Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swati singh

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swati singh

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Till now the subject hasn't contested an election. Almost all of the coverage is due to her husband's controversial statement and its aftermath. The page is written in promotional tone. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While there's certainly POV and potentially copyright problems with the article, the subject seems to meet WP:BASIC even though she fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. The coverage of her in Firstpost [1] is significant coverage about her rise as a major political figure in the state after her husband's incident. The source about her from NewsX is about a key role she's taken on with the state party in Uttar Pradesh. [2] Even the coverage of her during her husband's scandal mentions her in a significant manner, such as the article from the The Economic Times. [3] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This one is a classic example of people-notable for one-event. Almost all of the coverage where she is mentioned has its origin in Mayayati Vs. Dayanand incident which in itself is a non-notable event. Let her contest and win an election seat or trigger some kind of controversy of her own before considering a standalone piece. Find me one mention of subject, where she is covered by any reliable media independent of that event, and I promise, I will !vote keep.

This article is most probably created in the light of upcoming election in the state she belongs to. It is not a new phenomenon where activity around politician articles increases during election-time. The article is written in a WP:PROMOTIONAL tone for a reason.

Delete this thing for failing WP:NPOL and WP:BIO, and meeting WP:SPAM. Anup [Talk] 19:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How important are state wings of the BJP Mahila Morcha? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahila Morcha itself constitutes a very small division of national organisation (they seem to exist on-principle only. women's participation in politics is still very low and dissatisfactory in India).

For encyclopedia, in general terms, I would rate state wings of a such divisions whatever bottom is of importance scale being used. (chiefs are not elected representatives and are often switched over for political gain.). Anup [Talk] 02:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information which is provided here are true and it doesn't seems like promotional, this is not meeting WP:SPAM and this is not written in WP:PROMOTIONAL tone, article shouldn't be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.179.115.105 (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: (Non-administrator comment)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 09:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By our usula criteriafor politicians this is way too insignificant and the references altogether inadequate. this is a prime example of whywe need BLP1E -- its a single minor controversy and not even primarily about her. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS This is a minor incident and that too, tangentially involving the subject. I agree with DGG that this is exactly why BLP1E is needed. The article essentially consists of a bunch of COATRACK, some of which are purely allegations. If I remove all of them, there will be literally nothing left. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 20 October 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.