Talk:Shanimol Usman

Controversy section - unjustified deletion
A section on Controversy had been added for the contravention of 'Prevention of Insults to National Honour act 1971' by Shanimol Usman on her Facebook page. A police complaint has been lodged by the CPI(M) Aroor unit, and this was reported on all major print media.

This section had been deleted for reasons that are not justifiable. This does not fail the 10 year test - hence WP:RECENTISM is not an appropriate reason for deleting this section. This is not a biased opinion - Adequate authentic reference to the fact had been given and hence WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS are not valid reasons for this deletion either.

It is not acceptable for an elected representative of the State to depict an incorrect map of the country.

This also applies to changes made by User:A40220.

The controversy regarding blocking of roadworks in her constituency during bypoll is also worth mentioning as case was filed under sections IPC Section 353, IPC 143, IPC 147, IPC 149, IPC 294(B). — Preceding unsigned comment added by The King of kings100 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Assuming this proposal of including a section on Controversies doesn't have any replies can we put back the changes made by the User:The King of kings100 ? The content added by User:A40220 was also removed by the same user and I am forced to admit that this is WP:NPOV and there was a motive by the user who deleted the contributions to keep the page as WP:PROMOTION. RamRaghubn (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add content any topics but we should make sure that the content doesn't violate WP:RECENTISM, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. We should generally try to work these into the relevant sections rather than having a "Controversies" section as per WP:CRITICISM. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

user:Akhiljaxxn Please clarify the reason for deleting the section on controversies - none of the reasons raised previously were valid. Need to understand why you think the section was an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The King of kings100 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this a promotional page
user:Akhiljaxxn, I had not realised that this stub page had been created by you.

If this page was meant to be a promotional page, please tag it so.

None of the reasons raised to delete the controversies section were not valid. Latest edit was reverted stating that content was an opinion - even though numerous references were added.

Please clarify what the issue is, with adding the section on controversies. The King of kings100 (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)