Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johny Joseph


 * 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) — Theo polisme  17:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Johny Joseph

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The person of this article is not meeting Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. NO reliable, secondary sources about the topic Harishrawat11 (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 3.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  12:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Gongshow  Talk 03:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - After an initial search, there is some newspaper coverage about him:, , . I'm not sure if this adds up to meeting WP:GNG yet, I'll do a more detailed search soon. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 11:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - While the nominator may have a point about GNG, sources establish with confidence that Joseph was Chief Secretary of an Indian province Chief_Secretary per (as just one example) coverage [Here], and passing mentions [Here], and [Here] and [Here] and certainly elsewhere. This would appear to quickly establish notability per POLITICIAN #1, regardless of how he meets or does not meet the GNG. Celtechm (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but Chief Secretary appears to be an unelected position, and Joseph a civil servant rather than a politician. I'm not sure if WP:POLITICIAN applies to civil servants who hold a senior position within a state's government. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 10:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment it wasn't clear to me whether Joseph's post was appointed or elected. I would argue that since the role is apparently appointed through an elected government, it may still be a political role? I would equate this to some US States where there are important statewide roles (Lieutenant Governor for example) that are appointed by an elected government. However, I think the specific notability guideline I cited (Like virtually all Wikipedia's English language guidelines) was written from a very Anglo/American-centric viewpoint. The guideline seems to lump together the way the role is obtained (elected or appointed) with the act of running a major government body like an Indian state government. In my evaluation, I equated Joseph's role with that of a US State Governor, who is de-facto notable. With all this in mind, I wonder how much of the inherent notability we apply to a politician like a State Governor should be because of the electoral process an how much should be because of the important role of running a state government. The guideline is certainly unclear on this point. My opinion was that the "Governing" aspect made him notable, whether or not he was directly elected. Celtechm (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2012

COMMENTJoseph's post is appointed not elected.does not meet WP;Politician.The post of governor already exists in all states and that is notable.Joseph is not notable and the article should be deleted.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC))
 * Response I understand that as the nominator, this is your opinion. I also agree that his post was appointed. I still question whether we can dismiss the guidelines for POLITICIAN since, as I pointed out, the guideline was written with a viewpoint that makes the political and governance aspects synonymous, which, in the case of India, is not true. In the end though, I've decided that I think this person simply meets the GNG based upon coverage already listed above here, as well as other references I quickly found like [This], and [This]. You MAY have an argument about depth of coverage based on the references I've provided, but Notability is clearly established. Celtechm (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The distinction to be made, as far as WP:POLITICIAN is concerned, is between government ministers and legislators on the one hand, and civil servants on the other, rather than between elected and non-elected officials. India separates these roles, so it is correct that WP:POLITICIAN does not apply here. Nothing that I have said here should be interpreted as supporting deletion because the general notability guideline, which does apply to this article, seems likely to be met. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I agree with Phil Bridger's assessment above. The article probably would not rise much above stub level since the impression I get from the coverage is that the subject is no longer in this position, but I think the identified coverage is sufficient for a small article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:21, 18 November 2012 (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.