Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharad Kumar Yadav

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. Sandstein 08:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sharad Kumar Yadav[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)

The subject is the manager of a factory, and a Joint secretary to the Government of India which, as described in our article on the role, is the third highest non-political executive rank in the Indian Government - a high-ranking civil servant. I don't believe that WP:NPOLITICIAN applies to roles like that, so I assessed against WP:GNG. The sourcing in the article is mostly affiliated primary sources - mentions in staff directories of organisations her works for. There is also a video on Facebook from an affiliated organisation (an Alumni relations group from his Alma mater), and a few news articles which mention him, but are not about him (events that he attended, that sort of thing). I can't find anything which provides the reliable, independent, secondary and in-depth coverage called for by GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you so much for reviewing and pointing out the missing relevant information. I although tried to include all the government references provided, still if you say, I can provide some additional news articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshv7777 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added further references from news articles. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshv7777 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the new news articles just provide more passing mentions about the subject - they are reporting about an event that he attended, and explain who he is, but there is no in-depth coverage about him. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with nomination , WP:NPOL does not apply. and there is absolutely noting that can pass WP:GNG ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see it’s a biography about a government official , and perhaps the references indicated that the government websites mention him and his position is sourced well. As far as news articles are concerned, there are sources quoting him but not very well. Overall, as per the government citings, I guess it’s fair enough to keep it, with some improvements to it.Shresthsingh71 (talk) 20:19 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Shresthsingh71, is there a SNG that I have overlooked, giving presumed notability to unelected government officials? If not, we need to rely on WP:GNG, which would exclude using primary sources such as the listings at government directories - we need independent, secondary references giving the subject significant coverage. There is a good reason for this: presumably, there are hundreds of thousands of civil servants all over the world who are listed in their respective countries' government directories, but they aren't all notable and we don't want to host articles about all of them. If they themselves are notable, they will have been written about by secondary sources - that's the standard we use to judge whether or not to host the article. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 10:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hi, I’ve added secondary reference from a news article. I totally understand the concerns raised and have added this to complete the shortcomings. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshv7777 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that ref you added is a one-sentence announcement saying that some Indian Ordnance Factory Service officers had been made Joint Secretaries. The subject's name appears in a list alongside those of 27 other people, which does not amount to any depth of coverage. Without even considering the reliability of any of the sources, there are still no independent, secondary sources giving this subject any depth of coverage - there is no evidence that GNG is met. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more input from experienced editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the individual doesn't satisfy WP:GNG; most of the references in the article are primary sources such as personnel listing on government websites which can't be used to determine notability. The references which are secondary and reliable only show passing mentions, a WP:BEFORE search also does not yield anything worthwhile either. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete i couldnt find any in depth third party coverage, also per nomination. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2020 (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.