Talk:D. Roopa

Transfer
She is known for taking on cases related to politicians and senior IPS officers and as a result has been transferred over 40 times in her 17 years of service Removed from article.Because the transfer will be done as required by government.__-Knnirvahaka (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense Twitter Tantrum
DrJNU, I have removed the Nonsense Twitter Tantrum from the article. This is unworthy of anyone's Wikipedia article. Other Wikipedia article does not have such twitter drama. --Walrus Ji (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not censored, as I told you in your warning. All sourced content should be left in the article, no matter if it is harmful to the subject or not. Please explain your rationale for the deletion of this content. Simply because 'other articles don't have it' is not a justified reason.   Oshawott 12  ==== Talk to me!  15:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Wikipedia is not censored" but Wikipedia is also not a garbage dump or a tabloid where you can put everything. This person was attacked by a twitter troll and she replied. This incident is not an encyclopedic information that people want to know. This Twitter Tantrum deserves a place in a rag mag, not in an Encyclopedia. On top of that some of the content that I had removed is plain fake news and not in the links. I have checked the references. What is the justification for adding it here? Walrus Ji (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you claim that it is fake news, it is your WP:Original research and opinion. We are here to create an encyclopedia, not to delete content that is deemed unworthy only by you. I do not see any valid response to my question in your explanation.   Oshawott 12  ==== Talk to me!  00:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't disagree with the inclusion but I don't think it requires the level of coverage that is being proposed - there's a danger of this being WP:UNDUE. A one liner saying "In November 2020, Roopa was criticised by Abhishek Singhvi MP for comments made on social media regarding fireworks during Diwali" with a suitable reference would be better. We don't need a blow-by-blow account, and we definitely don't need to be using emotive language like "slammed". The fact the account she was responding to was suspended shortly after she said game over seems, to me, to be WP:SYNTH. Best, Darren-M   talk  00:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with cutting down the section to conform with wiki standards if the sources are problematic, but I wholly disagree with deleting the entire section. That is my only concern as for now.   Oshawott 12  ==== Talk to me!  00:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That still seems undue, she's been in much larger conflicts with politicians and that has been summarised with a following line in the article, "She has been transferred 41 times in 17 years till 2017, has faced privilege motions for naming politicians in FIRs." In comparison, this incident in particular isn't encyclopedic material. I'd oppose it's inclusion especially in the form of a WP:CSECTION. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 01:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, understood then. Since I'm not experienced in this topic, it should be more suitable for more knowledgable people to step in. My other concern was the comment of the original deleter - it didn't sound like a very convincing argument to me just saying 'Other Wikipedia article does not have such twitter drama.' Nonetheless, thank you for your comments and input.   Oshawott 12  ==== Talk to me!  04:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The reason for the removal of the Criticism section from the article is baseless and seems to be more of the personal opinion of Walrus Ji. Oshawott_12 has correctly pointed out that the "Wikipedia is not censored" and "other articles don't have it" is not justified to remove the section from the article. As per WP:CRITS, "Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally discouraged", but also if a subject ... received significant criticism about their public image, create a section entitled "Public image" or "Public profile," and include all related information – positive and negative is not discourage either. Pageviews of the subject has significantly increased in the last few days, which indicates that the people are more interested in knowing about the subject after the tweet-war on Wikipedia. In contrast, the subject remained at #1 and #2 in the trending list on Twitter. The section was well-cited, which was removed by Tradskabaap. There is numerous standalone article which only covers the Criticism including many articles like Jawaharlal Nehru University, Kunal Kamra and Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh which has similar sections. DrJNU (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)