Template:Did you know nominations/Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India

 * ... that the Supreme Court of India (building pictured) ruled in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India that Delhi's lieutenant governor had no independent authority in making decisions"? Source:
 * ALT1:... that Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India was heard before a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India? (building pictured) Source: Source:
 * ALT2:... that the Supreme Court of India (building pictured) ruled in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India that there was "no room for absolutism and there is no room for anarchism also" in Delhi's governance? Source: )
 * ALT3:... that the Delhi chief minister, Arvind Kejriwal, said the Supreme Court of India (building pictured) ruling in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India was a "big victory" for Delhiites and democracy? Source:
 * ALT4:... that a Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson, Sambit Patra, said that the ruling of the Supreme Court of India (building pictured) in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India "upheld the constitution", adding that it was "a decision against anarchy"? Source:
 * Reviewed: I don't think it's needed now; less than five DYK credits ( four three).
 * Comment: Created in userspace on 26 September 2018 and moved to mainspace on 13 October 2018.

Created by SshibumXZ (talk). Self-nominated at 00:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Hello, I dropped by to start a review for the nomination, but I noticed there are several maintenance tags for needed citations on the article. Do you have time to work on those, and let me know when it's okay to start a review? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I have made the appropriate changes to the article; feel free to proceed with your review. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 13:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will revisit this on Saturday. Sorry for the delay. Flibirigit (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * no problem; take your time with this review. SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 00:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC); edited 01:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC) and 01:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I will finish going through this later today. Sorry for the delay. Flibirigit (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sourcing issues have been rectified. Review still in progress. Flibirigit (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Article appears neutral in tone, not favouring either side of the arguments. Flibirigit (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio analysis: None found. Flibirigit (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The judgment.pdf comparions returns a high value of 61% here. The large majority of highlighted areas are either proper nouns or titles, which are not violations. The others are quotations from the actual judgment which are attributed. I see no copyvio concerns on this source.
 * The remaining results from Earwig return values than 20%, which also highlight proper nouns and titles, which are not violations.

All five hooks are cited, verified and discussed in the article. I prefer ALT2. I did make several edits to the hooks above and in the article, that I would like to nominator to check. I also noted that in the "Reactions" section, the first sentence "The supreme court's rulings were almost unanimously received favourably." should have a citation or maybe be revised. It is subjective, and likely to be challenged.
 * Adding my signature to the above. Flibirigit (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am more than fine with your changes and rectifies the single error you made. As far as the statement goes, I think one can infer easily that the judgment was well-received, but, yes, I do get that this might be in contravention with Wikipedia's policies on original research, so, I am fine with removing that line. Also, one more time, thanks for reviewing my DYK nomination for Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India; much appreciated, that! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 14:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I am going away on vacation soon, and will have limited computer access for a while. I suggested a different pipe link in the reaction section. Please feel free to change, but leaving a bracketed link without a pipe is against the manual of style for links. Flibirigit (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's for disambiguations, though, like "(politician)" or "(artist)". Communist Party of India (Marxist) is a proper noun, so, piping isn't needed. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 16:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Considering the unique naming conventions of the multiple communist parties, I will accept that. The article has completed its WP:GOCE review, and I have no further questions. Flibirigit (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 17:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)