Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjiv Kumar (soldier)

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 merge to Indian Army operations in Jammu and Kashmir since there is no consensus whether second-highest actually merits a keep, but neither is there consensus to delete the content. Star Mississippi 00:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjiv Kumar (soldier)[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)

While tragic, simply not enough in-depth coverage outside of the action in which he was killed, to show he meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Indian Army operations in Jammu and Kashmir as a case of WP:BIO1E would probably be a reasonable action to take, given that Operation Randori Behak does not have a dedicated article. -Ljleppan (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Ljleppan, fails WP:BASIC with only local coverage of that WP:1E and award. Mztourist (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Indian Army operations in Jammu and Kashmir seems to be a summary article and has no mention of any individuals at all, how it would fit I don't know. It fails WP:1E. scope_creep^Talk 12:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's two possible ways: Follow "In the first week of April, Operation Randori Behak (1 April to 5 April) resulted in the deaths of five para commandos from 4 Para, the same commandos which had taken part in the 2016 'surgical strikes'" with a sentence along the lines of "One of the dead commandos was posthumously awarded the Kirti Chakra". Alternatively we could add something along the lines of "Posthumous Kirti Chakra awarded to one of the security forces members." in the correct row of the table slightly after that sentence. If that's unsuitable for the potential merge target, I would suppose that just renders both the above "merge" votes to effectively "delete". -Ljleppan (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ANYBIO would kick in here. He is the recipient of the second-highest Indian peacetime award for bravery, which meets that criteria, I think ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor"). Atchom (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the second-highest award in any role in life has never held up as a notability criteria. e.g. Air Force Cross (United States) recipients do not automatically pass GNG. Even before WP:NSOLDIER was deprecated, the second-highest was never a qualification. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In previous AfDs, a British CBE has consistently been held to constitute sufficient for the purposes of WP:ANYBIO. Now, the comparative ranking of awards is not an exact science, but a CBE is something like 18th in the list of precedence. Treating the Kirti Chakra as evidence of notability seems reasonable. Atchom (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me to the guideline or policy which specifically states that the Kirti Chakra automatically denotes notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a cheap strawman. The above is pari passu, as is obvious. But since we are at it, please show me that the Kirti Chakra doesn't satisfy the "well-known and significant award or honor" criterion. Atchom (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:42, 10 March 2022 (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.