Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savita Kovind

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.

Savita Kovind

Savita Kovind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

• Note I would not necessarily be opposed to the article being kept as a redirect for Ram Nath Kovind if it can be proven that Savita Kovind is going to be a valid search term. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:GNG — but if even the one source that does exist explicitly questions right in its own headline whether it's notable or not, then we can't treat it as an automatic inclusion freebie that somehow exempts her from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep In previous discussions, this community has accepted that the spouse of the President, Prime Minister, or equivalent, constitutes a valid notability claim. (Under that circumstance, all that is needed is a reliable [or official] source confirming that the subject holds that position). While recognizing that consensus can change, one of the basic principles of this encyclopedia is that once a position is presumed notable, the position is notable across nations. In this case, there are several sources that contain information about the subject and her family. --Enos733 (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

does not mean they themselves are notable. Believe me I hate nominating articles for AFDs but there is next to nothing I could find that discussed Savita Kovind in any way not connected to her husband, or at the very least some in-depth coverage. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The usual consensus of keep for the spouse of a political leader is quite long. The spouse of the national political leader was kept at AfD in 2007 (Lebanon), 2010 (Austria) 2014 (Egypt), 2015 (India), 2015 (India), 2016 (Republic of China), 2016 (Sri Lanka) and earlier in August 2017. The only deletion of the spouse of a first lady I found was in 2011 when Safia Farkash, the second wife of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was deleted (However, it was recreated only a few months later and not subject to an AfD). While this is not an exhaustive list , the community consensus seems clear.

In addition, it is described at

WP:NOTINHERITED, that the presumption against inherent notability does not extend to circumstances "of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady." --Enos733 (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

We do, however, still require the First Lady to be sourceable to enough

WP:GNG, which hasn't been demonstrated here at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

There are a multitude of sources that indicate that the subject is the spouse of

WP:GNG states, the "criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it." As was mentioned in the discussion of Representative Adam Young "NPOL doesn't require that we be able to source biographical information about him — that's certainly nice to provide whenever possible, but what's essential in an article about a politician is coverage of his work in politics, not necessarily his birthday or the name of his mother or where he went to high school." --Enos733 (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Sources which just glancingly acknowledge that she exists as a spouse, but aren't about her doing anything first-ladylike, are not the same thing as sources which actually directly address a person's actual work in politics. So #FAIL for trying to use my own words against me — what I said there isn't applicable here, because there's nothing remotely comparable about the type of coverage under discussion in Young's case and the type under discussion here. In fact, my position here is fully consistent with what I said at Adam Young — I asked for coverage of her doing first lady things, which is the same standard I applied to Young. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My stance is that the community consistently has seen the position as notable, and once the position is notable (and the subject is verified as serving in the position), the type of coverage is unnecessary. With a certain degree of regularity, we see elected officials nominated for deletion, and the sole criteria is verifiability of service (and when a subject is deleted, it is because that no source can verify the claim that the subject served in a position that meets

WP:NPOL). The basis behind those decisions is the presumption that additional sourcing exists about the subject. I think a similar standard should apply to the "first spouse" that we apply to state and provincial legislators - once the subject is verified to serve in a position that the community considers notable, the subject is presumed to be notable. --Enos733 (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC) --Enos733 (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Don't know if IP's are allowed to say, but the very fact that she is The First Lady of a country makes her notable. 86.99.13.208 (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. the reason we have established guidelines and conventions is to have some measure of stability, and to make it unnecessary to consider the fundamental merits for every individual case. What we do consistently is an established guideline. It's simpler to have firm rules; I will typically support them if they make sense whether or not I would actually agree with them, because consistency is better than my personal view. DGG ( talk ) 12:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC) .[reply]

• Keep, but possibly merge to
  talk) 00:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Agree with absolutely everything Enos733 has said here. Very well put. Aside from that, I also agree that national First Ladies, including India's and Savita Kovind specifically, are inherently notable. Scanlan (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would just like to point out that the keep !voters seem to be overlooking that in
  WP:GNG but rather that she is presumed to be notable and that if the sources are not be sufficient then more sources should be added and until such time a maintenance tag should be added. Or the sources are sufficient to prove notability. There is almost zero chance that a first lady of any large country would not have enough sources out there but I would imagine that some much smaller nations this would be much harder. I would also point out that "first lady" is not an officiel title in every country (notably in France where I live) and also that polygamy is legal in 58 sovereign states so should we presume that all wives are notable by their marital status?. Domdeparis (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- India is one of the largest countries in the world. The subject became the first lady very recently, so she's likely to get more notable as time passes by. I don't see a point in deleting the article at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2017 (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.