Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jashodaben Modi (3rd nomination)

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jashodaben Modi

Jashodaben Modi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant violation of WP:NOTINHERITED. All sources talk significantly about Narendra Modi, the Indian Prime Minister. I don't see any sources that discuss her without significantly talking about Narendra Modi. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator's statement is blatantly false, for one NOTINHERITED is not a guideline that can be "violated", and significant ongoing coverage of her in many international sources includes [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. I have voted delete on many people whose sole claim to fame was a relation, but she has received much legitimate coverage about her relationship clearly passing GNG. Reywas92Talk 18:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of these sources do not confirm that the subject is notable at all outside the relationship with Narendra Modi. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly misunderstand NotInherited. It does not mean that sources are forbidden from mentioning the related person to count. Most sources about every first lady for every country will be premised on the relationship and would not get coverage at all were they not married to a leader. Reywas92Talk 18:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jashodaben Modi is not a "first lady" of India. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to the folks at Spouse of the prime minister of India then. Reywas92Talk 17:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The sources listed by Reywas92 are very convincing and more than enough for WP:GNG-based notability. They are all primarily about the subject, in-depth, appear reliable, and span a wide range of years. Nomination is based on a blatant misunderstanding of NOTINHERITED: it does not prevent someone related to more-famous topics from having articles, if they themselves are also notable. For instance, most sources about Narendra Modi are going to mention the country of India, a more notable topic than Narendra Modi; nevertheless, Narendra Modi is also notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a clear cut misrepresentation of NOTINHERITED. The coverage of this subject is clearly depending on the popularity of Narendra Modi. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what? NOTINHERITED clearly states "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship ... if they pass WP:GNG". The coverage of Narendra Modi is clearly depending on the significance of the country of India; does that make Narendra Modi non-notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Srijanx22 it would have been appropriate to do a courtesy ping of all those who !voted in the first two AFDs considering that the consensus was delete in both of them and the sources considered were almost the same. VV 09:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Pinging @RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, LibStar, Redtigerxyz, Johnpacklambert, Sitush, Bejnar, and EricSerge:. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the last AfD was in 2014 and that most of the sources from Reywas92 (considered also in my comment) have a later date than that. Therefore, I believe your claim that "the sources considered were almost the same" is false. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein to clarify, while the sources by Reywas92 are newer, the issues have persisted from time much before which is why I !voted keep due to WP:SUSTAINED. Certain aspects are unique to post-ascendance to the PM post. Best! VV 06:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lol it is you! So pity🥺. You also need to read WP:IDONTLIKE. VocalIndia (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep My knee jerk reaction was not notable but, looking at the article, I do see that she has been busy since the last time I !voted on this. While still marginal, we should probably keep this article. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.