Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chitra Sarwara

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chitra Sarwara

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article clearly fails WP:GNG. Becoming a part of her party's state committee or affiliate organization are not enough for passing WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She definitely passes WP:GNG and I have added a few more sources. While merely being a member of a state committee would not be enough to establish notability, being General Secretary of All India Mahila Congress is a bit different. She has also run for a congressional seat representing Ambala Cantt, and held other more minor roles in various state committees before. Additionally, S. M. Nazmus Shakib you seem to have a history of nominating articles for deletion en masse and using improper criteria. You recently swamped AfD with dozens of nominations for articles related to All India Mahila Congress. The fact that you have also had a significant number of pages CSD'd makes me think that you may not have a good understanding of deletion criteria. As others have already suggested to you, I recommend making deletion nominations more slowly, and taking plenty of time to assess them. In this case, the article passed AfC in November of 2019, it is usually not the case that Wikipedia standards change so much within a few months. IphisOfCrete (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IphisOfCrete Thanks for your comment. Being the president/general secretary of Mahila Congress is not enough for passing our notability criteria per WP:NOTINHERITED. You can say whatever you think. But we should talk about the subjects in AfDs, not about nominators. Politician can change their party. Its very common in India. The other sources you added are not enough because it is typical election time coverage where the main importance is election. And passing in AfC (even in AfD) does not mean that the subject passes our notability criteria. Please take a look on this AfD and this AfD. First one passed AfC and second one passed a AfD. But, both are deleted later.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S. M. Nazmus Shakib Hi Nazmus, I'm not trying to attack you but this is kind of what I'm talking about. WP:NOTINHERITED states two things, the first is that notability isn't inherited and the second is that it does not have to be. The argument is that all articles must be verifiable and pass WP:GNG. This means that things which might not seem notable can be if they can meet guidelines, and things that sound like they ought to be important can't be included if they aren't verified and don't meet other guidelines.

In this case that means that the subject isn't going to just inherit notability from any positions or offices (save for maybe international, national, and certain subnational offices), we have to figure out if the sources available allow her to pass GNG on their own merit. It also doesn't matter if politicians changing parties is common or not in India, since we have to evaluate individual articles on their own merit. Per WP:NPOL "local politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits". It doesn't matter whether most presidents or general secretaries of major political parties are notable or not, it matters whether or not this particular one is. Personally, a cursory search left me satisfied that she is, but the final determination will be determined by whatever the consensus is.

As an aside, I hope you're not offended but I felt the need to bring up the most recent discussion about your deletion nominations since it appears to be an ongoing difficulty that you are having, and I believe you're earnestly trying to improve the encyclopedia. IphisOfCrete (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IphisOfCrete Thanks again for your comment. Please see WP:POLOUTCOMES where we don't agree that the party's affiliate organization's people passes WP:NPOL. And I have found coverages about her are routine coverages about party changing, contesting election etc. Her father and husband is considered as prominient. Please see the her party changing and ccontesting election sources where she was mentioned as Nirmal Singh's daughter (this one for example and this one for example). I think these claims are not enough for passing our notability criteria as WP:NOTINHERITED.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S. M. Nazmus Shakib Nowhere does the policy state that leaders of political parties or organizations are inherently non-notable, it's on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, it doesn't matter if the reason you think she's given attention in news sources is because of nepotism or the influence of her husband, father etc, nepotism happens all the time. It might be unfair but the people who benefit from it probably do end up having a higher chance of becoming notable based solely on coverage. Deletion discussions aren't about individual merit, they are about notability as measured by the available sources. IphisOfCrete (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IphisOfCrete I agree with you that president of an organization does not fail in WP:NPOL or WP:GNG all time. But, in short words, via google search and seeing the article it seems that she does not pass WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable political figure, notable position within national organisation, significant role in 2019 election due to running as independent candidate (national media coverage of taking vote away from INC), multi-year coverage (Jan 2020, Jan 2019, Oct 2018). Meets WP:BASIC.--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are added here are election time coverage (which is common during Election), others are mere mention and we have seen she was mentioned as someone's daughter. Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. And the posts she hold, these postholders are often deleted. The article still fails in our notability criteria.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have so far been very sparse in our coverage of party leaders. Their actual importance can vary from being the actual power, to being a figurehead. In his case, she';s head of the women's section of a major national party . It is not easy to assess the significance of the role. But running for office and losing does no in the least contribute to notability for a politician. DGG ( talk ) 10:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IphisOfCrete and Goldsztajn. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2020 (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.