Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriage of Narendra Modi and Jashodaben Chimanlal

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. It is easily argued that every celebrity wedding passes the GNG because of the sheer amount of coverage but, as DGG indicates, that does not mean that therefore they ought to be split from the main article and treated separately. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage of Narendra Modi and Jashodaben Chimanlal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

This article was called Jashodaben once and was turned into redirect to Narendra Modi as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jashodaben (19 June 2014). The martial status of Modi and his estranged wife Jashodaben became a WP:SENSATION, when he revealed it. Before the grand disclosure in election, the yellow media were always vying for an interview with Modi's "secret" wife. Wikipedia is WP:NOTSCANDAL Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that this article represents scandal mongering, and unfit to be an Encyclopedia article. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not this again. This marriage is given adequate coverage in the parent article of Modi, no need for another article. Cowlibob (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject of the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines as it has received coverage in reliable sources repeatedly. Indian sources cited in this article include The Times of India, India Today and The Hindu, none of which should be called yellow journalism as these are among the most reputable English language news sources that India publishes. Outside of India, the British BBC, the Canadian The Globe and Mail, and the United States The Washington Post are cited for their coverage of this topic. The earliest cited work was in OPEN in 2009 and the latest is from this month, so with a range of coverage over years I feel that this topic should not be excluded for being a WP:SENSATION. In the article on the prime minister, the topic of his marriage has never had more than one paragraph of coverage, so this is not already covered in the parent article and it would be WP:UNDUE to merge this content there because there is enough information here for a standalone article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: Firstly I appreciate the work you've done on attempting to write this article but let's compare the content of this article to how it is covered in the main article. Main article: Modi's marriage was first confirmed during the 2014 election, it was a child marriage based on their caste, it wasn't consummated, they were soon estranged, Modi pursued an itinerant life.

What's added in this article: Trivial comments on opposition parties filing charges which is commonplace for Indian politics, soap opera like content like Modi returning having an argument with his parents about the marriage and leaving. A paragraph on Jashodaben early life which I presume is from the previous Afd'ed article on her. A commentary section which is largely derived from an opinion piece, includes a quote from Modi's sister, speculation on why he would hide the marriage and an opposition leader's joke comment. Very superficial.

What new insight is given by this article? What could potentially be saved from this article is an article generally on the importance of "celibacy in Indian politics" which the marriage could being used as an example of many others but I fear even that will be prone to fluff and turn into an essay. Cowlibob (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is brilliantly argued! It seems Wikinews would be a good place to put articles like this. Perhaps we should a section on "Wikipedia is not Wikinews" somewhere? Kautilya3 (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cowlibob I took information which was covered in reliable sources and made this article. If this article contains trivial information then it is because newspapers and magazines have decided that this information is worth distributing. I suppose that the answer to "What new insight is given by this article?" is "Whatever insight is given by the repeated continual coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources." I compiled the article because the usual rule is that if a topic passes WP:GNG then it can have a Wikipedia article, and I thought this topic passed that criteria. I am not sure what more I could say, because almost always in AfD passing GNG is enough to keep an article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: As my statement above had said this topic is already well covered in the main article, Narendra Modi. The "extra material" added in this article does not justify a separate article. Simply passing GNG does not justify an unneeded content fork. Cowlibob (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: I agree that the topic is well covered in the main article. This information is much too detailed to go there, though.

WP:N says that a subject which passes GNG is presumed to merit its own article. I am not sure what more that I can say, because I am expecting this AfD to be decided by whether this subject meets WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject meets the general notability guidelines and have significant coverage in reliable sources as well as @Bluerasberry: is wise and knowledgeable enough about the policies of Wikipedia hence his hardwork in improving the article should not be wasted and his comment should be considered while reviewing the AfD. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or redirect to Narendra Modi, although the title is not a reasonable search term) as per issues of WP:SENSATION, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT. This article is a perfect example of WP:LARDING (the essay needs to be written) in which instead of summarizing secondary sources (as a encyclopedia is supposed to do), editors scrape every possible minor mention of a topic and add excessive verbiage to make the result look "encyclopedic" in length, if not in content. To give a specific example: This Caravan article covers Narendra Modi's marriage in 119 words (in a 17,858 word profile). Yet, somehow magically its contents have been expanded to 162 words and a separate section in the current version of the wikipedia article (and yes, I excluded the sole sentence in the section that cited another source, before counting the words). Ditto for a flippant suggestion by an opposition MP that Jashodaben be awarded India's highest civilian honour, which gets a paragraph of its own. To summarize my !vote: the encyclopedic details of the article can and should be adequately summarized in the Narendra Modi article. The rest is fluff with obvious WP:BLP1E issues (for Jashodaben Chimanlal, not Modi). Abecedare (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC) (Fixed a couple of typos Abecedare (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC) )[reply]

@Abecedare: This simply mean you failed to find the independent sources or not aware of WP:INDAFD, you should have a look at the custom search engine here. You should be aware that even poorly sourced article can be notable it doesn't mean it can be deleted. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare I count differently. The passages are below, and in my counting, the source material was 275 words and I reduced this to 162 words. "LARDING" would be a bad thing but I feel that the content here is a summary of the sources cited.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had counted the words in the "His parents had...uncertain families behind" paragraph in the Caravan article, but even the extended extracts, with discussion of Modi's sanyas and his work in a canteen, doesn't change my substantive point. Essentially we differ in our editorial judgment on what is the appropriate level of detail in a secondary source versus a tertiary source, and whether WP:GNG is a substitute for the requisite editorial judgment. IMO wikipedia errs on the issue sometimes, and when the error concerns trivialities (eg, Invitations to the first inauguration of Barack Obama) it is best to let it go. However when it concerns issues of BLP, like in a properly sourced and GNG compliant (yet unencyclopedic) article on Michelle Obama's arms or this particular AFD, we need to be more vigilant about what writing an encyclopedia means. Abecedare (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can think of remarkably few marriages in all of human history (as close as possible, in fact, to exactly none as I can get without falling afoul of the "never say never" rule) that would actually warrant a standalone encyclopedia article on the marriage itself, separate from the biographical articles about the bride and/or groom — and, indeed, as far as I can tell we appear not to have standalone articles about any other individual marriage in the history of human marriage. And I'm not seeing any strong evidence that this one is so hugely significant as to warrant being the first time we've ever done such a thing, either. We cover marriages in the BLPs of the individual people who got married, not in separate content fork articles where the marriage itself is the topic. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The marriage of Figaro ? :-) Abecedare (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject is notable, demonstrated by sources. Everyking (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt The discussion on Jashodaben is getting tedious. As mentioned above (and in every other AfD on her), she is a WP:BLP1E and this event is WP:SENSATION. The 'for' camp have come up with no new reasons why the article should stay, whereas the 'against' camp have consistently had solid reasons for its exclusion. Primefac (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is well enough sourced that it should be included somewhere, and meets the GNG. The re-scoping has nicely defined that the article to not be a BLP1E, it should not now attract information on every part of the woman's life. It is an appropriate spinout of the PM because the detail is decidedly tangential. Yes, this is an unusual case. Rarely does a such a notable marriage involve one person who has never been public. If not to be kept as a standalone article, merging is appropriate and deletion is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Many good reasons have been already presented. Subject is not significant enough have its own article. The relevant information is already present in Modi's own article. Modi is a high profile politician and everything related to him will get lot of coverage, but that won't make them independently notable. Moreover, the point of contention in Indian politics is Modi hiding his marital status not Jashodaben or his marriage with Jashodaben.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 11:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG. May not be as well-known to those in the US or Britain as more local political nonsense, but nonetheless has adequate coverage. Perceived "triviality" is especially problematic as a criterion given that it falls outside of English Wikipedia editors' usual interest areas ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 17:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This split of one aspect of someone's personal life into a separate article is never a good idea. A bio article should be comprehensive for at least the person life; people expect to find it in one place. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inexplicable split of one small aspect of subject's like, possibly as a way of getting a DYK hook on the subject onto Main Page. EEng (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2014 (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.