Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siddharth Singh (civil servant)

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. Consensus has shifted to 'delete' since the last relist, and while !votes of both opinions are rather lacking in detail, the stronger argument is that GNG is not met. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth Singh (civil servant)[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)

Appears to fail WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. Coverage like [1] seems to be mainly about programmes with which he has been involved, and not about him personally. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure vanity article, with no encyclopaedic value. I see absolutely nothing to suggest WP:BIO notability. The sources do at first look plentiful, but they are just passing mentions, some are identical, and one returns a 'page not found'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an archive link for the "not found page". You may check it now. I also removed a reference where it was just a passing mention.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I find the subject notable enough for Wikipedia, as the subject has held various important and top bureaucratic positions in the government and is also currently serving as Principal Secretary of the Bodoland Territorial Council on behalf of the Governor of Assam [2]. His work and his implementation of govt programs were recognized, as covered in media articles [3][4][5][6]. So, I tend to keep.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure nobody expects anything less from the article creator. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be enough WP:RS/WP:IS to convince me the subject passes WP:GNG. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to pass WP:GNG--Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The references are just routine announcements or not primarily about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the provided sources are press releases which give just passing mentions or at best provide a quotations from the subject. Unsure if G Plus, East Mojo or South Asia Views are even reliable sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO. Non-elected civil servants do not meet WP:NPOL and sources wouldn't support even if it was a valid criteria. WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements. // Timothy :: talk 10:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for want of WP:SIGCOV and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Other than the India Today, there are no reliable sources; we require several for "significant coverage," which is lacking. While he's an honorable civil servant, he fails for automatic inclusion. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine coverage with no nothing significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV. --KartikeyaS (talk) 21:37, 12 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.