Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilal Ahmed Rather


 * 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 no consensus. On the surface, there is no agreement about whether the subject meets WP:SOLDIER or not. But, the deeper problem is that (as is almost always the case), nobody can agree what "presume" means. And, no wonder, that. I just went and read WP:PRESUME hoping it would give me clarity about how to sort this out. I have no clue what WP:PRESUME is trying to say. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been pointed out to me that, "there is no agreement about whether the subject meets WP:SOLDIER" is overstating things. There was one statement, Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER or really even WP:1E, but that was a minority opinion.  The gist, however, is that whether it meets SOLDIER or not, there's no agreement here if that's enough, i.e. the whole question about what "presume" means, and how SNGs interact with GNG.  That's the important thing that led to this being closed No Consensus.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hilal Ahmed Rather

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article does not meet WP:GNG, is WP:1E  // Timothy ::  talk  04:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  04:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  04:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  04:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete while in India Air commodore rank satisfies #2 of WP:SOLDIER, that is just a presumption of notability and I don't that see WP:GNG is satisfied as the only notability seems to be the trivial WP:1E of being the first Indian Air Force pilot to fly a Rafale which in itself is not notable. We don't have pages for first X nationality to fly Y aircraft and shouldn't start doing so. Mztourist (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also the supposed point of notability has been fact-checked by India Today and found wanting . Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the first Indian pilot to fly a particular type of plane is not even remotely close to a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Air commodores are notable per WP:SOLDIER #1 #2. That's why he's notable, not for flying a particular type of plane. This has been completely unaddressed by the nom and two of the above posters. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply This is an essay. It is a recommendation based on opinions intended to help editors evaluate notability in a subject area. This recommendation in no way means notabiity is automatically established and must be assumed. If the individual is actually notable it should be easy to produce multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject to show they meet WP:GNG and are not a WP:1E.  // Timothy ::  talk  16:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SOLDIER is a presumption of notability, if the person doesn't actually have "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" then they still fail WP:GNG despite their rank, medal etc. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is an essay that is almost always followed in AfD discussions. There is heavy precedent for keeping, as I cannot recall an officer of this rank being deleted at AfD. The article is now well sourced. This is very clearly not a WP:1E issue given his career, so any arguments that it is are disingenuous. No, he isn't notable for being the first to fly a particular type of plane; he certainly is for reaching the rank of air commodore. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He is also notable for being India's air attaché in Paris for the last four years and actually organising the supply of the Rafale to India. There is plenty of sourcing for this. Strange how all this has been ignored in these allegations that this is a WP:1E. I would say that WP:BEFORE has certainly not been adhered to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So, to summarise, an air officer who meets the criteria of WP:SOLDIER #2, who has held a notable appointment, who has been responsible for a major equipment overhaul in a major service of a major country and whose career is well-covered in the media and well-sourced in his article. But that still doesn't, apparently, meet WP:GNG! Yes, it does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the media sourcing is low quality, reads like poorly written fancruft and so does not satisfy WP:RS. The Greater Kashmir and News18 stories seem to be the same, containing this ridiculous statement: "The career details of this officer of the Indian Air Force (IAF) read like the decoration scroll of the best flying officer anywhere in the world." User:Peacemaker67 has already pointed out that claims that he flew the first Rafale from France to India, which is repeated in most of the news sources, is not correct and most of the stories appear to confuse him being the first Indian to fly a Rafale with him flying the Rafale from France to India. Given these deficiencies I don't see that we can trust anything in these stories other than his basic biography and rank progression, so I dispute that it is well-sourced.Mztourist (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment In this context WP:RSCONTEXT, The Gazette of India does not meet WP:RS because it is not independent of the topic, it is a government publication. The other sources listed are WP:ROUTINE coverage of one event (the procurement of 5 aircraft), which does not meet WP:NEVENT or WP:SUSTAINED. It is not notable to be an "air attaché". Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER or really even WP:1E. WP:BEFORE has clearly been done very well.
 * re: the comment "so any arguments that it is are disingenuous" is an inappropriate aspersion that others here are acting in bad faith. It would be advisable for this comment to be struck.  // Timothy ::  talk  11:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hardly, given the facts that he is an air commodore and holds a senior post have been completely ignored in the nomination, which merely alleges it is WP:1E, which is clearly not true. Two of the comments then just went along with the nomination, also without mentioning his rank or post. I'm not assuming bad faith; I'm assuming that WP:BEFORE was not carried out fully and that the nomination was based on the non-notable fact that he was the first person from a particular country to fly a particular type of aircraft. Since it has since been made clear that this is not the reason for his notability, I'm mystified as to why WP:1E is still being touted as a reason for deletion. Incidentally, a government publication most certainly is a WP:RS for the career of a government employee. Not to establish notability maybe, but as a source for facts certainly. As to the the comment that Most of the media sourcing is low quality, reads like poorly written fancruft and so does not satisfy WP:RS, most of it is very similar to the article from the Times of India. If that isn't a reliable source for Indian affairs then I don't know what is. I think what you read as poorly written fancruft is just the way many Indian journalists write; it's a cultural difference. That doesn't make it unreliable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This, I think, proves that we pretty much have a consensus. And consensus matters at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: WP:OTHER stuff exists is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Those other articles had evidence of WP:N.  // Timothy ::  talk  21:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, but consensus is. Consensus is how we do things on Wikipedia, and clear consensus here is to keep such articles. Have you read all of them then? You clearly haven't read even a fraction of them, because if you had, you'd find that many of them were kept solely because of their rank. Many were in fact not as well sourced as this article. Verifiable proof of their holding the rank was all that was required for them to be kept. As I said, consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Then they were decided incorrectly because just holding a rank is only a presumption of notability, they must have "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder why you think we have AfDs? If everything was decided by simple application of set-in-stone rules then we wouldn't need them at all. GNG is a guideline. It isn't set in stone. And other subject-specific notability guidelines, including WP:SOLDIER (which is considered to be a valid guideline despite its status as an essay, which is why it is linked at Notability (people) and why WP:AFDOUTCOMES says what it says about military personnel), are often considered to be more important. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. To quote from WP:SOLDIER, re personnel of his rank: 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. Certainly applies here. I would also note that, despite "only" being an essay, WP:SOLDIER is listed on Notability (people) under the header note: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. It is therefore clear that, despite the comments above that he does not, Rather rather easily meets our criteria for inclusion. I would also reiterate that two of the "delete" !votes completely ignore the fact that he is an air commodore and only focus on the non-notable fact that he may have been the first IAF pilot to fly a particular aircraft. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Response once again you are ignoring that WP:SOLDIER states that holding a rank is only a presumption of notability, they must have "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" to meet WP:GNG and he doesn't by any measure satisfy that. Mztourist (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You obviously didn't fully read what I wrote above: 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. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with all of WP:SOLDIER and my earlier comment stands he lacks "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources". Mztourist (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As am I and as do mine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Question, perhaps you can explain to everyone what "then they most likely" means in the above quote? I'm sure and the closer would be interested as well.
 * I'd also be interested (as I'm sure would others and the closer) as to which independent, secondary sources you believe contain non-trivial details about his personal life, education and military career, beyond the WP:1E about being the first person from a particular country to fly an already tested and deployed aircraft, and the mention of his rank, which does not detail his military career, it just notes his rank).  // Timothy ::  talk  22:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see anyone disputing that the subject meets NSOLDIER. NSOLDIER continues to be a valid SNG for AFD purposes. I am open to revisiting notability guidelines or guides or rules or whatever, but not in AFDs themselves. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: In the above comments, three editors have disputed NSOLDIER. WP:NSOLDIER says "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". They are presumed notable, but a presumption is not a gaurantee of notability. It goes on to state, "will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify" - almost always" is the key; in this case he does not have sufficient coverage to quality. WP:SIGCOV states that "significant coverage"'' must detail the subject directly and in depth and the sources much be WP:IS indepedent of the subject, so in this case government and military publications are not independent of the subject.
 * Unlike some guidelines that need more clarity, NSOLDIER doesn't need to be revisited because it makes it clear that this is a presumption, which is not a guarantee and that they will almost always meet, which clearly means some subjects will not.
 * What matters here is: does the subject have significant direct and indepth coverage WP:SIGCOV from multiple independent WP:IS reliable sources WP:RS. The nomination sets forth that the subject does not meet this and no one has provided evidence to the refute this.  // Timothy ::  talk  16:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All SNGs (except WP:NPOL AFAIK) are a fallback to presumption, because otherwise we would not need SNGs at all. By the same token, all SNGs should rightly say that subjects meeting SNGs may not always meet GNG and therefore one should be careful about creating a bunch of articles on some weak SNG claim alone. That's for creating. Once someone's decided to create one based on the presumption, one possible way to make a case for failure of GNG despite meeting some SNG, in my view, is to show that the person is unlikely to ever meet GNG by virtue of (1) not currently having enough coverage (reasonably conclusively showing that all the coverage that there is, online and offline, has been exhaustively collated and GNG isn't still met; not the case here as the subject is from an area which isn't exhaustively studied, nor covered well enough on the internet, and not really the best time for digging up library archives) && (2) being unable to do anything eliciting further coverage (eg. by being long dead; not the case here) or being unlikely to elicit further coverage. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, Air commodore passes SOLDIER and he probably will have more coverage in the future. Non-English or off-line sources may also exist in addition to the recent coverage in English. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: While I strongly disagree with how expansive SOLDIER is (someone in the business world who supervises as few as 500 employees is what they call a "middle manager," and sure as hell not presumptively notable), it's the SNG on the ground. SNG being subordinate to the GNG, which the subject just does not pass.  Suggestions that he "probably will have more coverage in the future" violates WP:CRYSTAL, and it just doesn't cut it to suggest that there must be non-English sources out there, when we're dealing with an officer in the military of the country with the world's largest English-language media.  Beyond that, black-letter policy requires not that sources may exist, when challenged, but that editors wishing to keep an article prove that they do.  That burden of proof has not been met.   Ravenswing      10:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Traditionally a brigadier commands a brigade (the clue being in the title), which consists of 2,000 or more personnel, not 500. That (or its equivalents) is the lowest rank covered by WP:SOLDIER. They are certainly not middle managers (the equivalent there would probably be captains and majors, who are nowhere near senior enough to be covered by the guideline). So I fail to see how your argument against WP:SOLDIER is accurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep meets our guidelines for WP:SOLDIER#2 the subject is notable. Wm335td (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment:, WP:NSOLDIER is not a guideline, it is an essay; it is an opinion. What WP:SIGCOV does this have to show notability? <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;">  // Timothy ::  talk  19:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a widely-accepted standard so entrenched that it is listed at Notability (people). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aasim 20:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I really wish people would look up the word "presumption" in a dictionary and start presuming, rather than doing the opposite. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Uncontested pass of WP:NSOLDIER #2. There is no indication that NSOLDIER isn't an accurate indicator of GNG. There is strong precedents for keeping such articles (WP:Some stuff exists for a reason) per User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for flag, general and air officers. – SD0001  (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment for closer: Since this will be a controversial close regardless of how it ends up, could you let us know how you weighted the sources for notability and independence and how you believe guidelines vs essays impacted the decision. Thank you. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  05:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:SOLDIER.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I see WP:GNG mentioned. WP:GNG is a presumption of notability - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." (my emphasis). There are other routes to a presumption of notability, WP:SOLDIER is relevant here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. There's too much made of other routes to notability being "only presumptions" and so ignored, but the WP:GNG being "real" notability that is somehow one of the founding principles of Wikipedia, rather than just another guideline that was developed some years after Wikipedia started. I must repeat my plea for people to start presuming notability rather than presuming non-notability when anything using the word "presumption" is cited. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.