Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shalu Nigam


 * 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, with no consensus to rename. Further renames should be considered using the WP:RM process. Daniel (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Shalu Nigam

 * – ( View AfD View log )

not notable and fails GNG Iamfarzan (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: I fail to see how a high court decision that has impact for single parents all over India is not notable, particularly wherein in provides a path for a child to obtain a passport without the name of a father. The high court notes  single parents were on increase due to various reasons “like unwed mothers, sex workers, surrogate mothers, rape survivors, children abandoned by father and also children born through IVF. This sort of decision is going to occur in many other sovereign jurisdictions. This decision *does* have consequences for women and mothers in India, and hence, notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This judgment made a vital impact on the issue of the name and identity of single mothers and their kids in India. The Ministry changed its policy within a few months subsequent to this decision. The judge very clearly established that the passport authorities cannot force single mothers to obtain the consent of their father before applying for the passport of their kids. Other legal Scholars have been writing about this decision by the Delhi High court and how it has made a significant impact on the situation of single mothers    — Preceding unsigned comment added by  182.69.43.74   (talk • contribs) 15:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep the content regarding the case, it meets WP:GNG. But maybe the article name should be changed to reference the case rather than the person, as she is not notable independently of the case? LizardJr8 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - evidently a landmark case with heaps of coverage in multiple reliable sources. A rename as above might need to be considered but I can't think of a valid reason to delete the content. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

1. The judgment made an important impact considering the situation in India about single mothers. It has been referred to in other cases too later and as also discussed above, scholars are writing about this case.
 * As I have created this page so I am giving reasons to KEEP this page AS IT IS and why I created this

2. The person who filed this petition as a lawyer and as a single mother fought her own case herself therefore the person becomes notable.

3. The person as a lawyer, researcher, and activist is working on gender and human rights issues and has other significant publications in her name. Some of her recent work is quoted in the article itself in the references list

4. Some of her work is important in terms of feminist research and has added a new dimension to feminist thinking in India. For instance, her work on domestic violence law in India from 2005 to a recent one in 2020 - a continuous series of books, articles, and papers on the issue of domestic violence law in India brings in a different dimension.

5. Most of the other work of the author not listed here such as her co-authored book published in 2016 on The Founding Mother: 15 women architects of the Indian Constitution is much applauded locally in India

6. The author has been awarded a senior fellowship by the Indian council of social science research and has been actively contributing to the field of women's studies at the global level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Changetheworld   (talk • contribs) 16:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep and do not rename - this article needs work, but it seems clear that neither WP:BIO1E or WP:BLP1E apply due to the substantial documentation of her role in the major events currently featured in the article, and WP:BASIC notability is supported, including because her activism and advocacy extends beyond this case, e.g. News Minute 2017, The Wire 2020, Livelaw 2021, The Wire 2021. Beccaynr (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me point out that this was an article declined two times at AFC.I cant understand how the subject is independently notable. If this is keep, I recommend name should be changed to reference the case rather than the person. Iamfarzan (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I have added this para if this meets the notability requirements. Any other suggestions or comments are welcomed.

Her Other Notable Achievements

Over the years, she has been working consistently in the field of domestic violence laws in India and made some specific contributions in the field from the feminist perspective since 2005[26] [27] till present [28] [29]

More specifically, her contribution in the field of domestic violence law has been acknowledged with the emergence of coronavirus in 2020 and its impact on women [30] [31] [32] [33]

Her activism extends beyond the field of human rights too.  [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]

She has served as a visiting faculty at the Center for Women's Development Studies as she recieved senior fellowship by the Indian Council of Social Science Research, 2013-15 [41] Also, based on her contribution in the field of dowry and domestic violence, she was invited for a conference on dowry in 2019 at Sydney, Australia organized by UNSW and ACHRH [42]
 * Keep as it definitely seems notable enough and has a lot of sources, and possibly change the article name to the case, as LizardJr8 suggested NHCLS (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a Lot for editing this page. It's a huge learning experience for me. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Changetheworld   (talk • contribs) 15:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Cheers,, and it will take some time to review, sort, and incorporate the links, but my hope is that revisions to the article will also be helpful for this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep agree per all above. VocalIndia (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment per WP:HEY, the article has been substantially revised, and I think it is now more clear why a standalone article for Nigam, with her case incorporated into it, is warranted. As an initial matter, it is a very fact-driven case, so her biographical details are a core part of the case and covered by multiple independent and reliable sources. She is also both the petitioner and the lawyer who made the arguments that were covered by multiple independent and reliable sources. The case also did not happen in a vacuum, because it is part of a developing body of caselaw (e.g. Mandel, 2019, Socio-Legal Rev. 15 (131): 147–149), and while I have not been able to access the specific pages that discuss her in Mutinies for Equality: Contemporary Developments in Law and Gender in India (2021), the publisher blurb indicates the book is focused on "protagonists who shape the debate around law and gender and locate their efforts into a socio-political context", which seems like further support for her notability as a contributor to the development of women's legal rights in India. WP:BLP1E appears to be a relevant consideration for whether a standalone article for her is warranted, and it appears to not apply due to #3, her substantial role in this event, and #2, not remaining a low-profile individual after the event. For example, she was one of the experts cited by The News Minute in 2017 for her writing on Battered Woman Syndrome, and she has engaged in high-profile activist activity, as noted in links in my comment above. In addition, on GScholar, I had to go 10 pages in to get past her scholarly output, but she also appears to gain regular notice from her peers for her academic work, and the article currently does not fully reflect this nor additional information about her career that could be researched and confirmed based on her Routledge author profile. A redirect could be created for the name of the case to her article, for if and when the case is discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia, which would offer the additional context about her that is available from a wide variety of sources that have been and could still be incorporated into the article. Beccaynr (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC) Also, the Find link tool indicates an article in her name will not be an orphan due to the WP:MANYLINKS that can already be created. Beccaynr (talk) 23:01, 25 July 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.