Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ishrat Jahan

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ishrat Jahan[edit]

[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)

Non Notable Politician (non elected) and lawyer. fails WP:POLITICIAN. Starofearth (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Starofearth (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Starofearth (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Starofearth (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Starofearth (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes GNG. Lots of articles on his interaction with the Indian justice system. Mottezen (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the creator of the page and feel it satisfies Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage of WP:NPOL. Contrary to claim of nom, the subject was an elected figure. VV 08:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressing a possible concern: From WP:BIO1E, The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. Both the CAA protests and the subject grew in coverage and hence the rationale for independent pages.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. VV 08:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep:The subject got plenty of coverage as she was accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and got arrested. I dont think thats alone is required for GNG as I couldn't find any other sources. But given the high amount of press coverage and the fact was she was was a municipal councilor, I think this is a weak keep. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, and because I have added sources and information from sources to the article - news coverage has been sustained, focused on her and in-depth, e.g. The Quint, Scroll.in, The Quint, Scroll.in, and her role in events last year as well as the ongoing court case is substantial and well-documented. Some biographical information is also available about her career and her family. Beccaynr (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Additional in-depth coverage focused on her, with biographical information, context, and commentary: The Wire (June 2020). And to clarify my previous comment, WP:BLP1E does not appear to apply due to the multiple events (protests, arrests, incarcerations, wedding, ongoing court case) as well as her substantial and well-documented role. She also was not low-profile before her arrests because she is an activist and politician, e.g. participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign. Beccaynr (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the subject has significant press coverage and is an elected figure.defcon5 (talk) 08:00, 14 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.