Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurpreet Kaur Sapra


 * 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. Wot BabbaQ said. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Gurpreet Kaur Sapra

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a district commissioner in a city of 160K. This is not a role that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because she exists, but the article is not sourced well enough to pass the "who have received significant press coverage" condition for local political figures -- the only source is a mere blurb announcing her appointment as deputy district commissioner (thus not even verifying that she's actually held the office claimed by our article) and "director of grievances and pensions". Political figures at the local level need to be significantly better sourced than this, not just to be single-sourced as existing, to qualify for Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 17:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 17:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Strongly Keep - I am the person who prodded this. This is poorly referenced and imaginary topic I thought. But It has been deprodded by someone. So, now I think it is very important topic whether I care or not. I think such great article shouldn't be deleted. Keep and Improve this, I think it may grow to a great article in future. And, remember that if an article is deprodded after proposed deletion, it is hard to delete this later. Makhamakhi (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it really isn't difficult to delete an article after it's been deprodded — because anybody can remove a prod template at any time, and doesn't necessarily have to actually explain their action at all, deprodding only precludes reprodding and does not preclude deletion at a full AFD discussion if there are still problems. And no, the depth and breadth of sourcing shown here is not enough to demonstrate that she's a special notability case over and above most other members of what's ordinarily a non-notable class of topic. Every person in local politics could always be sourced to a couple of pieces of local coverage — to make somebody notable on this basis, it would take evidence that she was receiving more coverage than most other district commissioners in most other districts could also show. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete the combination of position, influence and sources do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep — She's not the Deputy District Commissioner, but the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate of SAS Nagar district, not Mohali city, a district with a population of about 1 million, not 160k. And, she is an IAS officer, and hence a civil servant, not a politician. WP: POLITICIAN, if it even applies, clearly states that holders of local, sub-national and national offices qualify for noatbility. I would also like to cite WP: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, most of office-holders occupying somewhat analogous positions in the States and the UK have an article on Wikipedia.
 * Also, see —
 * On somewhat related note, I am thinking of starting a RfC for seperate notability guidelines for Indian politicians and civil servants. Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 22:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC); edited 14:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC).
 * On somewhat related note, I am thinking of starting a RfC for seperate notability guidelines for Indian politicians and civil servants. Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 22:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC); edited 14:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC).
 * On somewhat related note, I am thinking of starting a RfC for seperate notability guidelines for Indian politicians and civil servants. Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 22:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC); edited 14:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC).
 * On somewhat related note, I am thinking of starting a RfC for seperate notability guidelines for Indian politicians and civil servants. Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 22:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC); edited 14:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC).
 * On somewhat related note, I am thinking of starting a RfC for seperate notability guidelines for Indian politicians and civil servants. Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 22:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC); edited 14:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per sshibumxzs rationales above. And WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – All I see here are a few good-faith WP:ILIKEIT/WP:PERX Keep !votes. They neither provided any policy-based arguments nor any in-depth & independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Hopefully, this Afd will get relisted again so that the subject's notability can be established. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see good Keep rationales, and only one drive-by !vote without any policy based rationale. Relisting again would be inappropriate.BabbaQ (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2018 (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.