Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Hirai Atram


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ by. ✗ plicit  14:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Queen Hirai Atram

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No information on the subject in reliable WP:HISTRS compliant sources. Only mention in a handful news sources like the one sourced in the article. News sources are not enough for articles pertaining to history, let alone the WP:Notability of the subject. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and History. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility,  and India. Skynxnex (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Could be yet another fabrication. Will look for the sources but voting for delete for now. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, indistinguishable from a hoax. - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉 (talk&#124;contributions) 14:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete if not a hoax, it's worth TNTing. Jebiguess (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. Poor page which clearly is self opinionated, without any references. One and only reference on the article ends with 404 error. RangersRus (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article creator apparently had a problem linking the reference. The correct URL → does mention the subject, but this is a news article, and I wasn't able to find much about her in RS, let alone WP:HISTRS. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correct URL and after going through it, vote still remains the same as I am with you that this subject's sources needs to be backed by reliable scholarly research. The News article is not reliable enough to base the article on. RangersRus (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * After being rejected for mainspace for lack of sourcing and moved to draft space by, the creator simply recreated the article again in mainspace. That is disruptive, and I have speedy deleted it and blocked the creator, who has done more disruption than just this (compare this ANI thread). Bishonen &#124; tålk 01:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC).


 * 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.