Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bijoy Nandan Shahi

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 keep. ST47 (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bijoy Nandan Shahi[edit]

[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)

Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If no more information about this cardiologist can be provided from reliable sources that would make him notable then I suggest this page be deleted. AssadFin (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AssadFin (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a stub but he has received the Padma Bhushan, a major Indian award. News coverage of that is not just "being in the news"! Almost all of the recipients already have articles here. See List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (2000–2009). StarryGrandma (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a lieutenant general qualifies under WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the Padma Bhushan is a high award in India. Many of the Padma Bhushan recipients on wikipedia have detailed information on their life from several reliable sources. I'm glad that since beginning this discussion, some information has been added but so far we have three sources and only a lead. Adding more information to improve the article is advised. AssadFin (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes both WP:ANYBIO and WP:SOLDIER. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: What makes the difference in a valid stub article and an WP:INVALIDBIO or a pseudo biography is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. This criterion is applicable to all aspects of notability including WP:ANYBIO and WP:SOLDIER. Just stating a subject qualifies is not sufficient without actual proof. From the sources provided, and lacking finding any on a search, then the words "Clearly passes" is dubious.

I wanted to find more information on the third highest country award the subject received but was unable to do so. The article is sourced by two primary sources with one being a press release. One just provides the name of the subject, "Dr. (Lt.Gen) Bijoy Nandan Shahi", under "Previous awardees", and the other (Ministry of Defense press release) gives some information on the military service. The "Outlook" source simply provides the subjects name among several others under "Padma Awards 2004".

The suggestions of AssadFin are valid because, even if kept as is, a future AFD may result in a different consensus. There simply is no biographical sourcing so some needs to be provided. This one paragraph stub (as sourced) with three sentences would be better off located somewhere else, as the BLP criteria is supposedly more stringent. Either the sourcing criteria is important or not really, and a local consensus to "keep" should be on valid reasoning according to policies and guidelines. That other award recipients have articles ("Almost all of the recipients already have articles here") is usually not a good argument. If some of them are this poorly sourced maybe a closer look is warranted. Otr500 (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2019 (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.