Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. Geenakumari (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 Draftify. Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T. Geenakumari[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

T. Geenakumari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy WP:GNG or the more specific WP:NPOL. No RS with a As part of WP:BEFORE, I have looked at the sources presented in the previous AFD and they do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV. The book written by the subject has no substantial English reviews to verify whether they can be classified as an author. If someone wants to improve the article per WP:HEY I'll withdraw my nomination. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, she represented the two women who entered the Sabrimala temple but that in itself does not make a lawyer notable. However, it might be a case of BLP1E for the woman entering the temple though that would be a digression for this subject.
2. The positions in SFI are not inherently notable in themself even if it were in Kerala. SFI has units in all States and there are women office-bearers in each of those units.
3. The role of an activist is not brought out clearly through SIGCOV either in part or taking all the sources together.
4. Subject is a local politician without SIGCOV and hence fails WP:POLOUTCOMES.
5. Book by subject hasn't received substantial reviews nor any notable literary award.
By all these criteria, the subject fails notability. Vikram Vincent 08:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant accomplishments, achievements, or media attention. Just looks like a short resume which states basic facts. Yinglong999 (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the first AfD of this article just closed by @Sandstein: as KEEP 20 days ago (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T._Geenakumari). We don't need to keep beating a horse until it dead. Respect time of other contributors. Kolma8 (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kolma8 The close of the last AFD was 11:31, 7 March 2020. A whole year has passed with no improvement. Vikram Vincent 16:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • ok then... 20 days + 1 year. I thought I was just partaking in this AfD. I guess it was something similar. Thanks for clarifying. Kolma8 (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Draftify per Vikram Vincent, Beccaynr (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC) per WP:BASIC, WP:NEXIST, and WP:HEY - as this article expands, it appears there are clusters of coverage about various aspects of her work, and not always available in online English-language sources. For example, there appear to be more sources available about her SFI activism, because she became prominent and featured in newspapers in 1994. There also is some coverage of her work with the Kerala State Women's Development Corporation, and more substantial coverage of her work as a lawyer, including her practice focus on family law (where she has been quoted as an expert by independent and reliable sources), and her involvement in part of the Sabarimala temple cases, which picked up coverage over time. In addition, she recently was noted as involved in a high-profile case as a prosecutor. Beccaynr (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. In reviewing the sources presented both in the article and in the first AFD, there is only one source with significant coverage of T. Geenakumari, the article by Biju, K G in Malaysian. All of the other references are merely trivial mentions of the subject. For example, the Singh, Kriti (2013). Separated and Divorced Women in India:Economic Rights and Entitlements. Sage Publications. merely mentions Geenakumari in passing within a footnote. The recent additions of Beccaynr are not any better, with only passing mentions of Geenakumaru or routine coverage of court cases without anything other than a name drop of Geenakumari. We need something more substantial that is about her directly and not just mentioning her in passing. With all due respect to the keep voters, could you please list the sources here which display significant coverage, because I am just not seeing anything other than this one source.4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This does not appear to be a footnote, nor a passing or trivial mention, but instead quotes her as an attorney with a practice that includes a focus on family law, for her expertise:
Singh, Kriti (2013). Separated and Divorced Women in India:Economic Rights and Entitlements. Sage Publications.

Advocate Geena Kumari, a family lawyer from Kerala discussed4 how women in Kerala suffered domestic violence and dowry-related harassment. She said that a lot of deserted women in Kerala do not want to actually say that they are single and wear the mangalsutra and put sindhur (jewellery and red vermilion on the forehead worn by married woman) so that they are socially accepted. She said that the courts were not accessible to everyone because family courts were only located in district headquarters and low income women could not spend the money to reach them or hire a lawyer. She said that the procedure also took a long time and that was why people normally went to the court as a last resort. She pointed out that to get maintenance women had to prove not only the income of the husband but also that they were living separately for some valid reason. She said that the courts are gender biased and women are frequently told to reconcile and live with their husbands. She said that the maintenance that is awarded is often not even 5 per cent of their spouses’ income, particularly in cases where the male spouse has a high income. She also commented on how difficult it was to execute maintenance orders. According to her, in Kerala the dowry system was pervasive and people gave huge amounts and even property as dowry.

Similarly, she is quoted for her expert opinion as an attorney here:

[...] “Majority of the cases sprout from the problems of adjustment between partners. There is an increasing trend in the marriages from 2002 for divorce,” says T Geena Kumari, a counsel who specialises in family cases. She points to ‘adjustment problems’, with single children and the couples’ parental interference for the increase in number of cases. [...] “The rate of dowry is high in the southern districts. There are instances where the husband asks for more dowry after the birth of a girl. There are many cases of the husband and his family demanding more dowry after the marriage of the wife’s sister by comparing the amount,” says Geena. [...] The relationship between husband and wife also gets strained owing to the modern modes of social networking. “Most of the relationships between married men and women start off as mere friendship. But they end up in extra-marital relationships, if they are suffering from a bad marriage. Mobile phones and Internet chatting form a smooth medium for the marriages to rock as they offer more chances to meet and share their feelings than before,” says Geena. The 099 list some more factors for the increasing number of divorce cases.[...]

And here:

The stigma associated with single women, the paltry amount in alimony, expenses incurred during trials, "class and gender bias" among lawyers are some of the problems that were raised during the course of the seminar.

"Let's take the case of Kerala which has the highest women literacy rate, but even this state is not spared of violence, crime and discrimination against women," said Geena Kumari, a lawyer practising in the Kerala High Court.

Women often feel that they are doubly harassed, first by their husband and marital families and then by the police and lawyers they approach for help, she said.

"Women most often are unaware that they are entitled to maintenance, have no idea how much their husbands earn, or even where they work, and are unable to provide their income proof in order to ask for maintenance," Kumari said.

"These are the least of their problems. In addition, they have to carry the stigma of being a single woman, go through the cumbersome judicial process, try to meet the expenses for each hearing and the end of all this make-do with the meagre alimony they get which can be as low as Rs 500 per month," she said.

Beccaynr (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opps. I confused my sources, I meant the footnote on page 32 of the Poverty, Women and Capability study as the footnote example. Thank you Beccaynr for catching my error. That said, expert opinion quotes like these are not considered substantial coverage at AFD. The kinds of sources we are looking for at AFD are ones in which Geenakumari is the main subject being discussed, not her opinion as a lawyer which is about something other than her. Can you provide evidence where Geenakumari is the main subject of the article or study? Perhaps something about her work as a lawyer in general, or positioning her work as exceptional within her field? Please remember, that routine coverage of an individual court cases or expert opinions in a publications are not evidence of notability. Otherwise we would have tens of thousands of articles on average lawyers doing routine interviews.4meter4 (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cheers, and it looks like we agree that the Biju, K G article in Malayalam is significant and in-depth, and I also think it supports WP:BASIC notability that is sufficient for the article (due to the content, commentary, and documentation that other news sources exist), in light of the additional sources since then that help show Geenakumari did not otherwise remain low-profile, so this is not WP:BLP1E. For example, in the article, the Google Translate version of the lede is:

November 25, 1994. The day when Koothuparamba went down in history as a river of blood. As a warning of the impending police terror, there was a picture on the front page of the Malayalam newspapers that morning. A picture of a girl with her head cut off and bleeding during police brutality. Her name is T. Geenakumari. At that time he was the State Joint Secretary of SFI. Geena may be the first woman comrade to call on Kerala through a front page newsreel that such blood-soaked struggle is not unique to male comrades. Today she is a lawyer. Additional Govt. Pleader and Public Prosecutor. Lawyer defending murder and rape cases. [...]

And there is more in that article, including about her incarceration for twelve days, although it is not clear if there is additional news coverage about that, or other aspects of her work as a student activist, but given her prominence in 1994, it seems possible. The article also appears to position her as exceptional as a lawyer, in what appears to be an exploration of the tension between her women's rights activism and her criminal defense work. I also disagree that it is routine coverage or a routine interview when she is quoted as an expert about her experience as an attorney; it appears to be secondary source opinion about her by the publication due to their consideration of her as an expert, and therefore contributes to her notability per WP:BASIC. Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr, the general consensus of WP:BASIC or WP:GNG in AFD discussions on wikipedia is the "rule of 3" (ie multiple sources) that are substantial. Basically, we are looking for three sources which show significant coverage over time. The Malaysian article is more in-depth and its more personal, and it positions T. Geenakumari and her work at the center so it is significant. That's just one source towards BASIC, but does not establish BASIC on its own, because at least two other sources of that caliber are needed to meet BASIC. The interview quotes do not count towards BASIC, because professionals like doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. get routinely interviewed in the media in the course of their jobs. They may be expert enough to be quoted in an article, but that doesn't make them necessarily notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. (ie not all doctors, lawyers, etc quoted in the press as an expert opinion are exceptional doctors, lawyers, etc. who deserve an encyclopedia entry) WP:NOTNEWS is pretty clear on this. Likewise, being quoted in a few academic journals isn't likely to count towards notability either. When we look at quotes in research, as seen in Wikipedia:Notability (academics), we usually look for individuals widely cited in research in a particular field, which in this case would be at a minimum dozens of journal articles, and not just one or two. I hope this helps you understand what we are looking for at AFD. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That source has images from what appear to be two newspapers from 1994 that feature her. And per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability [...], and I am suggesting that her notability appears to have been established based on coverage of her activism in 1994, including due to the 2017 coverage and commentary, and that the additional sources show that after this WP:NOTTEMPORARY notability, in the event that it appears WP:BLP1E, she has not otherwise been low-profile, having given interviews as an expert, and participating in the Economic Research Foundation, Economic Rights and Entitlements of Separated and Divorced Women, Report of Regional Seminar Proceedings (2008–2009) (New Delhi: ERF, 2010), 219, engaging in civic leadership documented by multiple news sources, and serving as a lawyer or advocate in high-profile cases. Also, per WP:CIVIL, I would appreciate it if we could focus on the article and the relevant policies and guidelines, thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr, I have not been uncivil. I have been courteous through this entire conversation. Please calm down. Unfortunately, I don't think we can count this article as more than one source because there is no publication information for those articles to cite and that assertion is speculative. Participating in the Economic Research Foundation, Economic Rights and Entitlements of Separated and Divorced Women, Report of Regional Seminar Proceedings (2008–2009) (New Delhi: ERF, 2010), and being a civic leader is also not inherently notable. Participating as a lawyer in cases covered in the news does not make a lawyer notable. Those are all wonderful professional achievements but wikipedia is not a CV. WP:SIGCOV requires three sources where the subject of the article is the main topic (or at least significantly featured beyond the routine) of the source. The evidence simply does not satisfy that requirement.4meter4 (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 2017 article quoted above states that her picture was "on the front page of the Malayalam newspapers that morning" (November 25, 1994), and includes images of what appear to be at least two of those newspapers, so I do not think it is speculative, given the precise information about the publication and the images, and the front page placement appears to be 'significantly featured beyond the routine.' It appears there are three sources for her initial notability as a student activist (at least two from 1994 and one from 2017), and there are several ways she has additional notability as a lawyer, because the 2017 source also finds her exceptional in the context of her women's rights activism and legal practice, and there are multiple independent and reliable sources that find her noteworthy as an expert, and multiple independent and reliable sources find her noteworthy for her participation in high-profile cases. Beccaynr (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are multiple independent reliable sources, but the coverage is trivial and routine and not significant in all but one of those sources. They only prove her to be a reliable family lawyer, not a significant lawyer in her field (which would require analysis of her career in relation to her peers or within her field). Meer quotes don’t provide a significant claim to notability, nor does listing a host of professional activities that don’t provide the level of context required for notability in an encyclopedia. The Malaysian article does make a good claim to notability. If you are able to actually locate the 1994 article so we can read and evaluate the content, that would help us a long way into proving WP:SIGCOV. Just proving the existence of an article without actually getting to read and evaluate content (no matter where it’s location in the paper) is not enough.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:HEY has not been satisfied even with the current set of improvements. It is just a set of minor comments and minor professional and political positions. Taking all the sources into consideration we do not have WP:SIGCOV This does not clear WP:GNG yet. Vikram Vincent 03:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is important to point out that both Shuchi Anand and Sindhu Joy AFDs were closed as delete though they both had a higher level of sourcing. This bio does not anywhere close. Vikram Vincent 04:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And Vageshwari Deswal closed as keep, without ever having been a notable political figure. Geenakumari has also written legal commentary, and two links are included in the External links section of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: I also went through the previous AFD and found that the subject does not have enough sigcov. Being mentioned in some reliable sources does not make anyone notable. Even if we combine all the sources provided by Beccanyr and others (in previous AFD) to claim sigcov, it is not sufficient for sigcov. I also agree with the point shown by 4meter4 that wikipedia is not a CV.

  • Draftify: As per Beccanyr's request.Kichu🐘 Need any help? 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: subject of article fails to meet GNG criteria. No SIGCOV is present either. --RaviC (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would support a draftify, as I believe its possible that more significant coverage could be located and assessed (per Beccaynr's identification of that 1994 article) as a possible source. With one excellent reference already in evidence, I'm hopeful that editors may be able to locate, read, and document additional sources that support WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I also like to support draftify because I believe that Beccaynr will do their best to rescue this article like they always do. Regards Kichu🐘 Need any help? 17:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: per User:Beccanyr's request. VocalIndia (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2021 (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/T._Geenakumari_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1017073755"