Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durga Shakti Nagpal

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 and cleanup. After discounting the SPA !votes, and after using tags to search through reliable sources such as The Times of India, Hindustan Times, and The Telegraph (Calcutta), it's clear this woman is no longer a low-profile person. The article needs some serious NPOV and MOS cleanup, but it's a keeper. KrakatoaKatie 20:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Durga Shakti Nagpal

Not notable, in the news for one incident, does not need an article as per WP:BLP1E. - Aurorion (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this -- Though her suspension may be a single incidence, it is likely to have far-reaching consequences, particularly parliamentary elections before end of term of Lok Sabha are likely to be announced in India. Further, this incidence has strained the political relations between Samajwadi Party and Congress in India, as Congress wants to gain political mileage by coming to rescue of Durga Shakti Nagpal. Hence people in future will want to know about Durga Shakti Nagpal, although most of the Indian politicians of Samajwadi Party do not want to give any publicity to this matter. hence it is understandable that they would like deletion of this article, since their entire government is surviving because of support of money obtained from illegal mining. It is already well-known that Indian political parties are opposed to Right to Information, and want to keep secret their sources of funding received.
  • Keep this -- This article does not come under [[1]] because she is not likely to remain a low profile individual.Subhash198 (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this - Sources are clearly quoted in article. Why this article should be deleted? 71.190.181.71 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Sandeep Chilukuri[reply]
  • Keep this -- Every one want to know about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.22.146 (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - The comment that it is just an ongoing news is not correct. In fact the lady officer has already created history by cracking down on the most powerful and corrupt politicians in a state which has a record of honest officers getting murderd by such elements. Has it happened in ever in the history of India? Her action assumes historical significance as it came at a time when general atmosphere in India full of hopelessness due to new scams unearthing every week. It gave a hope to the common man that all is not over, It gave people someone to support for. We have wikipedia pages for honorable Anna Hazare and honorable Kiran Bedi. Ms Nagpal has done what both Annaji and Ms Bedi are also doing in their respective capacities- enlighten, give hope, awake. 15:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shravanshukla (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - This article is about a person who is becoming an icon of fight against corruption. The report submitted by her supervisors exonerated her, while the government seems to on the back foot. The original contention below is no longer valid. One can find hundreds of article, and tens of related events that followed the original incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadasoham (talk • contribs) 14:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC) — Sadasoham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - Article is about a person who is fighting with corrupt system and milestone of society. This article is information about, we should not surrender in front of mafia, corruption etc. Article is more important comparison to Politician.(Gokulchandola (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not for you to WP:SOAPBOX. noq (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gokulchandola perhaps means that the subject is notable for her grit in taking on corruption. No soap boxing there. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That just says its too early for an article - at the moment it is just a news story. If it becomes more than that then an article could be created - but this isn't it. noq (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you go through the article again? I have added some content, which may establish notability - maybe you could suggest some improvements. Also, the article can be loosely divided into 3 separate incidents. One is the illegal sand-mining and its crack-down (see this and this). Second, and the major part is about the officer's suspension after the crackdown. Third is the legal context due to filing of the PIL in the high court. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is notable in the article would be better placed in Mining scam in India rather than this article. noq (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article looks good in the current form. The person was solely responsible for the action against the illegal mining in Noida. Yeah, the background section can be expanded a lot, and can definitely be added to the Mining scam in India article. But the person in question is already notable for 2 different, tho related incidents, and is the reason for a third. With more time, the article can be expanded even more. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks credibility? As this is a WP:BLP, I have ensured that all references are reliable sources. Can you help me in locating the portions which lack credibility, so I can correct them. Also, you say the article is copied. Do you mean there are copyright violations in the article? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 03:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Most of the sources are cited properly and they come under WP:RS. Assuming good faith the sources cited should be considered right. My suggestion is that the article requires a bit cleaning.-- 14.98.89.139 (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC) — 14.98.89.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: After spending quite a lot of time in expanding the article, I believe I should change my vote. Though it may have initially felt like a 2-day news event, on deeper study I have tried to establish that the subject of the article was "in the news" over a period of several months before the current event. I have expanded on that, and in all likelihood, it can be expanded even more. Also, as per many reliable sources, the matter is not going to die down, in fact, it is set to gather more steam. Also noted by the sources is the fact that it is quite a unique event for administrative officers in India to actively rally against the political hierarchy. Hence there is large possibility of future expansion, and it is not a one-off news event. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 06:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that as of now, WP:BLP1E can definitely not be applied here. WP:NOTNEWS is also not longer applicable due to the very large coverage of the events described in article, and the person's centrality to all of them. Since the reasons put forth by the nominators for deletion no longer exist, this AfD should be closed ASAP and the article kept. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't think Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event gives grounds for deletion. Firstly, the event of her suspension is clearly significant, since there has been significant press coverage about it, and apparently nationwide protests. Secondly, it's clear that she has a central role in this event. Thirdly, coverage is about two separate topics: her enforcement of laws against sand mining, and her suspension, which was (allegedly) for unrelated reasons. Horatio (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Inappropriate tagging.
  1. wp:LOTSOFSOURCES reads: "Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions. Notability requires the presence of significant treatment of a subject in reliable independent sources, not just the mere presence of the searched-for term. Search aggregators are also prone to picking up user-comments too. So it is important to specify the actual sources which can be used instead of just linking to a search of them, and to consider whether these sources provide enough information to write a reasonably detailed article on the subject, rather than a hopeless stub. This also applies to lists of 'Media Coverage/In the News' sections on websites". I don't see any of the above in relation to the present article; (1) There isn't trivial mention (2) They are all reliable sources (3) There is a significant treatment of the subject (4) The actual sources are used (5) there is significant treatment in reliable independent sources. (5)We are able to write a detailed article and not a "hopeless stub". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. wp:GHITS : The editor isn't talking about ghits, the subject has significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources in relation to multiple reasons. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. wp:GREATWRONGS: Is about original research, "On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." In this case there is no OR. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. wp:CRYSTAL is about "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." This article doesn't contain unverifiable speculation. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those links are relating to comments in this discussion - they are pointing out problems with those arguments, not with the article. IF you read the comments they are applied to they make perfect sense. noq (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One keep voter writes: "This article is about a person who is becoming an icon of fight against corruption. The report submitted by her supervisors exonerated her, while the government seems to on the back foot. The original contention below is no longer valid. One can find hundreds of article, and tens of related events that followed the original incident." In Wikipedia jargon I read the above: "The subject is notable, her notability has been established by various reliable sources related to multiple reasons for notability." How is this Greatwrongs or Lotsofsources? One has to agf and allow for the lack of expertise of new editors who are contributing to this discussion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see the page view statistics here. We have an article here which is of interest to some 150 million people, and when some of them reach this page, they see a big bold box which says that the article is considered to be deleted and they can contest that. So of course some of them comment here. To accuse them of being ignorant of wiki-policies, or being SPA or canvassed users is a little funny. :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
35280 page views and counting. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with YK. Experienced editors, especially admins, should do better than simply quoting wiki jargon. If they indeed wanna help, they can write in a single line what they want to say. Don't they know that directing someone to chunk is as good as writing chunk here? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have voted once before. Do not vote again. You may however comment as many times as you want.§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The argument that she is a young administrative officer who is fighting corruption really cannot be held valid here. We are an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. If it satisfies Notability, Verifiability guidelines, it is enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agree. The article shouldn't stand merely on the merit of "fighting corruption", which would contravene WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We should get a better sense of WP:Notability etc. once the story unfolds. Rohini (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly wp:oseish for someone of your experience? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attack other users. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't take it as attack or setback. It is fine for me, and I have always maintained that an encyclopedia can not be created based on consensus. --Bhadani (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bhadani, i agree that many of the IAS/IPS officers would be notable enough to keep for their various works but only that we don't get enough sources. If you are interested and have time, i think you should know that there was a recent mass AfDs of many such articles. That's more like FYI. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't close this AfD before every active editor from India has voted keep, then I'll print this AfD and hang it on our study wall as a keepsake as an AfD that polarised Indian editors. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So true! Such a good number of IP's editing the article too. Hope all experienced editors will help with solving reviewer's comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Durga Shakti Nagpal also. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a debate on whether she does her job or not. This is to discuss the notability of this article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a majority vote. This will be closed after a week or so after being kept open. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The events that have happened after the decisions made by her are receiving significant attention in the country. As a result, people are keen on knowing more about her. This article is very valuable as it provides a background about the officer in question that media articles have not carried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.114.13.162 (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: On the whole, a well-researched BOLP article with lots of inline citations. I googled "durga nagpal" (in quotes) --> 520,000 hits. All articles on the first five response pages were about this person, and seemed quite different. Even if that number includes many copies etc, notability is not an issue. I support User:Abhijeet Safai's comment above -it is surprising to see this article tagged for deletion. mukerjee (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Keep this article. Durga Shakti Nagpal is a shining example of how young generation of India wants to fight corruption and how bureaucracy is used to subvert honest and just actions in name of appeasement of minorities. It should also be noted that how well known leaders have come together to fight this injustice. --Saravana tk (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article. This a good reference for political science student. Particularly some one who is interested in looking into the role of administration in managing public expectations and implementing rules clashing with contemporary political establishment. A relevant case study can be formed based on this article in future.--Abhi (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Please Keep" wikipedia has always been a help in knowing the information which is generally not available any where else, this is the article which should be kept as now we all want to know about herAnand P Dubey (talk)
Haha! Right! That tool checks for only bold words. So if i write keep, keep, keep, keep, many times, it adds them all, i guess. Lets check now! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ohkaaay! It doesn't do that. Its not as dumb as i thought it is. But i expect a better admin to close this. I only bolded the opinions so they are visible to admins. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It counts the first letter of the first word, the first word should be Keep or Delete in bold. Even votes with 'Please Do not Delete' does not count. -- ɑηsuмaη « ৳ᶏ ɭϞ » 17:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: AfD Vote Counter is not showing my view. This is wrong method to count votes. I am creator of this article and want to keep. But tool is showing my vote in Deletion favor ??? joke/// This is not question about Vote ... Counting of Votes, wrong method??. I am also surprise that, this tag is still exist (AfD) what administrators are doing. Mean they should take decision.(Gokulchandola (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
You've voted once, hence I am striking out your vote. The tag will exist for long enough for consensus to be built in this case. Do not blame admins for anything, they already have a tough role out there. The AfD counter only checks the first letter of the vote. D for Delete, K for Keep, R for Redirect and M for erge. Don't blame the tool or it's creator gagain. Also, you do not OWN the article because you created it, everyone has an equal vote here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case I am replacing do not delete with keep.--PremKudvaTalk 08:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete? To those who say this case is not notable enough for Durga Shakti Nagpal to warrant a page on its own, I would point to the long rich pages dedicated to page 3 celebrities and reality TV starlets. Taking down this page would be inconsistent with Wikipedia criteria. My own two-cents: People clamouring for removal of non-offensive content is good reason to retain the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.97.197.164 (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC) This[reply]
  • Strong Keep : Ms Durga Shakti Nagpal is now icon of freedom to work honest as IAS officer vs. Political influence over bureaucracy and whole nation (india) is clamoring for her cause and support.She is notable person as her work qualified or lead to national expose of political influence on government machinery. I recommend a strong keep.Please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.2.207 (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" : This article should not be deleted. The source of this article is whole Indian Media. People must know about her as she has set an example of honesty which is still rare in the country.


Reason enough to keep, but these new accounts and IPs make me smell some sockpuppets. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP page is linked to news stories about this on Google News, that could be a major source for many of the hits. Moreover, this is surely a hot topic now. When I nominated this for AfD, it was still a new news item; but now it has stayed in the news for several days. I am now quite ambivalent about whether it should be deleted. - Aurorion (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The excessive detail--and the arguments for keeping -- are essentially promotionalism. The merit of the cause being promoted is irrelevant. It might be possible to start over , if someone is prepared to write a proportionate article. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So your concern is only the shabbyness of the article and not notability. Is my understanding right? And which can be solved by simply working on the current article itself than rewriting everything from start. Isn't it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The tone of the article matches the tone of the reliable sources that have covered it. Please go through the article and its references again. Excessive detail is never a cause to delete an article. I never supported to keep the article for the "merit of the cause"; a lot of editor who edit in this field have supported to keep the article citing policy. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 06:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article can be rewritten, it doesn't have to be deleted for that. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2013 (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.