Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athar Aamir Khan (2nd nomination)


 * 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 is relatively clear. Star  Mississippi  01:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Athar Aamir Khan
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Single event notability. No page for other peer-level District Magistrates, or 1st, or 2nd rankers. Also see: Articles for deletion/Tina Dabi User4edits (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: I was going to close this but this article was subject of a previous AFD just 6 months ago that involved a Deletion Review so more editor input is sought here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 28.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 22:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Engineering,  and India.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have no opinion on notability, but want to point out that this page has been the target of persistent vandalism over the last few months. Check the history for edits by IPs, and be warned that the vandals may try to interfere in the AfD. pburka (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete As per nom. and obvious violation of WP:BIO. User4edits (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't have to vote once more; as nom, yours is already counted. Hemantha (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I think these - on UPSC rank, marriage, and divorce,  - from very reliable sources, all offering details on other aspects of his life as well, are enough for WP:GNG.


 * Hemantha (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment This is difficult. In theory, the sources are reliable, in depth and plenty of them written by staff writers. My worry is with the reasons of coverage. Every year, UPSC will have top 1,2 and 3. I think he has got more coverage because there is a Kashmir angle. Further to that, I feel, a lot of these are announcements of his appointments. I am finding it difficult to spot coverage that discusses his work in a way that it would distinguish him from his peer IAS officers. Divorce related news has no merit. I don't even know why they are following and talking about his divorce. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree:
 * For UPSC rank, his preceding ranker (AIR 1) in the same year (Ms. Tina Dabi's) article has been deleted, as here.
 * For marriage, his wife and better UPSC rank holder, Ms. Tina Dabi's article has been deleted, as here.
 * For divorce, the other party to the divorce, also the party to the marraige, and better rank holder, Ms. Tina Dabi's article has been deleted, as here.
 * As for references supplied, however reliable sources they might be, they appear each year in same volumes for each topper of almost all major national exams. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sourcing here is impeccable and hasn't been questioned yet. Whatever the underlying reasons (a "marketing" angle isn't readily evident), the coverage is indeed significant enough. Tina Dabi's article was deleted in 2016/17 when a couple of these newer articles hadn't appeared. The articles that appear in same volumes in each year, are clearly about different persons with obviously different details - that's like arguing a film is reviewed in review section every day, so all of them should be ignored. Hemantha (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. We have to be very careful using media sources from India because the standards of journalist integrity are not the same as in the West. The sources provided above by Hemantha are unreliable as these publications often take money from the subjects themselves to induce them to write the articles. They therefore lack independence even though they have bylined authors. Further, even if this was not the case its clear that these sources have quality issues per WP:TABLOID.4meter4 (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have anything more than your own claim that WP:THEHINDU and WP:INDIANEXP take money from subjects, I invite you to add it to Paid_news_in_India and raise it in WP:RSN so that their green "generally reliable" entries in WP:RSP may be downgraded. Hemantha (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I may do that. Even if they are independent though, the style of journalism is akin to tabloid style press in the United States which is not significant for establishing notability. We need better quality sources than these. WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:NOTGOSSIP applies.4meter4 (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * NOTNEWS focuses on events and about what kind of details are covered in an article. It has nothing to say about determining notability. In other words, it is a policy about what to include in an article once it is decided that an article should exist. The determination of whether an article should exist is being made here and for that WP:GNG (and other notability guidelines) apply.
 * My claim is not that the article should be written based only on the links above; my claim is that given the above references, the subject is notable per WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't in anyway refute that argument. The purpose of AfD is not to exhaustively list all possible references on which the article can be written; it's only to bring forth evidence of notability per GNG or other SNG. Hemantha (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are missing my point. Tabloid press like this is trivial coverage (as confirmed by NOTNEWS); thereby failing the "significant coverage" portion of WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doing especially well in an exam is not a reason for notability. One event rule applies. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. WP:BLP1E is also an issue here.4meter4 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG. Springnuts (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.