Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chitrangada Singh (princess)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  23:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Chitrangada Singh (princess)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:N and WP:NOT — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 21:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources which mention her are impeccable. There is much more in Steven Weisman's NY Times article mentioned in Further Reading, which has not been used. She is the older sister of a man who is being touted as the "scion" of the princely family of Scindia. But princely privileges, titles, and pensions were abolished by the 26th amendment to the Indian constitution, and the law in India is no longer patrilineal.  It would be very convenient for the royalists which in this case seem to be the Hindu majoritarians to not have her as an inconvenient presence. No dice.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Royalist?/Hindu majoritarians?, And where did that come from? It seems you've your personal beef with Hindus which you don't need to bring in here by making a non-issue an issue. This deletion request is based purely on the question of notability. What's her credentials besides being a sister of Jyotiraditya Scindia? Is she an elected MLA/MP or has any renowned public profile? — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 13:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First, it is generally not a good idea to make ad hominem attacks against another Wikipedia editor. You could get into trouble if I report you. I don't have any "personal beef" with Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, or atheists.
 * Second, your description of her, "What is she besides being a sister of (a younger brother)," however, is in line with the widespread ideology in Hinduism of highlighting only the patriline. The ideology—going back more than two thousand years—appears alive and well on Wikipedia pages as well when any mention of her (a female) is de-emphasized or goes unmade because she is an inconvenient presence: see here and here.
 * Third if someone's wedding appears at great length in reports of United Press International (UPI), Associated Press, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, India Today, ... their wedding continues to be mentioned in newspaper stories, such as in The Economic Times, on marriage patterns of Indian ex-royals, and if their wedding is also described at great length in a book for young adults The House of Scindias: A Saga of Power, Politics, and Intrigue, Roli Books, 2021, which states, "Swedish Radio correspondent, Gisela Widmer, who was part of the large foreign press corps present at the occasion, said, 'It is amazing how such a large crowd retained its enthusiasm in spite of being confronted by such differences in wealth.' Sheila Tefft, who was present at Gwalior, wrote in the Chicago Tribune that three days of lavish festivities reportedly cost US$4 million and stirred a national controversy because India, at that point of time, was economic hard times and the worst drought in years." How is she not notable (both famous and infamous) by Wikipedia's rules unless, of course, women need to be slighted, even erased, in the male-dominated pages of Indian ex-royals?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 7.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 22:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:BLP1E. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That link states that each of three conditions need to be met, the third of which is: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented."
 * But her wedding was one of the most widely covered events in the social life of Indian ex-royals&mdash;both descendants of 21-gun salute states&mdash;in India. I don't believe there is another similar event that was covered by the major news agencies (UPI, and AP) and in long articles by the major international newspapers and radio services: LA Times, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Japan Times, The Times London, Swedish Radio, ... and a host of Indian newspapers. She is also somewhat notable (though not famous) in the hospitality industry, being a co-manager of two heritage hotels in India. I will edit her page later today to reflect that part of her biography.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On re-thoughts and reading some critical commentary (I will add them), I am switching to keep. It is better that there remains a documentation of all these royal figures continuing their history of oppression - actively or passively. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you explain the "oppression - actively or passively" in 1987, the year of the marriage—nearly 16 years after the 26th amendment of the Constitution of India which ended princely privileges?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , I did not receive your ping (?) but consult The Hindu of the day after marriage, for one.
 * The surreality of holding an exuberant wedding when millions were affected by a severe drought including in the very district, where the marriage was held. The ugliness of India's economic disparity at its finest. I am pretty certain that multiple sources of that time made this point. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The surreality of holding an exuberant wedding when millions were affected by a severe drought including in the very district, where the marriage was held. The ugliness of India's economic disparity at its finest. I am pretty certain that multiple sources of that time made this point. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Fowler. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as she was a significant part of a significant event.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.