Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyadarshini Raje Scindia (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. No consensus for deletion. Discussion whether to merge or not can take place on the talk page.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Priyadarshini Raje Scindia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Priyadarshini Raje Scindia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, some politician's wife and notability is not inherited. And other than one unsourced line in the article, there is nothing but a photo of her. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails per GNG. I removed much of the non-notable content. That is why there is only one line. But, in my view, the article should be deleted regardless. The lady has little by way of independent notable achievements. Given that there are (tens of) thousands of newspaper stories in India published every day, any appearance anywhere by a politician's wife will be reported somewhere; consequently, even a less than perfunctory mention in the press does not constitute notability. In my view, a notable event needs to be reported by a multiplicity of nationally known newspapers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep The article, if anything, has been largely improved since the last deletion nomination. Dusti*Let's talk!* 06:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There still seems to be little of note other than society tittle-tattle and sinecure positions. I really do struggle to see the notability here, which seems primarily to be literally inherited. Fowler&fowler summarises the issues pretty well and I note that much of the reporting is of the obsequious variety. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've had a long think and had a good look round for yet more sources. There is nothing here of substance except minor society sycophancy by people who still labour under the belief that she is royalty (she is not). Her primary notability is as the wife of a politician who happens to have various sinecures in his control, and of course notability is not inherited. Shobhit Gosain's arguments hold no weight in policy because WP:OSE applies and because their response to Fowler&fowler is nothing but yet another personal attack from them. Dusti seems not to have spotted that all we have in the article is namechecks and, of course, such things do not confer notability and are common in situations where sycophancy is involved. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DNA reported, she keeps on planning projects and exhibitions for children along with renovation of her famous heritage hotel, Taj Hotels - Usha Kiran Palace. DNA also referred her as a princess on the fifth para. She also does election campaign for her husband and its being applauded the millions, sorry I only got the videos, have a look. This clearly shows that its not about WP:OSE or WP:GNG. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Arguments for deletion based on not being notable just for inheritance by birth, famedom from husband's notability, holding various posts in small institutes and being ranked in various magazines for appearances are right. But they are the reasons for deletion if the person is only one of these. The subject here is a combo of all these points. A actor who appeared in 2 non-critical films fails WP:NACTOR. A writer who wrote only one book fails WP:NAUTHOR. A politician who lost in election and vanished from the field since then fails WP:POLITICIAN. But if this person is one and same, we have him as notable enough to stay. I stick by my previous keep opinion in old AfD pointing out that she is a socialite. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • An accumulation of minor offices -and you do admit to them being minor - does not make someone any more notable than holding any one of those offices. I am a verifiable officeholder in numerous organisations but am not remotely a suitable subject for an article here. WP:GNG over-rides any subset guidelines and clearly states that "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail - aside from sycophantic assumed-royalty articles in tat such as Hello, there is no detailed coverage of this person. Certainly, no detailed coverage of her various (minor) official positions. The only things she is notable for are being a wife of a notable person and enjoying the trappings of a false claim. Now, if we had List of people masquerading as royalty then perhaps she would deserve an entry in that but since we do not, the existing mention in her husband's article is sufficient. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the last AfD you said you didn't want to badger but you still did it and you are kinda doing it now again. But lets leave that aside; there is no medicine for behaviour. Also we cannot compare your office holdings with her's until we get to read about them. Don't underestimate yourself. Maybe you are good enough to be on Wikipedia.
Why do you call these sources as sycophantic? What are they getting by praising her? Also i don't get why you all are stressing on her not being royalty in a wrong way? The 1971 amendment regarding the Privy Purse in India in India abolished the titles and the payments made to the title holders from tax money. However, the fact remains that general public still considers them royalty. Whether their legal status says otherwise hardly matters here when general public considers them so. She has been listed in Top Princesses list and has been called so by New York Social Diary, Verve and is continuously referred so by numerous newspapers. She has received a full length article even if you neglect it . They say that when she and her mother-in-law arrive, they get a "rousing reception". Thats what a socialite is. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That celeb gossip rags and similar unquestioningly call her royalty when the titles were legally abolished even before her birth merely confirms their unreliability. Although why anyone should have thought such things reliable in the first instance is beyond me. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedias don't write about scientists alone. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 23:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is a socialite who was born into the erstwhile royal family of Baroda and who married into the erstwhile royal family of Gwalior. Regardless of whether or not the princely titles have any legal standing in India, the Indian society and popular press routinely recognize and style her as such, and she is followed by readers of the Indian press in that capacity. As a consequence of her membership in the houses of Gaekwar and Scindia, and her husband's political role, she has an assortment of various small roles that are themselves covered by the Indian press. It doesn't matter whether or not editors here feel that what she does is or isn't *important* - it matters whether or not it's *notable*, and the press coverage itself seems quite sufficient to sustain it her notability as a socialite of royal extraction. Mandalini (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One cannot be born into an erstwhile royal family; that is like saying we are all born into erstwhile great apes of Africa. There are no royal families in India, no pretenders to thrones, no titular princes, etc etc. The actual rule of the rulers of various Indian princely states ended in 1947–48, but they were able to retain their titles, (some) remuneration, and (some) privileges (such as vanity license plates) until 28 December 1971, when the Government of India, at a stroke, abolished them all. This woman was born in 1975. The royal connection, in any case, was tenuous. See my vote below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:DEM - we do not "vote", but rather discuss issues and arrive at a consensus. You have repeatedly made your views clear; that being said, because you believe something to be true does not make it true. There are indeed erstwhile royal families, as is documented in much popular and professional coverage of the descendants of rulers, whether Indian or otherwise. You can hold whatever opinions you like, but the categorical fact remains that the descendants of the pre-1947 princes are routinely described and styled as royalty/pretenders/etc. - including by the Indian popular press. Mandalini (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not voting in any sense of the word, why do you have "keep" in boldface? Just leave a comment and let the presiding admin decide. Summarizing your comment in a binary choice is a vote. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the least. I am not making a binary choice - I am making a recommendation (one of many possible ones), followed by an explanation of the recommendation, to help guide the formation of a consensus. Please see WP:DEM if you would like to clarify why we make decisions by consensus, and not voting. Mandalini (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is notable is that Mandalini (talk · contribs) on his/her 5th day on Wikipedia is both voting here and making dubious changes in the Stanford University page (which I have since corrected) in order to bump up indirectly the notability of the page. See Talk:Priyadarshini Raje Scindia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is beyond absurd. Firstly, the length of time I have been editing on Wikipedia has no bearing on the quality or relevance of my edits. If you would like to make some sort of allegation, please do so, and it can be addressed, otherwise, refrain from personal attacks. In the course of editing the Stanford article (most of which was focused on including US politicians and tech executives), I mentioned someone who is related to the subject of this AfD nomination, which has no impact, direct or indirect, on the notability of Priyadarshini Scindia - unless you happen to think that Jyotiraditya Scindia himself is not notable. Mandalini (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right after making a patently false edit to the this woman's article, which describes her as a Stanford Alunma, you go to the Stanford University page, alumni section, make some perfunctory other edits to give you street creds, and then add this woman's husband's name there, with a bogus title, and a promotion to a Minister (from a Minister of State, or Junior Minister), and you are preaching to me about WP:DEM on your 6th day on Wikipedia. That is beyond absurd. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Having read through the sources, I added that she attended continuing studies courses at Stanford, which is factually true and sourced to boot. It's a matter of debate whether or not that qualifies her as a Stanford alumna, but I don't particularly care whether or not that appears in the infobox. In the course of editing the Stanford page, during which I added Steve Ballmer, Reid Hoffman, Peter Thiel, Andreas Halvorsen, Richard Rainwater, Sid Bass, Penny Pritzker, Nadir Godrej, Lorenzo Zambrano, Carlos Brito, Marissa Mayer, Jeffrey Skoll, James Coulter, Ruth Porat, and a horde of others, I also added in Jyotiraditya Scindia, because I had just learnt that he was a Stanford alumnus and thought it was relevant; certainly, I had no ill-intent. Moreover, you seem to think that an editor's tenure on Wikipedia influences their ability to interpret and apply policy - which is complete nonsense. Policy is quite clear that we form consensus, instead of voting. The vitriolic tone of your edits are unbecoming and bordering on a personal attack; please calm down. (And if you think I would go so far as to dig up the private equity fund Crestview Partners to "get street cred", you're sadly wrong. Mandalini (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flower that's WP:AGF which Sitush taught above. You cannot humiliate a person for voting. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page needs to be deleted in a hurry. As for the "royal extraction," mentioned above, the woman's father Sangramsinh Gaekwad is the eight child and third son of the last ruler of Baroda state, Pratap Singh Gaekwad, whose rule ended in 1947 and whose titular privileges were removed by the Government of India in 1951. Her mother is the fourth daughter of Arjun Shamseh Jung Bahadur Rana the son of the last hereditary prime minister of Nepal who in turn was divested of his job in 1948. My own family, before we left Africa 60,000 years ago, were rulers of the coffee growing districts of Ethiopia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've discovered dirt on her family history, which might make her notable after all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Scratched by Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler, just so you know, I have removed the "dirt" which you gleefully added to the article. Although it is sourced, it is about her ancestors and has nothing to do with her. Your anti-Royal POV is affecting your editing here, and I suggest you take a step back. --MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know too, the "dirt" is not the material I have added. That is well known. I already mentioned it below in my reply to DGG. The "dirt," granted not the best word, is material I have just discovered on her more recent family history. It might not be worthy of inclusion in the article, but for now, I want to develop the article some more to see where it leads. We can always AfD is again. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish, we can include the apes and coffee connection in your biography when we write one. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to her husband, Jyotiraditya Madhavrao Scindia, who is notable since he is a member of Parliament. This is the usual Wikipedia way of handling people whose "notability" consists mostly of connections to notable people rather than their own achievements. --MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to support that too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merging wouldn't be a terrible solution so long as the article contained information about her. I'm wary of attempts to purge information from Wikipedia just because it seems trivial - there are readers who will come here looking for biographical information about their favorite celebrity. Mandalini (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her work is totally different from her husband. Jyotiraditya is mostly into politics but her work includes different fields and also its a long list. Merging will ruin the whole biography of Priyadarshini. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's kind of the point. If she is not notable we shouldn't have her "whole biography" here. Merging will leave a redirect pointing to her husband's article, where there can be a paragraph or two about her. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with merging as a single paragraph in the personal life section of the article about her husband but she is not worthy of more than that. I'm not trawling back through the very convoluted history but seem to recall that was the way this person was presented in the past. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Her history and her contributions towards the society mentioned in the article doesn't allow this page to be redirected. Shobhit Gosain (Sup) 16:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shobhit, you have admitted to being the owner of one of the gossip/celeb magazines whose content you have tried to insert among your many edits to this article. I'm not even sure that you are free of a conflict of interest on this matter, let alone neutral. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about the voting not about me. If you really wanna talk then please tell me how is my new signature? Shobhit Gosain (Sup) 17:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as the compromise solution. Contrary to what was asserted above, being less -than-notable for several different aspects of one's life, does not add up to notability for the person. People have to be notable for something. It's possible to be notable as a society figure or the wife of a politician, but the bar for this as far as WP is concerned is and should be very high. If people come here to look for the information, it will be in her husband's article. However, I find it perfectly reasonable that somebody interested in a particular subject could learn enough in a few days to contribute here usefully. Not everything here is all that complicated. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG It is true that not everything is that complicated, but not everyone has worked on India-related pages as Sitush and I have; not everyone has seen the prolific sprouting everywhere of socks. Mandalini (talk · contribs), by his or her own admission has multiple accounts. So, they are not really new. Why are they going on in endless circles about WP:DEM etc, they could have simply said, I am not a new user, just someone who has opened yet another account.
Again, (and not addressed to you DGG) there is no royalty in India, there is no royal family in India, no scion of royal families, no royal family in Nepal. The ancestors of this woman in any case were not royalty, but a corrupt oligarchy of prime ministers of Nepal, whose unparalleled corruption is the stuff of history books and human rights watch reports. What are we trying to do? Turn Wikipedia into a Who's Who for anyone who has been reported by the Indian press, which anyone in the Indian elite of many millions? If anyone disputes my characterizations, they are welcome to ask the Wikipedia powers-that-be for an expert opinion. I have nothing against you DGG; I know you are offering a well thought through opinion. It's the never ending parade of mischief makers on India-related pages I worry about. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is really beginning to feel like outright harassment. I mentioned WP:DEM because you were discussing voting, which is not something we do - we seek consensus. I have been quite clear that I have more than one account for the legitimate reason of privacy, and that I do not edit the same topics/articles with more than one account, which is perfectly permissible. My reasons for not mentioning it in this AfD itself are because I wanted to challenge your absurd suggestion that being a new user somehow means that one is not capable of citing policy, etc. - which is simply not true - and because it has absolutely no bearing on anything. I have no idea if you think I'm a sockpuppet (do you think I'm secretly contributing to this AfD as another user?), but I've done nothing wrong. Unless you have some compelling evidence that I am engaged in misconduct, back off. Mandalini (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be strictly violating Wikipedia policy, but are you also staying away in your other incarnations from editing other princely state-related articles? If you are promoting a pro-monarchic POV on those other articles, then your participation in this AfD is problematic. Can you confirm that in your other Wiki-avatars you've never edited princely state? Can you confirm that in your other Wiki-avatars you have never edited other pages in Category:Princely states of India or pages of descendants of rulers of these states? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, this is getting out of hand and is irrelevant to this discussion anyhow. Fowler, you are out of line. If you have accusations to make against another user, make them in the appropriate forum with supporting evidence; otherwise don't make them at all. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any dispute any more with Mandalkini (talk · contribs). My apologies to him/her. The lady is notable after all, or at least her family history is. I'm recommending keep, and with that I believe this AfD is dead in the water. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler, please see my comment above, explaining why I have deleted your recent additions of "dirt" to the article. You were bold; I reverted; we can hash it out on the talk page if you want, per BRD. --MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The evidence usually does turn up in India-related stuff when regulars in that area get a sniff of something. It is one of the reasons why ARBIPA exits. And it is already self-evident that this particular person has been using multiple accounts. They claim that this has been done legitimately and they may be correct but AGF is not a suicide pact and it is often advisable to be aware of this when it comes to this particular sphere of Wikipedia. Alas, a lot of bad faith predecessors make it more and more difficult for any good faith ones to find their way. Especially when they admit to attempts at "disguising" (poor choice of word, but it is late here) past activity. Time will tell whether there is anything here. - Sitush (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is self-evident that I have more than one account because I have been quite open about it. There is zero evidence that I have done anything wrong. You aren't even making any specific allegations about what I'm doing, but wandering over to articles I've created and have been developing and suggesting that they should be merged while suggesting in multiple places that there is something "wrong" or "off" about me - all without any evidence/suggest of wrongdoing - feels like wikihounding. The tone of this last message persists in indicating that it's 50/50 that I'm up to no good. You claim AGF is not a suicide pact? That's awfully strong wording. What exactly have I done to imply that assuming good faith would be suicide? Yep, that's right - nothing. I'll say it one more time - until you have evidence that I am up to no good - even a smidgen - back off. Mandalini (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In case anyone wants to know what Fowler and I are talking about: they made this addition to the article. I reverted it with the edit summary Undid addition of material which, although sourced, has nothing to do with this subject; based on comments at AfD it is being added for POV reasons. They then re-added it and more, with the edit summary I'm afraid I wasn't BOLD, you were. We can now discuss the article on the Talk Page as long as you want. The talk page discussion is here: Talk:Priyadarshini Raje Scindia#The Bold Undo on Article Page. In my opinion Fowler is arguing "keep" only so that they can use the article as a coatrack for their anti-Royal POV. --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are wasting your time arguing with the wrong guy. I am the premier contributor to Company rule in India, British Raj, India, and Presidencies and provinces of British India, and princely state (see here). It was the British who created the Indian princely states as a form of indirect rule, usually in barren parts of India they didn't want to govern, and India that abolished them. I've added most of the pictures in these articles. One of them is the oldest country FA on Wikipedia. I know a thing or two about Indian history, both princely and non-princely. Indeed Sitush and I are the two leading contributors to this lady's husband's page. See: here. What can we gain by adding POV in a trifling article if we didn't in the big ones? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS Maybe I'm being a little brusque here, but it is only because I've wasted more time on this stuff on Wikipedia than anyone would care to know. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, MelanieN, you are right. I've reverted all my edits on the page. I'm also withdrawing my keep/delete recommendation. My last post here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:07, 30 August 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Priyadarshini_Raje_Scindia_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138255504"