Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nutan Thakur


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Nutan Thakur

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable personality. Seems to be a promotional page. Soham321 (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment the content doesn't look promotional at all, also there are a couple more refs given on the talk page. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment that's because i removed most of the promotional content which was present together with multiple dead links and a link to a chinese website. Her sole claim to fame now is that she is a chronic litigant in the courts. Soham321 (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment this person has definite and wide contributions to the society through her multiple works. It seems this man under the garb soham321 is having some personal agenda against this woman of true respect and presence in the State of Uttar Pradesh as one of the most well-known and respected activists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronicleboy (talk • contribs) 07:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep (for now at least). This is clearly not a nomination made in good faith and as such it does not deserve to be taken seriously. A look at the article history reveals that the nominator's contributions consist of first adding a section called "Chronic litigant" and then removing all other content. --Hegvald (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I protest about the accusation of bad faith. I went about removing what i thought was promotional content--anyone who takes a look at the article history starting from when i started working on it--can see that i was removing material that was sourced to dead links or links to unreliable and unauthoritative websites stating that she is in the process of writing some book (one book was about how her husband was unfairly suspended from his job) . One piece of material was sourced to a website in chinese language. Ultimately, when i started removing what i thought was unreliable material from her biography i found there was nothing left. I remembered this lady from following Indian news because she had been described as a chronic litigant by the higher courts in India and they have penalized her for filing a huge number of frivolous public interest cases by stating that henceforth she has to deposit money in the courts before filing a case and if the court is convinced that this is not a frivolous case then the security deposit will be returned to her. And so i added this section myself. But i did not think this person deserves a wikipedia page because she does not seem to be a notable person--certainly nowhere near as notable as the journalist Bhupendra Chaubey whose wikipedia page has now been created twice (once by me) but deleted both times. One can disagree about my assessment of Nutan Thakur, and i will bow to consensus, without the bad faith accusations. Soham321 (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The article history shows that you began by adding the paragraph that you originally headed "Chronic litigant", and then proceeded to remove everything else, leaving in place only your own section, which on its own clearly violates WP:BLP. --Hegvald (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All right, i was writing from memory. I added the new section and then proceeded to remove material which i found was sourced to dead links, to a website in chinese language, and to what i considered unreliable and unauthoritative sources. Maybe what i did was not right, but if that is so it can be easily rectified; this stilll does not give you the right to make accusations of bad faith. Soham321 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -- it does seem like a possibly borderline case but I did some googling and found quite a few posts on reliable Indian news sites (on at least three different topics/issues related to this person, so it's not a "known for one event" case). Apparently she was a member of the Aam Aadmi Party and it was a big deal when she resigned. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC) (I have edited the article recently and added a couple new references but that's not the full extent of the sources I found, there are plenty more.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly move. The case is notable as it satisfies GNG, and as a decision of a High Court and then the Supreme Court, it also satisfies criteria 2 of WP:CASES, because decisions of the Allahabad High Court are binding, and decisions of the Supreme Court, where this case ended, are even more strongly binding, as provided by article 141 of the Constitution: . We might wish to re-purpose this to an article on the case. James500 (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2015 (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.