Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navin Chawla (judge)

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. Closing per WP:SNOW (and the only conceivable merge/redirect target is currently oversighted and blacklocked -- we are in some truly grim days of the WWW). jp×g 🗯️ 14:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navin Chawla (judge)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No WP:SIGCOV for the subject. In this refbombed blp, leaving aside the primary sources [1],[2] all the rest are trivial mentions.

In the discussion with one of the user on the talk page of the article, ~~they~~ I argue that

1) Verbatim quotations reproduced without any independent commentary from the reliable source, does not qualify sigcov criteria.

2) ~~They~~ I also argue that the SNG WP:JUDGE which presumes notability is not a valid argument to make, when the guideline says meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Also, the presumption does not hold if challenged by other editor. The guideline says topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia

Imo, the only contention that needs resolving is whether verbatim quotations from the article's subject qualify as sigcov. If they do, we could have perhaps an

both of which wouldn't qualify WP:NLIST. Judges in India usually maintain a low-profile and media attention that the article's subject has received (partly due to wikipedia's circular reporting in Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation) is not an attention-seeking behaviour as per WP:LPI. — hako9 (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Delhi. — hako9 (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no coverage about the judge himself, only cases he has covered. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bus driver drive busses. Judges judge cases. Without secondary coverage, neither is inherently notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we had a large number of articles about a bus driver's driving they would be notable... We also seem to have secondary coverage (that is we have sources talking about what other sources said about the subject) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think we're over the WP:GNG line into notability... Extended coverage of their legal opinions are as much significant coverage as extended discussions of anyone elses opinions. They don't somehow not count because the subject is a judge, there is no negative part of that notability standard. I don't buy the WP:LPI argument, they don't appear to meet the criteria as laid out. I would also note that the article currently only incorporates english language sources, likely there is coverage in other languages which can still be presumed to exist. I would also note that OP's opening statement is more than a little unorthodox, "Imo, the only contention that needs resolving is whether verbatim quotations from the article's subject qualify as sigcov" is just plain misleading because thats just not an accurate description of the coverage we have and you can't misrepresent the views of others like that (I think I'm the user they're trying to call out, but I didn't argue either of those things they're red herring). Hako9 also chose not to notify the other users they mentioned in the OP of this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended coverage of their legal opinions are as much significant coverage as extended discussions of anyone elses opinions what does extended coverage mean for you? Verbatim reproduction of oral arguments made by a judge during a court proceeding is the job of a court stenographer. The secondary reliable sources that have reproduced the quotes have not published their articles with the judge in mind. They published those because they are following the case. And once again try to not make ridiculous arguments like Wikipedia:But there must be sources!, and waste other editors' time. You insert yourself in discussions about topics which are out of your depth, and you try to make a lazy argument that there are sources but I just can't find them. Doesn't work. And explain how I misrepresented your views. — hako9 (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources go well beyond just verbatim reproduction of oral arguments made by a judge during a court proceeding, they also talk about the impact of the judge's rulings and have third parties who offer their opinion on the arguments and/or their impact. It misrepresents my arguments because I neither argue that verbatim quotations reproduced without any independent commentary from the reliable source, does qualify sigcov criteria or that the SNG WP:JUDGE which presumes notability is a valid argument to make Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources go well beyond just verbatim reproduction of oral arguments made by a judge during a court proceeding, they also talk about the impact of the judge's rulings and have third parties who offer their opinion on the arguments and/or their impact They don't. — hako9 (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greco, Albert (2024). "The Impact of Legal, Intellectual Property, and Copyright Infringement Issues: 2000–2022". The Strategic Marketing of Science, Technology, and Medical Journals. Palgrave Macmillan. {{cite book}}: |url-access= requires |url= (help); Wikipedia Library link in |chapter-url= (help) (wplibrary) Blocking Sci-Hub
"Delhi HC asks Google, X to remove posts against Om Birla's daughter". The Indian Express. July 24, 2024.
"Shankaracharya sues Govindananda Saraswati for calling him 'fake baba'; Delhi HC responds". Hindustan Times. August 13, 2024.

fiveby(zero) 17:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reproducing the relevant bit However, by 2021, international concerns about Sci-Hub’s illegal activities became more intense, including a major litigation against Sci Hub in India, initiated by ACS, Elsevier, and Wiley, which triggered Sci-Hub to stop illegal downloads onto the Sci-Hub website.52 While the U.S. lawsuits posed some threats to Sci-Hub’s reputation, no financial payments were ever made by Sci-Hub to any of the plaintiffs. However, the litigation in India posed an exceptionally serious threat to Sci-Hub; and, for the first time, Sci-Hub decided to mount a serious defense before the Delhi High Court’s Justice Navin Chawla. Sci-Hub was concerned that its services could be blocked in India.53 This prompted Elbakyan to submit a written appeal to the High Court. A number of prominent Indian scholars supported keeping Sci-Hub on line; and they insisted that the loss of Sci-Hub would pose a serious burden on academics and students since blocking Sci-Hub would have a dramatic impact on scholar ship and research.54 However, Justice Chawla pointed out that Elbakyan’s written appeal to the High Court indicated clearly that Sci-Hub had “unequivocally admitted” to copyright infringement; and the Court ruled against Sci-Hub and the other defendants. Therefore, access to Sci-Hub in India was blocked.

Is this significant coverage of Chawla, according to you? I don't think so. Quite noteworthy for an article on the Sci-Hub case though. — hako9 (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to the run of the mill coverage in the dozen other sources cited. — hako9 (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With ATG right now, but looking. Your nomination is offensive. It's not an uncontrollable itch. fiveby(zero) 17:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be my shitty sense of humor. — hako9 (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this what can one learn about Judge Chawla from any of these articles, except a) He heard X case b) He made Y decision. — hako9 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That it? WP cant inform anyone with that article is probably true tho. fiveby(zero) 18:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is trivia. Not significant coverage. — hako9 (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the HT article syndicated from ANI, is another in the long list of sources for which the only use in the context of the article in discussion, is making a list of cases where the subject presided over. So its not sigcov. — hako9 (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liked the quote, it's covered elsewhere. They are political cases and best leads i saw for finding something. Everyone understands the point you keep making. fiveby(zero) 15:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been mentioned in Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 8#The Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation situation. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not SIGCOV; Wikipedia's purpose is for noegenesis, not for infantile attempts to pester people you may harbour a dislike towards. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the uncontrollable itch that one could have when they have shit stuck up in their ass and there's no toilet paper. Is there some reason you're so rude and crude in your nomination? Please reword. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think hako9 is annoyed because he thinks people are creating Wikipedia articles for the deliberate purpose of antagonizing the judge in the ongoing WMF vs ANI case, even when they aren't justified by sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then he should AGF... It appears that if the judge is notable they became so as a result of the coverage around that case so its a bit of a chicken and egg situation... I would also note that we have hundreds of pages for Indian judges which are less well sourced than this one, Jyoti Singh (judge) for example has almost the exact same experience, rank, and education as Chawla. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A user as experienced as you should know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument at AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it was notable because of that, I noted the apparent state of consensus. Do you have any comment on AGF and the chicken and egg nature of the alledged notability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea we have plenty of articles that need to be trashed. Fortunately, we have a place called afd. — hako9 (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for rewording. I appreciate it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Per Traumnovelle and ATG. Horse Eye's Back point is persuasive, however coverage thus far were about the cases, not the judge as a person. I would however consider otherwise if there are sources that studied his rulings. – robertsky (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - It appears that India's mainstream media — to avoid facing contempt of Court or otherwise — is reluctant to profile Judges; there is nothing even on Judges who have been appointed to the Supreme Court of India. I am sympathetic to HEB's argument but feel that the existing coverage is singularly about the cases, not the Judge. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources either mention him in passing or quote his rulings; neither qualifies as SIGCOV. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, what would you consider significant coverage for a judge? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles in reliable sources that focused either on the judge himself -- his biography, education, and so on -- or his rulings as a whole, characterizing his judgements in some way. Those would be treating him as the subject of the source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that they need to be treated as the subject of the source seems to go beyond the guideline which says that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." although I respect that where that line actually falls is a matter of personal judgement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right of course, and in fact I had a slightly longer post originally, with parentheticals "(or at least parts of sources)" to make the point that I don't think that standard is met. I trimmed it thinking I was being unnecessarily wordy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is created on 15-10-2021 [3] appears to be a reaction to recent events that have angered judges and may be related to a pending legal case. The sources cited on the page are outdated, suggesting that the page may have been created earlier but only published now. This timing raises concerns about its potential impact on the legal proceedings and violates Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZandraBlaese (talk • contribs) 10:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC) — ZandraBlaese (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
15-10-2021, 2024 you meant? – robertsky (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ATG and TrangaBellam. One would have thought there would be something here for this level tho. fiveby(zero) 15:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC) Keep, since i guess we're abandoning principles here. fiveby(zero) 05:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to post anonymously (we hope) on the internet and praise freedom, but external events can have serious consequences for some and removing public information about contributors for a period is probably a wise procedure. The article and talk page have been deleted and all edits, edit summaries, and user names have been suppressed so even administrators are unable to view them. Whether or not we agree with that action, a keep vote based on it is not valid. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not invalid, it's irrelevant. Not the closer's or the communities anymore (which would have been the right one). So why do you care how i vote? fiveby(zero) 08:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Delhi High Court, where the subject is mentioned, per WP:ATD. I find this to be a close case, as WP:JUDGE would apply if this was a national or state-level high court, and the court is itself a constitutional body in its country. However, I think this is more akin to an intermediate appellate court due to the Supreme Court of India having appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by this court. BD2412 T 01:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, so it's not a state, it's a Union territory. Live and learn. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SCI has appellate jurisdiction over all state-level High Courts in India. That's a nonsensical reason. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reliable sources mention the judge in connection with legal cases. Even if a case satisfies WP:N, that is not inherited by the person who happens to be judging the case. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current events may result in more significant coverage down the line, but it's not there yet. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The role of a judge is inherently tied to the cases they preside over and the judgments they deliver. And the notability guideline on SIGCOV does not mention that the coverage must focus on personal life or background, so coverage of rulings and judgments should be equally valid. Per Rjjiii’s comment, I believe we will have more coverage once the case is over. With this in mind, would those supporting deletion consider switching to draftify instead? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging AndyTheGrump, Hemiauchenia, Traumnovelle, Hako9, Robertsky, TrangaBellam, Mike Christie, ZandraBlaese, BD2412, Johnuniq, Rjjiii, GrabUp. Kindly ignore the ping if you are not interested in changing your stance. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the circumstances I think deletion is preferable. Undeletion can always be requested later, you could also make a copy of it in a text file too. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to draftification, but the link should still be a redirect, as a valid redirect target clearly exists. BD2412 T 12:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was also considering writing this article a few days ago, but while searching for SIGCOV sources, I only found coverage related to cases that are not truly SIGCOV. I would have created it as a pass under WP:JUDGE if the subject were a Chief Justice of that court. However, the current sourcing does not establish notability; the subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. GrabUp - Talk 08:30, 21 October 2024 (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.