Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harcharan Singh Manget


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Harcharan Singh Manget

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable air force officer. ~SS49~  {talk}  11:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  ~SS49~   {talk}  11:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  ~SS49~   {talk}  11:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. As an air commodore, a one-star rank entirely equal to a brigadier general in non-Commonwealth air forces, clearly does meet WP:SOLDIER #2. Just like Commonwealth brigadiers and commodores do (in any case, unlike their army and navy equivalents, an air commodore actually is an air officer, and is therefore covered by WP:SOLDIER without any further explanation of rank equivalencies required). The continuing need to explain this to editors who do not do their research properly is getting tiresome. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is tiresome to have to keep repeating that WP:SOLDIER is not an automatic Keep as it states "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: ..." just meeting one of the 6 criteria doesn't mean they're notable if they don't have WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet we pretty much invariably do keep officers of this rank! As you should know by now. Ergo, I would say that nominating them is just wasting AfD time. Claiming he is a "Non-notable air force officer" as the nominator did is no more than an opinion. Claiming that he fails WP:SOLDIER as you did is simply not true; usually editors claim this about air commodores, commodores and brigadiers as they have no understanding that Commonwealth one-star officers, even though they do not have the title of general or admiral, are entirely equal to one-star officers in countries where the terminology is different, hence my comment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet the notability guidelines are clear that even if they have the rank that doesn't necessarily make them notable as there must be SIGCOV in multiple RS which he doesn't have. In fact there isn't even an RS that he reached the rank of Air Commodore. Mztourist (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The source of his rank at retirement (ie Air Commodore) and winning the MVC is already sourced in the article, no doubt it's PRIMARY, but as this is a fact rather than analysis, PRIMARY is perfectly reasonable.--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I note the rank confirmation, but the point remains that he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Two page biogrpahy in this 1995 study of Indian military honours' winners. The tail assembly of his damaged Su-7 is on display at the Indian Air Force Museum, photo here.


 * --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hardly SIGCOV in multiple RS is it? Mztourist (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not seem unreasonable to accept notability here given that the person meets NSOLDIER under specific criteria, that their actions are memorialised in the national military museum of their service branch and that they have an entry in what is an encyclopedia of military honours' winners. SIGCOV is always going to be a case by case basis given the qualifier contained therein: ...it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lastly, would highlight this from SOLDIER: If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Three references doesn't amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS, there are far too many pages for such non-notable local "hero"s Mztourist (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In what possible world can an air commodore in a national air force be categorised as just a "local hero"? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia where we have WP:GNG... Mztourist (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to meet WP:ANYBIO#1, is one short of WP:NSOLDIER#1, and clearly meets WP:NSOLDIER#2 per the third bluelink of that point. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Borderline WP:SOLDIER qualified. - Hatchens (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets SOLDIER - rank and winning the MVC indicate noteworthy contribution to 1971 Indo-Pak war. --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2020 (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.