Jyoti Singh (judge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)} – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Not a public figure - Indian judges are not public figures and are bound by code of values not to publicise themselves or to respond to publicity about them. Furthermore there is no SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE and has same rationale as deletion of Navin Chawla (judge) a contemporary equivalent level judge of same court. JudgeMistry (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable by virtue of her position. Inherently a public figure, despite whatever taboos against self-publicity may exist. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Judges and politicians are not inherently notable. WP:NPOL only gives presumptive notability because significant coverage usually exists for national and region-level politicians. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we're literally being sued for doing something similar with another Indian judge. Bearian (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• SUPPORT: It is a very bad idea to have articles on High Court judges of India, especially of the High Court at New Delhi. The nominator is correct that rationale of HMJ Navin Chawla deletion logic should be followed for consistency. Not following that deletion discussion's outcome and reasoning only strengthens the argument that Wikipedia's editorial processes are arbitrary and inconsistent. अधिवक्ता संतोष (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:NJUDGE. She is covered here and here in-depth. 91.156.126.140 (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE: The second link is a word to word copy paste from the hon'ble judge's official CV on the Delhi High Court website (so irrelevant). The first link is a routine listing because the "roster" of the Delhi High Court changes every 6 months, and in 2024 the hon'ble judge was routinely assigned IP cases, as was also the other judge named. The Delhi High Court decides most of the complex IP cases of India, so this is a busman award for driving busses. FYI, HMJ Ms. Pratibha Singh is acknowledged to be the foremost IP judge of the Delhi High Court. NB: I have a declared conflict of interest being an officer of the court/s in question.अधिवक्ता संतोष (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Added references and a bit more info, trying to save the page as she meets criteria for judges. Davidindia (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - although she held state wide office (Delhi HC) and was inducted into 50 most influential people by managing IP which adds to her notability but I didn’t find sig cov. In secondary sources apart from her appointment news. TheSlumPanda (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A working judge, I don't see anything that would make this person stand out from the other thousands of judges on the planet. I can only find confirmation of the position, so no sourcing that helps show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She meets WP:NJUDGE as a member of the Delhi High Court: "The Judges of High Court of Delhi (other than the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court) are appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, and on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi." RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT: That is only in theory. In practice judges are either elevated from the Delhi Higher Judicial Services after serving as District judges, or handpicked lawyers are discreetly approached to be additional judges of the court. The actual decision is taken by a 5 member collegium of Supreme Court judges in an opaque and discretionary fashion involving horse trading, favouritism and nepotism. The President of India is a rubber stamp (unlike the US of A's). So IMHO Wikipedia can either have well researched articles on all judges of all High Courts or none. These random kind of stubby articles are akin to waving a red rag for bulls. अधिवक्ता संतोष (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: She does meet WP:JUDGE, but the coverages appears to be mostly WP:TRIVIAL and WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Additional significant coverage would further solidify her notability.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article matches WP:NJUDGE. Pollia (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Over half the sources cited onpage are self published (directly or indirectly) primary sources. There is no significant coverage independent of the judgments she delivers routinely as a working judge. Nothing in the article (as it stands currently) shows anything extraordinary or especially notable about this judge compared to her brother judge HMJ Navin Chawla whose very similar article was voted to be deleted. WP:NJUDGE by itself does not confer notability, it is merely an initial screening filter to weed out lesser judges, notability has to be established by significant independent coverage from reliable sources. Lastly by having articles about persons who possess power to threaten the encyclopedia you run the risk of justifying hugely problematic sentences like "She became the Senior Advocate in 2011" अधिवक्ता संतोष (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]