateful if the admin who restores this article fixes those problems or at least copies what I have said here to the talk page of the restored article, because I am unlikely to be able to do either of those things. James500 (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

James500 (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)