Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian members of the Indian Civil Service


 * 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. v/r - TP 02:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

List of Indian members of the Indian Civil Service

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an incomplete, unsourced and substantially redlinked list of people. There are therefore issues relating to WP:V and WP:NLIST, while the obvious inability to get anywhere near a complete list suggests issues relating to WP:WEIGHT also. I simply do not see how this can ever be turned into an encyclopedic article. Sitush (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge(?): Maybe merge the linked names with the list at the bottom of Indian Civil Service? Maybe split out the English and Indian members of the ICS into 2 lists? The first part of the list here is sort of interesting given the difficulty that Indians must have had in joining the ICS. --Marjaliisa (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Having some red links is not a valid reason to delete an article, and at least half of the names are blue links anyway. Policy says you can't delete something for being incomplete either.  Keep, as a perfectly valid list article, it quite encyclopedic.   D r e a m Focus  19:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The "original" Indian Civil Service operated either from the 1700s (when the East India Company began their involvement in India) or from 1858 (when the British govt took over responsibility from the EIC), depending on which semantics you accept to be more accurate. It survived until 1947, and in the intervening period had ca. 1000 officers at any one time. That would be a big list, if done as per the article title. This is without considering the post-independence ICS, which still exists today and is far, far bigger.
 * Per WP:NLIST, the unsourced redlinks in this case have the appearance of non-notability ... and that is without factoring in the many omissions. This one really is better dealt with as a category, and such a thing already exists. If an article about an individual is retained then the person is notable & they should appear in that category.
 * BTW, I have not checked all of the links yet but it is par for the course in lists of Indian names for the target article for many blue links to relate in fact to a completely different person who shared the same name. I would be surprised if all the blues depicted are valid, and will try to make time to check this, - Sitush (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no reason you can't have a list and a category. The rule is not to destroy one to favor another.  The list has valid information which makes it easier to see who everyone was an easier to navigate.  And what is this nonsense about "the appearance of non-notability"?  There is nothing wrong with having red links in an article.  It doesn't mean anything other than no one has gotten around to making an article for the person yet.   D r e a m Focus  22:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NLIST, as I said earlier. Unless I am misunderstanding NLIST. As far as I can see, this article is effectively a list. And a very, very incomplete one at that. I know that we can have lists and categories, but that does not mean that we should. Each case on its merits. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment No real feelings on keep or delete, but if it's kept it needs to be renamed. The title seems horribly misleading. As it stands, the title implies that it's a list that could include the millions and millions of people who have worked in the Indian civil service. As it reads, this list is more about the heads of the various departments of the civil service. Agent 86 (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is about the administrative elite who had passed the exam and were covenanted. The provinces had separate civil services - this article is about the imperial layer above them.  Warden (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is common practice on Wikipedia to keep lists of people by occupation for which the occupation does not guarantee notability (as I assume is the case here, I don't know), so the list is simply limited only to those individuals who merit articles.  We also do this with lists of people by place of origin (e.g., we only list notable people from Nova Scotia, not all people from Nova Scotia who ever lived), lists of companies, lists of films, lists of books, etc., etc., etc.  So the deletion arguments that this list can never be "complete" (lists do not have to be) or is currently full of redlinks (some of which may merit articles) are not valid deletion arguments at all.
 * Nor is it valid to claim this list has verifiability issues just because it is currently lacking sources. This is unfortunately a common confusion.  To be unverifiable, however, it means that an article cannot be verified because reliable sources do not exist anywhere that support its content.  It does not mean simply that there are no sources in the article at present, a problem addressed by adding sources.  And I see that the first three articles listed have citations therein verifying that they were Indian members of the Indian Civil Service.  No doubt there are more.  So the notion that this list has verifiability issues can be easily rejected, and that incorrect claim appears to have been made purely based on the current state of the list and without regard to WP:BEFORE.
 * Finally, as WP:CLN notes, lists and categories can be complementary means of navigating articles and organizing information. This list, further, provides extra value that a category cannot because it has far more information than just alphabetized names: there are seven additional data columns.  The fact of Indians joining the ICS appears to have been historically significant and addressed by multiple reliable sources.  Whether the list should be complete, or limited only to article subjects, is a matter for normal editing and discussion to determine; in any event, it is easily substantial enough even if pruned to notable subjects.  And if the list were short enough, it would simply be included in Indian Civil Service; because it is not, it is properly split off per WP:SALAT.  postdlf (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. I'm picking up the sense that this has a problem with scope and scale and an added dash of indiscriminate information and OR. If this is to be kept the keep side need to demonstrate how this has a clear encyclopaedic scope that the list can easily meet without becoming unmanageable and indiscriminate and for deletion I think the delete side would benefit from clarifying their comments along the lines of OR. NOT and the scope. Spartaz Humbug! 04:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Are you kidding?  This is the worst possible form of listcruff.  It serves no sensible purpose.  It accepts on its face that it will never be a complete list, and if it ever did it would be absolutely gargantuan.  I think it just has to go. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This source tells us that there were about 450 people in this category at the time of Independence. This number does not seem especially large compared to some of our other lists - see Lists of American football players which contain thousands of people, for example.  As the administration was quite efficient, its records and official histories will provide good sources.  And the topic is quite notable as there have been many books about it such as The Men who Ruled India. Warden (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete we have the very well used Category:Indian civil servants for exactly this. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And WP:CLN tells us that, if we have a category, then it is appropriate and sensible to have a list too, so that they may complement each other. Warden (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and as I already posted above, "This list, further, provides extra value that a category cannot because it has far more information than just alphabetized names: there are seven additional data columns." It would be nice if commenters in AFDs would actually read and respond to comments that have already provided counterarguments to the claims they are making.  postdlf (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see the usefulness of this list. It is to be expected that the Indian civil service, even under colonial administration, included Indians. What would be useful would be a (probably briefer) list of particularly noted civil servants, of any nationality, in Indian Civil Service.  Sandstein   12:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Indian Civil Service article already contains a long list of that sort. This list seems to supplement that as a spin-off.  As it might have a thousand or so entries when complete, considerations of size make it sensible to subdivide in some way such as nationality.  If this is thought to be a premature fork/split then we should just merge back into until size indicates that it is time to split again.  Deletion would be disruptive to this and is not recommended by WP:CFORK: " If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.". Warden (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2011 (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.