Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subrahmanyam Vijay Kumar

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. The "keep" opinions are based solely on the assumed inherent notability of the subject's political or administrative post, rather than on any discussion of the sources, which the nominator alleges (without opposition) to be insufficient. In the absence of a guideline assuming notability for an official of this rank, these "keep" opinions must be discounted because our relevant policies including WP:BLP and WP:V are quite clear that what articles - particularly about living people - can't do without are reliable sources. Sandstein 10:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subrahmanyam Vijay Kumar[edit]

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

very highly promotional article for mid-importance public servant.Extensive editing by COI and SPA editors--check the article history. None of his positions are minister , which would be notable, rather secretary to the ministry, which is a civil service and not a political position. Most of the references are his own writings; most of the rest are notices; some are straight PR. DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Permanent Secretary is the top position in the civil service, not "mid-ranking" as claimed. Also, as repeatedly noted an article being promotional is not a reason for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looking through the editors and their talk pages... even the IP address editors, I don't see where anyone would find COI or SPA. The contributors are often from around India and interested in India, but that doesn't indicate either COI or SPA: it makes sense. How does the article history show either COI or SPA? I'm baffled. Please explain. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AusLondoner, why do you think an article being promotional is not a reason for deletion? According to WP:Deletion policy, we can delete any article we think not suitable for the encycopedia, which in practice can only mean any reason that satisfies people at an AfD discussion. But it is much more specific than that: the specific policy is WP:PROMOTION, one of our fundamental policies, and much more critical than any guideline like WP:Notability. (as I see it the principal purpose of the notability guideline is to make sure we avoid content which could inherently only be promotional or directory.) To be sure, G11 is limited to articles exclusively promotional not capable of being fixed by normal editing; but this implies that deleting those of lesser degree need discussion, and AfD is the place. Agreed, that whether or not to delete something not so bad as to fall under G11 is a matter for decision article by article,and there can be valid different views on that. But if it does fall under WP:NOT, policy is that it ought to be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very senior civil servants such as this gentleman are notable. Certainly not mid-ranking! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this qualifies as a Wikipedia article. ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Nothing on searches helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 9 October 2015 (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.