Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swathi Lakra

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. MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swathi Lakra[edit]

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

Mid-level police officer (not the top ranking at the city level). Coverage is essentially in the form of notifications regarding postings and transfers and one program of the Hyderabad police. Nothing to suggest that the subject meets either WP:GNG or any of the SNGs —SpacemanSpiff 15:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 15:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 15:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - She Is one of the renowned Police Officers in the City & She has Introduced "SHE TEAMS" Against Eve Teasing which Acclaimed A huge Response from the Citizens , The article also Inlcudes the She teams . I Strongly recommend to keep the Article --Ramsingh 15:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsinghdeena (talk • contribs)

I have struck this comment. Ramsinghdeena is indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of the article's creator. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sakthi swaroop/Archive. Voceditenore (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see multiple independent secondary sources specifically focused on her and her work. That meets GNG in my understanding. 1bandsaw (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I too feel the same way. --Muzammil (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feelings are all fine, but I haven't come across any such sources in my search, so please do provide them. If such sources do exist I'll be more than happy to withdraw the nomination. —SpacemanSpiff 19:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per coverage found by following WP:INDAFD here AusLondonder (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as this is still questionable overall for solid notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per sources available about the subject, perhaps on a weaker level, but still meets the guideline. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is available to meet the basic notability criteria for individual persons. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- did not need to be delisted, there is consensus already. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the reviewing admin may need to watch out for vote stacking. The article creator is reported to be part of a politicised "team" and it may be worth comparing contributors to this discussion with those at related past discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ira_Singhal. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage is trivial posting stuff and clearly driven by people seeking to boost her profile. Indian newspapers, other than The Hindu, are notoriously lax at actually checking sources and will publish pretty much any puff piece. She doesn't appear to have done anything special other than achieved a few name-checks for that reason. Just another mid-ranking officer doing their job and climbing the greasy pole. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 17:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment- I was bit surprised by the decisions of continous relistings , though there was Clear Majority of wikipedian's to keep the Article . --Ramsingh 08:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsinghdeena (talk • contribs)

I have struck this comment. Ramsinghdeena is indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of the article's creator. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sakthi swaroop/Archive. Voceditenore (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her job does not confer notability in itself and I do not see multiple significant coverage of her even via the WP:INDAFD search tool [1] noted by AusLondonder above. Did any of you opining "keep" actually read the articles listed by that tool or read or watch the "references" currently in the article, including the videos? I see one puff-piece article in the Deccan Chronicle [2] which consists of her talking about herself; a brief announcement-article in The Hindu stating that she had taken up a post in 2012 (with zero biographical information); an article about how her house caught fire in 2009 in New Indian Express; and name-checks/brief quotes related to her doing her job, one aspect of which is talking to the media about police initiatives in the city. The V6 interview [3] is not about her. It's her talking about how the "She Teams" initiative will work. The puffery and "interview" in The Hans India is worthless. Observe this "article" they published about the creator of Swathi Lakra, replicating the New Indian Express piece about him, complete with puffery and outright lies. Furthermore, I see no evidence whatsoever that she actually founded the "She Teams" (a local initiative) even in the Deccan Chronicle interview. In another Deccan Chronicle piece specifically devoted to the initiative [4] (and used in this article as a reference), she is not mentioned at all. The IBN video [5] (used as a reference) doesn't load. But given that the current article is full of bogus references which do not even mention her, I would be amazed if it were devoted to her. Voceditenore (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A minor cog in the city police administration. For reference, there are 9 Additional/Joint commissioners in the city of Hyderabad and nothing she has done merits a standalone article. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per arguments presented by Sitush and Voceditenore, and due to the lack of significant coverage from reliable publications. The evident attempts to game the system are not helpful. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep, I am surprised. More than the decision of the learned contributors of Wikipedia, the contents are surprising. I do not know how many of you understand the government functioning. Swati Lakra is an IPS officer, who is currently in the rank of Inspector General (3rd highest in the state). As per the existing laws of the land, for cities like Hyderabad, where the density of population, crime rat are high and political, communal and religious violence can never be anticipated, only an IPS personnel who is of an IG rank can be posted as the commissioner of police. However, throughout the country, in government, more than the skills, ability and efficiency, it's seniority which would be a deciding factor for any position and hence Swati Lakra is currently an Addl. Commissioner of Police.

Further, 'She Teams' is an initiative of Swati Lakra and since she is the Addl. Commissioner of police the initiative is considered that of the department's. She has also recently came up with another initiative called 'Bharosa', a one stop crisis centre for women. She has been doing a lot for the women, particularly and needs to be applauded for her service instead of criticism. I request the admin to kindly reinvestigate the matter before making a judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.220.209.154 (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC) — 106.220.209.154 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Were you canvassed to comment here? I know that the article creator has admitted to working as a team. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am a social activist and am closely watching the police department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.220.38.66 (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sockpuppetry blocks relating to this, I don't think cavassing is the main issue here. —SpacemanSpiff 02:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having a medium to high level police position isn't inherently notable, and the here-and-there mentioning of her and her work only seem to be run-of-the-mill coverage, nothing special for major officers. Whether or not she's doing a good job, has helped a lot of people, etc doesn't affect notability guidelines. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. If I were to close this today, I would close it as delete, completely discounting all of the keep !votes because all of them say, there are sources, but none of them actually cite any. That would almost certainly be DRV-bait, so instead I'm relisting this for another week, in the hopes that those people who !voted to keep can provide some specific examples of sources which meet WP:GNG, etc.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Routine press coverage of appointments and transfers does not confer notability (see WP:MILL), especially that all such appointments have to be published as per Indian law. Also, note how the "keep" !votes above came all together instantly after nomination, but virtually not a single established editor supported keeping the article afterwards; which may be suggestive of vote stacking. — kashmiri ^TALK 09:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a fair statement and I suggest that you withdraw it. There are at least two keep participants whose work I'm sort of familiar with (though we obviously disagree here) even if we haven't interacted and another two who tend to ask to keep always; it's unfair to say that those participants (save for the socks) are here on some ulterior motive.—SpacemanSpiff 14:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "...which may be suggestive of", so technically there is no statement that can be withdrawn. But thanks for allaying my doubts. — kashmiri ^TALK 14:57, 30 May 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.