Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyadarshini Raje Scindia


 * 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   no consensus. Strong arguments on both sides - strong enough to find no specific consensus to delete, nor any strong consensus to keep (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 12:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Priyadarshini Raje Scindia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Aside from fawning mentions in fashion columns, this person seems to be notable only for being the wife of a politician. Yes, some call her a princess but India - a republic - has long since abolished all royal titles and those who apply them now do so for reasons of vanity. Sitush (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In the 26th amendment to the Constitution of India promulgated in 1971, the Government of India abolished all official symbols of princely India, including titles, privileges, and remuneration (privy purses). 1., "Through a constitutional amendment passed in 1971, Indira Gandhi stripped the princes of the titles, privy purses and regal privileges which her father's government had granted." (p 278). 2. Quote: "The princes of India – their number and variety reflecting to a large extent the chaos that had come to the country with the break up of the Mughal empire – had lost real power in the British time.  Through generations of idle servitude they had grown to specialize only in style.  A bogus, extinguishable glamour: in 1947, with Independence, they had lost their state, and Mrs. Gandhi in 1971 had, without much public outcry, abolished their privy purses and titles." (pp 37–38). 3.  Quote: "Although the Indian states were alternately requested or forced into union with either India or Pakistan, the real death of princely India came when the Twenty-sixth Amendment Act (1971) abolished the princes' titles, privileges, and privy purses." (page 78). 4.   Quote: "The third stage in the political evolution of the princes from rulers to citizens occurred in 1971, when the constitution ceased to recognize them as princes and their privy purses, titles, and special privileges were abolished." (page 84).  5.  Quote: "Her success at the polls emboldened Mrs. Gandhi to act decisively against the princes. Through 1971, the two sides tried and failed to find a settlement. The princes were willing to forgo their privy purses, but hoped at least to save their titles. But with her overwhelming majority in Parliament, the prime minister had no need to compromise. On 2 December she introduced a bill to amend the constitution and abolish all princely privileges. It was passed in the Lok Sabha by 381 votes to six, and in the Rajya Sabha by 167 votes to seven. In her own speech, the prime minister invited 'the princes to join the elite of the modern age, the elite which earns respect by its talent, energy and contribution to human progress, all of which can only be done when we work together as equals without regarding anybody as of special status.' " (page 441).  6.  Quote: "The Indian princes survived the British Raj by only a few years.  The Indian republic stripped them of their powers and then their titles." (page 10). 7.  Quote: "Indian States: "Various (formerly) semi-independent areas in India ruled by native princes .... Under British rule ... administered by residents assisted by political agents.  Titles and remaining privileges of princes abolished by Indian government 1971." (page 520).  8.  Quote: "A monarchy is only as good as the reigning monarch: thus it is with the princely states.  Once they seemed immutable, invincible.  In 1971 they were "derecognized,"  their privileges, privy purses and titles all abolished at a stroke" (page 91)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (talk)  @ 12:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (talk)  @ 12:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Oppose (1) Has been in Verve's "Best dressed - 2008" Hall of fame list. (2)Though officially deprived of titles they are used popularly, she is considered India's top five princeses, internationally too she is addressed as a princess and is the patron of University of Manchester's scholarship programme. (3)She is the head of Maharaja Sir Jiwaji Rao Scindia Museum and the Gwalior foundation and the governing council of Save the children (4) Government publications too mention her as H.H. Maharani Shrimant Priyadarshini Raje Scindia (5)He is addressed as a "royal" by international royalty. (6) She is president of Scindia Kanya Vidyalaya. (6)She is a celebrity socialite (numerous links Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed YK's vote from Oppose to Keep. We use "Keep" and "Delete" at AFDs. The AfD Vote Counter doesn't understand Oppose. Well... it doesn't even understand unbolded Delete. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 03:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hm. Good digging but most of what you have found seems like trivia.
 * Ok, some people like the way she dresses and some group that seems to amount to a "lad's mag" think she looks "hot" - no Miss World or similar, though.
 * Patronage of a minor university's scholarship programme, especially when it is keen to attract students from India, says more about the university than about her.
 * Sure, she is the head of a couple of things that her husband's family seem to have set up: they seem to be fairly minor things and can you imagine us, for example, listing every charity/school/similar that a member of the British royal family patronised?
 * The "government publication" looks more like a forum index to me - what are we supposed to be looking at there?
 * How she is addressed by other royals is irrelevant - still a vanity title, it is in fact just one royal in your example, and diplomacy says they'll play along with the vanity.
 * The fact is, she is not even a pretender and we are not a genealogy website. So, this really seems to boil down to whether she is notable as a socialite (possible, but don't we dumb down enough here already? Do we have any decent sources rather than gossip rags etc?) or because of her involvement with India's Save The Children organisation (which I suspect is not tremendously different from her involvement with the University of Westminster). - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Seems to be a notable socialite. Seen in various functions and covered that way through newspapers. Eg. HT Leadership Summit 2011. Also listed 2nd on Top 5 Indian Princesses by Yahoo. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 03:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to start badgering but I think it best to reiterate that the Yahoo "top 5" is basically a meatmarket list from some sort of obscure "lad's magazine". She is arbitrarily listed based on her looks, not her achievements, her family's titular rank among the hierarchy of royals or similar. I could accept that if she was a contestant in some formal setting, such as Miss World or Miss India, but she is not and I'm not even sure that she has ever worked as a professional model. I could create my own top five list right now and get it published on Yahoo. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the Forbes list a contest? Is it an "obscure" lad's magazine, well Yahoo disagrees with you. Don't looks make a person notable? Did anyone claim she was a professional model? Yes and I could build a spaceship that would take me to the moon. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The link to "government publication" is a Ministry of Youth Affairs", central government site. I don't understand what you mean by forum. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The govt website (note, as with your "royals" comment, this is in fact just one govt source and not plural) invites people to add their details using this form. It is obviously not well-vetted because they cannot even sort out the SHOUTING that some people have added. As it stands, it seems to be some sort of open directory/a cross between a forum and a wiki. It does not bolster your argument. THer rest of what you say is just your usual bs'ing whereby you deliberately misunderstand what someone else said, isn't it? Grow up. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Open directory/ Wiki!! Isn't the site owned by the Government of India's, Ministry of Youth Affairs? Are you sure that there is no editorial oversight? I've presented one source, that doesn't mean that there is only one source? Since you prefer to answer here what do you mean by meat-market? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A single source does not justify pluralising. There are plenty of government-hosted websites that allow a certain freedom of expression in phraseology, and those of India are often pretty lax. As for meat-market, I'd already answered - just drop it, now. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: She is not a notable person. His husband and father is a notable persons. Her page can not be accepted on the basis of her Husband`s and Father`s notability. I did not find any notable work carried out by her.Jussychoulex (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: As it stands, the article looks eligible for Speedy Deletion CD:A7, as it doesn't even make any claims of importance. So if whatever is in those sources shows notability, it needs to be written in the article too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. After this time, the only claim I'm really seeing here is "She would have been a princess if India still had princesses", and that's not much of a claim to notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: At most, this page could be merged with that of her husband Sesamevoila (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is nothing of substance in the article. The first line says it all. To call her a princess of any sort is an illusion, facetious and a non-starter.  By that reasoning Elizabeth II is the empress of India.--Zananiri (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree that she is not a notable person. Delljvc (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: She is India's top 5 princess: http://in.lifestyle.yahoo.com/5-indian-princesses-121204767.html, I just don't know why Sitush is so much against with her. You are so aggressively denying everyone who is trying to keep this article. I think you have some personal issues with her. But apart from your mindset, Priyadarshini Raje Scindia is well deserved article. 117.217.90.138 (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You've only made two contributions - one here, and one pointless extra source at the article. I wonder if you've forgotten to log in because, so far, has not commented here despite creating the article and being active elsewhere since it was nominated. If so, is there any chance that you could log in and confirm? You don't have to (it could give away your location) but if you are indeed the same person then I'd be prepared to try to help you understand why so many of your efforts are being contested. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: I completely agree after being said noted that she is India's top 5 Princess. Also she is a renowned socialite after the links has been posted on the start of this article. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Boing! Merely being the woman who would have been a princess is insufficient for notability. The only claim re notability appears to be the yahoo fluff piece which is about as insignificant as it gets. --regentspark (comment) 18:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a straw man argument, no one is claiming that she is notable because she is a princess, she is notable because she is a public figure as manifest from various sources and tops two lists, the Yahoo list and the Verve list, that anything is fluff is a matter of opinion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yogesh, look at the references. 1 and 2 are there because of her husband. 5 and 6 just list her as a board member. 3 is not available online. For a public figure, this is a fairly meagre haul. That leaves the yahoo lifestyle piece for which I refer you to WP:RS. --regentspark (comment) 18:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see the snap shot of the book. I don't see why Yahoo isn't a RS? Also there are other sources that refer her to being on the 2008 Verve best dressed list. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This site mentions that she dressed in a Sari featured in the best dressed list. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yahoo news is probably ok. Lifestyle is not. Anyway, I can't get myself charged up over this so let's leave it to the closer. --regentspark (comment) 18:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually the list was created by MensXP.com a Times Group venture. No RS issues here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is something more notable about her: http://www.uppercrustindia.com/oldsite/27crust/twentytwo/feature2.htm Shobhit Gosain (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody can be notable by their pictures/news in non-notable, non-reliable sources i.e.http://www.uppercrustindia.com/oldsite/27crust/twentytwo/feature2.htm......Jussychoulex (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I have added a book reference and by the way notability exists for following reasons:
 * Every (*true) Politician in India belongs to any political dynasty.
 * The concern of the nominator is "Aside from fawning mentions in fashion columns". We have an article on Wedding dress of Kate Middleton which is notable for only fawning mentions in fashion columns. So I see no reason to delete this one.
 * Though Government of India has long abolished all royal titles yet she is called princess by many (of course it is vanity).
 * She is a notable public figure and suits wikipedia standards of notability. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Solomon7968, your first point would be good if she were actually a "politician". She isn't. Your second point would be good if we cared about other stuff. We don't. Your third point is kind of a poor one. Notability doesn't arise merely from existence. Are we expected to have articles on every relative of every former royal family in India merely because they would have been called nawab or raja or rani or rajkumar or rajkumari or whatever if royalty still existed? I think not. Finally, your last point would be good if there was some evidence that she was a public figure. If someone is a public figure, there should be plenty of evidence in the form of reliable sources that explain why she is public. The article would be bubbling with newspaper stories about her doings and stuff like that. But we don't see that. Rather, the paucity and poor quality of reference in this article are merely evidence that she is not notable. --regentspark (comment) 14:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:RegentsPark Agree with you philosophically. This article is a perfect example of a two fold lost effort both by nominators and the creator of the article. Anyone willing to know about Priyadarshini Raje Scindia will see fashion magazines or youtube than wikipedia. But given the notability standards of wikipedia I belief she is notable. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * RP how are you so sure that Scindia isn't a politician? You can only accurately say that she isn't holding any office, for that matter Bal Thackeray never held any office in his lifetime, would you say he wasn't a politician? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * YK, I can't prove a 'not'. But you can prove an 'is'. If she is a politician, you'll need to provide a reliable source that says she is one and I'll be happy to reconsider my !vote. Right now, we're dealing with someone who would have been a princess and has appeared in a couple of photo shoots. Definitely not notable. --regentspark (comment) 13:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You have a right to have an opinion, she campaigns for the party and participates in public events with other public figures and politicians, makes her political enough, remember Sanjay Gandhi never held any political office (to the best of my knowledge) he was what he was as his mother's son. But notable in his own right. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * C'mon YK. All she does is accompany her husband. Hardly the same thing as seeking or even desiring to seek political office. Heck, I've stood on street corners seeking signatures but that doesn't make me a politician! And the comparison with Sanjay Gandhi or Thackeray is way over the top. If she becomes a controversial figure, I'll gladly support inclusion but all we really have is a spouse who helps her spouse.--regentspark (comment) 14:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you go through the links you'd find that she accompanied her husband and did solo campaigning also.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Lots of people campaign. But, you're going to respond to everything, aren't you. So .... whatever. --regentspark (comment) 14:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: per Solomon7968, the person is notable enough. -sarvajna (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I wondered when you'd chip in, given the presence of Yogesh and Dharma ;) She is not a royal, she is not a professional model, she is not a politician. Her claims to notability are being married to someone and being an occasional feature in trivial gossip columns etc which themselves seem unable to understand that she has no more right to the title of princess than I do. In other words, they are factually inaccurate in detail (ie: unreliable) as well as subjective and fawning in scope. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Does it sound like "pot calling the kettle black"? "No more right to the title of princess than I do" Well wonder why "New York Social Diary" calls her the "Queen of Gwalior? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No idea whatyour pot/kettle comment is referring to but wtf is New York Social Diary, aside from another photo source that clearly is fawning and incapable of understanding Indian royal titles or the invalidity thereof? I'm wondering now whether she might be notable as an imposter! - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I request you to communicate in standard English and not in obscene slang. NYSD has been used/ referred 91 times on Wikipedia, what claim to expertise does an anonymous editor have? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not anonymous - plenty of people know who I am in real life. Please read WP:OSE andWP:RS regarding other uses for NYSD. - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Also included on India's 50 Most Beautiful Woman by Femina in 2012. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 21:08, 10 June 2013 (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.