Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Prasad Babu

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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K. Prasad Babu[edit]

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

After much thought I believe that this fall unders WP:BLP1E. The subject is only known for his (sad) death. Most "significant coverage" of the subject is mirrored from one news source, as a cursory web search would show. If event was really as important, I believe a single article for both the event and a small mention of this Indian policeman would suffice. This reads more like an obit to me. Delete ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~It's prima facie BLP1E, but the problem is the Ashoka Chakra~~. According to the notability criteria for Military (yes, I know he was a policeman but his police force is paramilitary), an individual is notable (with sources) if they have won their country's highest award for valour and he has. ~~I'm not sure how the two opposing factors play off against each other.~~ Philg88 ^♦talk 08:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retain, The winners of a country's highest military awards are inherently notable. It would not be right to apply same standards of notability with regard to Google links and sources as a Western country which is media saturated. AshLin (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The person has won his country's highest gallantry award and I think that's enough to establish notability. Ndtv , Thehindu, Deccan Chronicle and the New Indian Express sources are independent from each other. It's a bit sad to see that an article about a martyr who had been posthumously awarded India's highest gallantry award, is being nominated for deletion.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:ANYBIO and/or WP:MILPEOPLE would apply as the article's subject was awarded Ashok Chakra, India's highest peace time gallantry award. Also WP:BLP1E may not apply as the subject is not a living person, hence the article is not a BLP. Apart from that, I do not see any paucity of sources as the person received enough coverage in regional and national publications, but all of these may not be in English (which is never an issue). Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does the nominator mean there should be an article about the event where the subject lost his life and is awarded the Ashok Chakra for his acts there? The event would be a bit trivial and such Maoist and Naxal attacks are plenty in number. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The prime rationale pointed out by the nominator is itself invalid considering he is dead. A person receiving the highest military honor is notable, even if he is from paramilitary or a private security company... ƬheStrike Σagle ^sorties 12:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winners of a country's highest award for valour, military or otherwise, are intrinsically notable. Every recipient of the George Cross, for example, has an article, and the Ashoka Chakra replaced it in the Indian honours system. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per AshLin, Philg, Dharmadhyaksha and others. By winning the Ashoka Chakra he is indeed EXTREMELY notable. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2014 (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.