Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pallab Bhattacharyya

Add links
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 and salt. I've been clerking, but never !voted, so I don't feel this is an involved close, nor is there really a question of the outcome as notability is ot clear and a further relist would likely bring more disruption than sourcing. I am opting not to draftify at the moment given the shenanigans of both editors, however if an established editor such as Necrothesp or Ravenswing would like this to incubate and see if sourcing can be found, I have no objection to doing so. Just ping me. Star Mississippi 20:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pallab Bhattacharyya

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Pallab Bhattacharyya (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)

Notability concerns have been expressed and creator has chosen to request testing at XfD rather than AfC which may have a slightly lower bar. Not fit for mainspace as is but position(s) may be sufficient to confer notability, though normally such positions will generate RS which are certainly not well leveraged into the article and not suitability wikilinked Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment With objection to the AfD/XfD, I want to give my opinion that the subject has the citations to verify the content. And a Director General of Police level officer with the additional charge of the State Intelligence's Chief (tons of citation are always not needed) are enough to pass WP:GNG. State Intelligence is also a SPY AGENCY, hence as other SPY AGENCY's officers don't reveal much about their personal life, it is hard to put vast info about the person. The article should be KEEP. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 04:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Nope. Best not presume anything about anybody's braincells, especially if you keep pinging them. NPP tutor say: "Unlike CSDs and PRODs, you can mark AfDed pages as 'reviewed' after tagging them, as their fate will be decided via discussion and they can't fall through the cracks if tags are removed (a bot will restore them so long as the AfD discussion is open).". The the image that was previously here can be correctly sourced it would be eligible, certainly at lower resolution, for upload to the English WikiPedia under fair use criteria. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: A DGP nd Chief of SPPY AGENCY doens't pass WPLGNG? Strangefrom you. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969:, WP:NPOL isn't applicable here. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Someone who held the highest possible rank in the Indian police is very clearly notable. Passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: As it happens, he neither served in the national police, nor did he have the highest rank in the national police service. He served in the provincial police, and the highest Indian police rank is Director of the Intelligence Bureau. I'm unclear from where you get these erroneous notions. Ravenswing 11:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I said he served in the Indian police. As an Indian Police Service officer he did just that. And Director general of police is the highest rank in the IPS. So there is no "erroneous notion" here whatsoever. Director of the Intelligence Bureau is essentially the most senior appointment that can be held by a DGP. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - I agree that someone who held the highest rank in the Indian Police is notable but this page needs expansion to add additional information beginning with what they did or were involved with whilst serving at any of their positions. For example here, here and here all mention him and could help with creating a couple of sentences on his role.Gusfriend (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: As it stands, the subject does not pass the GNG, and there are no other notability grounds which he meets. I'm not sure where some editors got the notion that the subject led the "Indian" police; his highest position was as head of a provincial police department. No one would claim, for instance, that the head of the Massachusetts State Police was presumptively notable, and there are no notability criteria which claim so. Neither is being a police head detective heading a "spy agency," as the article creator stridently maintains. As far as NeverTry4Me's assertion that a policeman isn't interested in details of his life getting into the press, that may well be -- but the only answer to that is "Then an article on him cannot be sustained," as indeed there are no articles on 25 of the 28 current Indian provincial police chiefs. The GNG doesn't have waivers for whatever putative excuses there are for subjects to lack significant coverage. Ravenswing 11:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be the equivalent of a US State Police head (usually a Colonel), in a state roughly the size of Maine. Unless there are reliable sources to show why this individual has received coverage above and beyond what is routine for a civil servant's hiring, transfers, promotions, etc...then the subject does not meet the notability guide. ValarianB (talk)
  • Note that the chiefs of major US police organisations have generally been kept if taken to AfD. And the Texas Ranger Division is only 234 strong! The Texas Highway Patrol would be a closer match, but still not accurate as the police of an Indian state provide most policing in that state, whereas most American policing is on a city or county level. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by my assertion that no sourcing exists to support the subject's notability, and the position itself is inherently not notable. You can continue to travel this minor tangent about state size if you like, but I am done. ValarianB (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that the conduct issues have been resolved at ANI, let's try for consensus. I advise participants to be aware of bludgeoning the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete After reviewing the arguments for "Keep" above, I find them unconvincing. The coverage presented so far is utterly routine for a civil servant and does not significantly cover the subject in any meaningful way. Compare the coverage for this person to that for, say, Cressida Dick. For Dick we have coverage of multiple events and crises that have been part of her tenure. For Bhattacharyya we have little more than teh markers that would allow us to present a resume. There is no support in the GNG or any applicable SNG for the proposition that being a police chief, of any level of any size polity, is inherently notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I see that everyone who is on the side of "DELETE" is just passing their opinion with some demand(if not seeking) SIGCOV about the subject person's personal life. But none noticed that this has focused some on his personal life (spouse, children, etc are not mentioned in the source). Beyond that, the subject person was the chairman of the Assam Public Service Commission, a position that can be held by only an IPS or IAS top rank officers and appointed by the Government, not by a political consensus. Additionally, and, most importantly, the subject person is also a member of the High-Level Committee of Clause 6 of the Assam Accord formed by Ministry of Home Affairs, India, where the Clause 6 of the Assam Accord is the most burning issue related to Assam Movement which is one of the world's biggest Student protest. A government officer who has/had held 3 government positions, appointed by the Government of India, is simply notable as per WP:COMMONSENSE. These facts are being ignored in this discussion and kept beyond focus here. I wonder, why, here are most notions about GNG, where adding too many citations can lead to citation bombing. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 07:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the comment about the page for Cressida Dick which is certainly worth aspiring to but in the interim can I suggest that you check out the pages of Simon Overland and Christine Nixon? I am sure that there are a lot of others but they both include more details about what they did during their service.Gusfriend (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We are talking about the GNG because that is the only notability criterion pertinent to the discussion. There are no notability guidelines according presumptive notability to any non-elected government civil servant at any level, regardless of the positions he or she can claim, period. Ravenswing 13:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverTry4Me:, what in any of this discussion gives you the frankly bizarre idea anyone is asking for personal details of this person's life? No matter what their past or present positions, notability requires coverage that is simply not demonstrated. Neither WP:COMMONSENSE nor some notion of inherent notability are escape causes from this basic requirement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or possibly Delete, if that is a valid combination. I think is should never have been removed from draft. NeverTry4Me, who used to be Arunudoy was desperate to get it into mainspace, and I thought at the time that it wasn't ready for it. I thought and still do, that several months should have been used to build the sources, look for suitable newspaper articles on the subject to strengthen the article. And that could still take place. But Ravenswing's and Eggishorn's are very strong here and a useful indication of its current state. I think it should be drafted. If that is not suitable, delete it. scope_creepTalk 13:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - normally, I would have no issue with draftifying, however, due to the article creator's behavior, I do not believe that is a suitable option in this instance. Onel5969 TT me 20:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now I do not have any objection on Draftify, as I have learned some from this discussion. I will expand, modify with WP:SEC as I am getting some sources through Yahoo, Bing, and Yandex searches than Google. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 21:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
disruption by sock, article creator
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment He was just an ADGP [1]. Check that link, please. So many ADGPs are there for different branches. We don't need separate article for everyone. You can mention them in Assam Police page as official or former official only (that to not needed IMHO). GeezGod (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThis is a common mistake made by newspapers. In each state police force, there should be only one DGP. Note: Even special DGPs are equivalent to ADGPs. The current list of key officials is as follows:

[2] GeezGod (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, again you are repeating mistakes in comments. IDENT, please note, IDENT. As per your say, 'common mistakes' by major Indian newspapers? That is not a valid comment. Are you into journalism? If so, then please edit your COIN and improve the articles. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh God! His designation as DGP was misquoted in the news over what I said. He was an ADGP and Special DGP with no notable coverage or specialisation. No more comments. I'm tired. GeezGod (talk) 09:53, 14 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pallab_Bhattacharyya&oldid=1072856619"