Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awdhesh Singh


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Awdhesh Singh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NonNotable mid-level officer. One of the many Commissioner ranking officers of India. Just a bureaucrat doing his job. His book is also not notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Speedy delete. Uncletomwood (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

comments please. Uncletomwood (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing at all here actually convincing of his own notability. SwisterTwister   talk  17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. " Just a bureaucrat doing his job" is not a helpful description--the likelihood of notability depends on what the job is. (and similarly for all "just a ..." arguments.)  Based on the articles on Indian Administrative Serviceand Divisional CommissionermI think I would accept such a post in theIAS as presumptive notable-- I interpret it as there is one per state, which would be about 30 people. But the subject is not a commission in the IAS,but in the Revenue Service, which is a lower branch of administration,and I do not see why  that should lead to presumptive notability.  DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Like to clear out a few things to non Indian editors. 1) Divisional Commissioner is one per district/zone in India. So a state like Uttar Pradesh would have more than even 40 divisional commissioners in a single state. 2) The post is again hardly notable in it self. 3) Indian Revenue Service is definitely not a lower branch of administration and is a premier civil service of the Government of India and is in the same rank as the IAS. They are recruited through the same exam. 4) The subject matter of the article has does nothing notable and has little sources to reference his article. Almost all IRS officers above the rank of Principal Commissioner are indeed notable as they head various zones. Uncletomwood (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * thats not what our article on them say.  DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the same thing but Hhaha, you should know better than to rely only on Wikipedia. Uncletomwood (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Question Is Singh the essentially over the collection of customs in Chennai? If that is the case, with that being such a major city so central to international trade, that might be a position that makes him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Possible Answer No he does not. He is second incharge of the Central Excise's Anti Evasion department in Chennai. Even so, only a Chief Commissioner or a Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs/Income Tax would be notable. Uncletomwood (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment this is a very tricky situation as rank/position cannot solely be considered as the yardstick for determining notability. Nevertheless, in this case, I agree that the page shouldn't be here for now. Hampai 15 (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Delete non-notable person. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Non notable bureaucrat and Author.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - a non notable government official; lack independent coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2016 (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.