Talk:Swati Maliwal

Comment

I had only created this page as a redirect but another user expanded it as a stub . The Guardian calls her Prominent Feminist Thursday’s decision was decried by some prominent feminists including Swati Maliwal, Delhi’s commissioner for women as per this and it can taken to AFD if anyone wishes but have removed the prod.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Sigh, I expected something better from you! Just because someone is called prominent by the Guardian doesn't make them notable. Either ways, I have no interest in wasting my time any more on this. Let the spamming continue. —SpacemanSpiff 02:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• @SpacemanSpiff: I agree with you. I did not create this article only created a redirect and would not have created it but another user created it .But felt it was a not a speedy candidate.There is some coverage from BBC ,CNN and Guardian.I had made a request in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red and it has been improved by Megalibrarygirl and all spamming is now removed.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed three sections

@Vincentvikram:, why did you remove "Activism", "Work at DCW", and "Rape Roko movement" sections? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 02:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Lightbluerain since my edit summaries are in place anything in specific? VV 03:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Vincentvikram, I was working on the article. It was this when I started. I just discontinued editing it for some days but I was not done with improving it. While I agree that it didn't have quite reliable sources for the information you removed, some of the information (like the Rape Roko Movement) you removed were those that the subject is well known for. And, the "Activism" tells more of how she reached there. I agree that had no source yet. But, this was not controversial either. A simple citation needed template could do. And, I feel you were correct to remove "Work at DCW" from the article, since it was not the subject. But, I think we know her more for DCW and nothing else. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 08:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lightbluerain! Feel free to revert my edits if they can be substantiated with RS. However, I don't think it is necessary to include work of the DCW in this page even if they were under a specific person. The org and person are separate entities. Stating that the subject is the current head of a dept is sufficient for an encyclopedia. Also do have a look at WP:NOTCV, which was the entire tone of the article when I worked on it. Further, there was a claim that the subject started the Rape roko movement for which there was no mention in RS(unless I missed it). Do have a look at WP:PEACOCK for other improvements I made. Best! VV 08:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Vincentvikram, I was working on improving peacock terms. For the CV, thanks for your edits. I thought I covered the issue earlier when I deleted some of the favouring words. But, perhaps, I lack the knowledge of what makes it sound like a CV. I do feel like adding some important info back but not by undoing the edits. I would find RS first this time and, then, write new sentences that would sound encyclopedic from the get go. It really doesn't seem sensible to rewrite those sentences now. Thanks to your removal, else I wouldn't get the idea. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 12:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

May I suggest posting your text here and perhaps I can give you feedback.. VV 12:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Vincentvikram, I guess you mean that before writing the "new sentences" (that I talked of in my previous reply) in the article directly, I write them here first so you can give feedback on them. If this is what you meant, then I am a little busy right now that's why I discontinued editing it earlier. But, once I got some time, I'll surely do that and ping you. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 06:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Separate article for assault case

The assault case has been widely covered in the media with multiple news reports over an extended period, still the weightage in her article feels lower than the weight of the situation. I am proposing a separate article for the incident, opinions? Xoocit (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)