Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swati Maliwal


 * 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 delete. There are claims made that the position is in itself notable, and would thus, I suppose confer notability on the officeholder, but these claims are not agreed on or indisputably proven. No evidence is provided that the subject herself is notable by our standards for biographies. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Swati Maliwal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only claim to notability is as chair of the Delhi Commission for Women, a state/municipal-level agency. This doesn't satisfy our notability standards, see WP:POLITICIAN. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  21:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People|list of

People-related deletion discussions]]. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This page was created a week ago in anticipation of her appointment to Delhi Commission for Women. She hardly qualifies as a "notable" personality. sshekhr  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.136.28.147 (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me?  04:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Chair for Delhi Commision for Women does not satisfy notability standards of wikipedia. There are 29 states and 7 Union Territories in India. Each one is supposed to have a Commission for Women. Neither of the States' Commisions find their way to wikipedia. There is no article for Delhi Commission for Women, nor do the any of the previous chairpersons have an article dedicated on them. A person being a subject discussed in news just because they have been appointed as Chairperson of DCW, and no other apparant contribution does not require a wikipedia entry.Sulabhvarshney (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I am writing my comments just because I was desperately looking on internet to know more about her. She is the youngest chief of Delhi Commission of Women. She seems to have very dynamic nature and a well deserving candidate for extremely qualifying constitutional posts in India. Since she is a fresh face in public life, and she has been appointed with a big hope to work on the women security in Delhi, many readers like me want to know more about her work. Wikipedia could be a reliable place we would like to read about her past work and future updates. She is also adviser to the Chief Minister of Delhi Mr. Arvind Kejriwal (one of the most highlighted politician in India)
 * Comment If you were deperately looking for her on the internet for her past work and did not find much, it verifies the claim of lack of notability. If you found some verifiable references for her past work please help update the article. Also, if you say she is a fresh face, how is she notable according to WP:BIO? 116.203.75.96 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

— Dadiji (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Keep Delhi commission for women is not a municipal-level agency. It is an autonomous state level body created by amending the constitution of India in 1994. Saying "This doesn't satisfy our notability standards" seems amusing to me. Wikipedia does not belong to a person, it is a community driven project and saying "our" standards is just amusing, standards are are subjective to the country they belong. Notability depends on the country of the subject and in this case, it must be an important position that it required indian constitution amendment and is all over the news from last 24 hours. A quick google search of the subject fetches 37k+ search results and 5k+ news results as of today https://www.google.co.in/search?q=swati+maliwal and it's just few hours since she is announced the new appointee. Moreover, this article is not about the chair of Delhi commission for women, this is about Swati Maliwal who was Advisor to Chief minister of Delhi before this assignment and has a strong background of activism.--Dadiji (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Delhi Commision for Women was not created by amending the Constitution of India. It was passed by a simple majority by Legislative Assembly of National Capital Territory of Delhi in 1994 just like any other Legislation required to form any other Statutory body by any other State or Union Territory of India.


 * Wikipedia standards for notability for biographies are defined here WP:BIO. Please read. Also a Google search (or any other search for that matter) for any person in news for the reason of appointment to a government office is likely to fetch thousands of results. There are hundreds of newspapers and thousands of blogs reporting an event at the same time. Just beacause a person has been appointed to a Government Office, does not ensure WP:BIO.


 * In fact it is listed as Invalid Criteria WP:INVALIDBIO


 * Sulabhvarshney (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I hope you realize that passing a bill in the assembly/parliament introducing a new act in the constitution is called amending the constitution. Every state has it's own set of rules called state constitution. If an assembly/parliament passes a bill introducing new act (DCW act in this case), the constitution gets amended. There is no point in debating nonsense in this voting. Let the vote finish, even if you don't agree with others' comments, you don't have to reply to each and every vote that you don't agree with.--Dadiji (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read Amendment of the Constitution of India, Act of Parliament, to understand the difference. In India, States do not have a separate Constitution. Passing a law in Legislative assembly does not amend Constitution of India.
 * This being a deletion discussion entry, it is imperative to discuss if page fulfils WP:BIO Sulabhvarshney (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep it is easily sourcable and can be improved. --Amanrajveer (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Search Engine hits is an Invalid Criteria WP:INVALIDBIO
 * Comment Please read WP:INVALIDBIO--Amanrajveer (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Quoting "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking)" Sulabhvarshney (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Amanrajveer (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * Delete Under Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, articles must present differing viewpoints on the subject matter fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Articles should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources, without giving undue weight to particular viewpoints, either negative or positive. The policy of verifiability requires attributing all viewpoints to reliable, published sources, with appropriate citations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism. This page of Swati Maliwal and earlier Swati JaiHind was started by her party supporters in anticipation of this DCW appointment since July 5, 2015. Swati JaiHind got deleted due to BLP issues, then this page Swati Maliwal was created, which was also deleted. Again this page was created yesterday. If this is not PR exercise through Wikipedia what is? Swati supporters are deleting the controversies, which is against wiki norms. This only proves that some people are trying to use wikipedia for personal promotion. This article is a fit candidate for speedy deletion unless all sections of views are accomodated.182.66.9.149 (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: The page looks under construction and can improve over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.137.167 (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The criteria for deltion seems stupid. Delete because not notable and delete because there are x no of states in India ... and so on are not valid. The article satisfies GNG in terms of sources. Saying this person is not notable is akin to saying, Let's delete the article about the Sheriff of Mumbai because the Sheriff is a figurehead. Please provide a valid, POLICY driven reason to delete. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per norms |abp news |YahooNews TY  of  Walk 17:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The coverage of her is not significant, the multiple ghits and whatever are essentially for being appointed to this role (not about her) and the associated accusations of nepotism. That doesn't make her notable. The event perhaps merits a mention in the article in one of Aam Aadmi Party, Arvind Kejriwal, or Government of Delhi articles as an accusation relating to her appointment. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:03, 20 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.