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

This article was called

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
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]

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
Hangout 13:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete (or redirect to
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
]

@

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.

Extended content

There are 275 words in this passage.

His parents had arranged him a marriage in keeping with the traditions of the Ghanchi caste in Vadnagar, which involved a three-step process that began with an engagement at age three or four, a religious ceremony (shaadi) by the age of 13, and cohabitation (gauna) around the age of 18 or 20, when the parents felt the time had come. Modi was engaged to a girl three years younger than him, Jashodaben Chimanlal, from the neighbouring town of Brahamanwada. They had completed shaadi when Modi was only 13, Sombhai told me. But at age 18, with a higher call beckoning him, Modi decided to set off and wander in the Himalayas, leaving his wife and two uncertain families behind. The only source of information for Modi’s travels during this time is Modi himself: even his family had no idea of his whereabouts. “Mother and all of us were very worried for him,” Sombhai recalled. “We had no idea where he had disappeared to. Then, two years later, he just turned up one day. He told us he had decided to end his sanyas and would go to Ahmedabad and work at our uncle Babubhai’s canteen.” “I remember,” one of the Modi family’s neighbours in Vadnagar told me, “before Narendra left again, his mother wanted to set him up with his wife, so they asked Jashodaben’s parents to send her here for gauna. On the day Jashodaben came for gauna, Modi fought with the family and left home again.” In Ahmedabad, Modi helped his uncle run a canteen at the city bus stand, and then set up his own teacart on a cycle near Geeta Mandir.
— Vinod K. Jose, The Emperor Uncrowned, Caravan

There are 162 words in the Wikipedia passage.

Narendra Modi and Jashodaben had an arranged marriage in the custom of the Ghanchi caste of Vadnagar. Around age three or four they were engaged. Around age thirteen they had shaadi, which is the wedding of marriages in India. When Modi was eighteen and his wife was fifteen, it was time for gauna, a consummation practice. Shortly after this time, Modi separated from his wife and began wandering in the Himalayas practicing Sannyasa for two years out of contact with anyone who knew him. When he returned to contact with his family, he made plans to go to Ahmedabad to work at his uncle's canteen without Jashodaben. Before he left, his mother arranged for Jashodaben's parents to send her to meet Modi to sustain the gauna. The day that she arrived in the house of Modi's family, Modi had an argument with them and left their home to meet his uncle as planned. After Modi left, he continued with his professional life.

Here is the coverage in the Narendra Modi article. This is 68 words.

In keeping with the traditions of the Ghanchi caste, Modi's marriage was arranged by his parents while he was still a child. He was engaged at the age of 13 to Jashodaben Chimanlal, and the couple were married by the time he was 18. They spent little time together, and were soon estranged when Modi decided to pursue an itinerant life. The marriage was reportedly never consummated.

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

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.