Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Himani Savarkar

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 delete. An argument has been made that the sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:GNG, but the overall consensus disagrees with that since the coverage is routine news coverage related to elections that Savarkar lost. It is also pointed out that being a family member of someone notable, being an unsuccessful candidate for office, or leading a political movement are insufficient grounds for notability as well. Since the consensus here is well founded in the guidelines, I am closing this discussion accordingly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Himani Savarkar[edit]

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

Himani Savarkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL, Lost elections. Family members of politicians are not notable. Venkat TL (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since it meets WP:GNG. WP:NPOL is for other politicians who may not be independently notable in terms of coverage. I agree with Vanamonde93 below, that Merge would be prolematic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without having examined the coverage in tremendous detail, I'm somewhat opposed to a merge. I believe that if members of a widely studied organization are marginally notable, we're better served by a permastub than a merge; otherwise we risk cluttering the page about the organization with tangentially relevant material. A paragraph of encyclopedic content about Himani Savarkar is likely undue weight at Hindu Mahasabha, but might be worth keeping elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @above, What exactly are you suggesting to merge? I am not seeing anything notable that can merit a standalone section, let alone a stub article. If you look into the family tree of any Hindu Mahasabha election candidates, you will find that almost all of them will be related to someone or the other. Its all in the family, Dynasty politics, as they accuse the others. Venkat TL (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The NDTV and Indian Express sources are decidedly borderline, but they aren't nothing. My point is that if this person's not notable, I think we should delete outright; more than a sentence of coverage at the parent article would be undue in my opinion. And your last sentence is unnecessary, VenkatTL. Not a forum, and all that. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for now. Sourcing is there for WP:GNG in my opinion, but per the arguments and result at Articles for deletion/Athar Aamir Khan, apparently this kind of coverage by Indian media is suspect, not significant and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. I'll may be revisit this once I've made up my mind on whether that result was the consensus ascertained by the quality of the arguments or of users who cared enough to participate. Hemantha (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that some campaign coverage exists is not in and of itself an immediate GNG pass for a non-winning electoral candidate — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so we would have to keep an article about everybody who ever ran in any election and lost if that were how it worked. Rather, to get a non-winning candidate into Wikipedia you need to show that either (a) she already had some other claim of preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her into Wikipedia anyway, or (b) she can credibly claim that her candidacy was somehow of much greater and more enduring significance than the norm for unelected candidates, in some way that would pass the will people still need this article to exist ten years from now test. As written, however, this article isn't really showing either of those things. I'm not an expert in Indian politics by any means, so it's within the realm of possibility that somebody could do a better job of demonstrating that she's notable enough — but as written, this isn't really enough. What might make a difference is writing a lot more about her role with Abhinav Bharat: did she do anything significant or noteworthy in the job to make the article more than just "Himani Savarkar is a person who has a job, so here's an advertorialized puff piece on her prior background"? Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Bearcat. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Really nothing much here. Two lost elections, leadership of a fringe organisatiom, more famous relatives. Nwhyte (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Himani_Savarkar&oldid=1083755098"