Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narinder Singh Sandhu

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 keep. There is a general consensus that the rank of Brigadier meets the requirements of WP:NSOLDIER. (non-admin closure) —— § erial 10:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narinder Singh Sandhu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I am not sure whether AfD is the right place to discuss about bulk deletion. But Siddsg has been continuosly created pages which do not comply with WP:SOLDIER and also fails WP:GNG. Some of them also contains copyvio content. Most of the articles the user created is about single time Mahavir Chakra awardees , Maha Vir Chakra is the second highest honor only, not the highest honor that is Param Vir Chakra. Can someone help about how to deal with this. Should I tag all of them for CSD, as taking each article to AfD seems like a waste of time for me and all fellow editors, or should I tag all such articles for deletion citing result of this AfD, because of their similar nature. Zoodino (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment first, check if they meet WP:SOLDIER. This guy may on rank grounds because he was a brigadier, but few of the others do on that or other grounds, and in the first instance, PROD them. If dePRODed, AfD a few, and if the general consensus is delete, then AfD them all. CSD isn't suitable, as they will almost certainly be contested. In the meantime, I strongly recommend to Siddsg that they do not create any more articles on MVC recipients unless they clearly meet WP:SOLDIER, and concentrate instead on adding citations the existing articles to clearly reliable sources to try to ensure that they meet the GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Peacemaker67:, Thanks for your input on the issue. Can you tell me where it is written specifically in WP:SOLDIER that  : "a brigadier (or above rank officer) follows the WP:SOLDIER, even if they are awarded the second level gallantry award (which is MVC in this case)". I am not able to find any line in WP:SOLDIER related to this statement. Zoodino (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• G'day Zoodino. Specifically, under criteria #2: "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents" The rank of brigadier is often considered a general officer rank (ie one star general), although in some countries a brigadier is considered the highest field rank rather than the most junior general appointment. So it is a grey area. There are many articles on brigadiers on WP, even FAs. In this case, his possible qualification is on the basis of his rank (although that is indicative rather than definitive, and frankly no SNG is), not the MVC. A single award of the MVC doesn't meet the bar of criteria #1. Of course, the GNG trumps SOLDIER, so if under examination of available sources he doesn't meet the GNG, he is not notable. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Peacemaker67, So the #2 criteria of WP:SOLDIER can apply even when the subject is flag officer (which is Brigadier and above level officer in India), or should the subject also show some notability in accordance to WP:GNG.
  

  In this article, reference #1 and #3 can not be considered secondary source. #4 is an article about another topic, having a brief mention about the subject. I can likely say that the subject does not passes WP:GNG. Zoodino (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• An article only has to meet one of the SOLDIER criteria, and in this case #2 is sort-of met, as brigadier is line-ball for that criteria. But SOLDIER is only indicative, GNG is definitive. If there isn't significant coverage of this chap in reliable sources independent of the subject, then it doesn't meet the GNG and should be deleted. #1 is reliable and secondary to the subject, I don't know anything about scoopwhoop.com (#2), but it seems a bit youth-oriented clickbaity and tabliodish to me, #3 - well this chap was a trustee of the trust, so I don't think it is independent of the subject, #4 is a passing mention of the action, and #5 seems reliable. I'm not sure if there is significant coverage of this chap's life in the two clearly reliable sources plus the passing mention in #4 to meet the GNG. It is a close-run thing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Commonwealth brigadiers meet WP:SOLDIER as general officer equivalents. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SOLDIER his rank is only indicative of notability and he fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've requested the relevant pages from Stories of Heroism: PVC & MVC Winners to see if this can be rescued. It seems to be the only reliable source not already used in this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment I've now removed all the dubious sources and rewritten it with the reliable sources to hand. I suggest this isn't closed until I've received the pages from RSX and had a chance to add any additional material available from it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I've now expanded the article with a few new reliable sources, including some reliable news sources mentioning his funeral, and quite a bit from Stories of Heroism: PVC & MVC Winners. I've submitted it for assessment by Milhist, but it clearly meets GNG now, and this should be closed as keep. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this one. Being a Brigadier probably meets WP:NSOLDIER, and Peacemaker's cleanup indicates that he is sufficiently notable. Other MVC recipients are not immediately notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:21, 13 July 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.