Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major Surender Dahiya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. ♠PMC(talk) 04:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major Surender Dahiya[edit]

Major Surender Dahiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Appears to fail GNG too Gbawden (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apprears to be a WP:BLP that fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG as there is no evidence of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Only sourced parts of the article are the promotion dates. A few awards, but nothing that would reach WP:ANYBIO#1. Military service seems non-notable. The major contributor seems to be an WP:SPA with a name (User:MajorSurenderDahiya) that raises concern of WP:COI/WP:AUTOBIO. The page history is weird because the user has a redirect from his talk page to the article. I'd be also content with draftify. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ljleppan Why will you be content with draftify? Do you believe he is notable or will be notable in 6 months (when the drafts get deleted)? On what basis do you believe that? Venkat TL (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Venkat TL: Thanks for asking for clarification, I see now that my wording was... less than clear. What I was after is essentially this: It's possible I would have missed some references (e.g. either offline and/or Indic language sources), so if someone jumps in with a claim along the lines of "he's notable, I just can't find the references right now" I'd be personally fine with draftifying to give them time to work in the draft space, rather than outright nuking it. But absent any such claims (and a willing editor to find and add the required references) this should be deleted. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying. I thought you had seen something convincing already. For now I am not seeing anything extra ordinary. The article is a run of the mill military officer and seems to be created for self promotion. Such articles should be speedily deleted, draftifying is not suggested. If something important happens in future, they can be recreated with reliable sources. Venkat TL (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC also apparent WP:AUTO breach. Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No major award or post held. No coverage in reliable media. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:BIO Venkat TL (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2021 (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.