Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahtab Singh Sehrawat


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 00:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Mahtab Singh Sehrawat

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unless I'm missing something, this is just a random bureaucrat. A "Deputy Commissioner" isn't generally notable. Biruitorul Talk 22:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete, no evidence that this isn't another "random bureaucrat". Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Hard to know for sure whether he had good coverage in the non-English press, but with only 2 sentences to the article this can always be recreated. AngoraFish   木  10:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why shouldn't a Deputy Commissioner be considered notable? This isn't just some "random bureaucrat": he's in charge of government administration in a district with a population of ten lakh, and in a country with such all-pervading bureaucracy as India that is a very prominent position. He also appears to have some rather unpleasant duties . Phil Bridger (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) India has 610 districts; do we really want 610 "X is Deputy Commissioner of Y District" articles being created in perpetuity? Plus, not even the head of the Indian Administrative Service has an article (though he probably should). And again: this individual is not a politician or someone who influences policy; he collects taxes and stamps papers for a million people (a trivial number when it comes to India). 2) I'd be more sympathetic if, as required by WP:BIO, he had received "substantial coverage". That is not the case. A few disparate mentions (rather than a complete biographical profile) will never allow us to write an actual article on him. It seems preferable, then, not to leave this one-liner lying around endlessly. - Biruitorul Talk 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, as long as it is verifiable I do think that we should have 610 articles on deputy commissioners (or the equivalent titles such as "collector" in the various states), and thousands more on past such people, in India. This is the person with the power in a district. He (it's pretty universally not "she" despite India having had one of the first female heads of government in the world) is the person that makes the decisions about what goes on in the district and, not least importantly (although I wouldn't want to suggest that this article subject would accept), is the one that you offer a bribe to if you want to get anything done. The position goes far beyond collecting taxes and stamping papers. We assume that certain classes of subject, such the 90 members of the state legislature of Wyoming (which has about half the population of Mewat) will, by virtue of the office that they hold, have sources available even if they haven't yet been found, so we can do the same for a deputy commissioners in India in charge of districts with an average population of about 20,00,000. The sources will pretty obviously exist, but will mostly be in Punjabi (in this case) and Hindi, and probably offline. Why should subjects in India be considered less worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia just because the country contains more than 20% of the worlds population? I don't see 20% of Wikipedia's content as being about subjects relevant to India yet, so we should be encouraging articles about clearly important Indian subjects rather than slapping them down. Of course China is even more under-represented, but that's a separate issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That depends on what you mean by "article", but my understanding of that word involves a work of at least a few paragraphs, which I somewhat doubt we could ever get to for most of these individuals. Your comparison with Wyoming legislators is a bit of a straw man: those meet WP:POLITICIAN, which administrators do not, and no one is suggesting deletion of people from Category:State legislators of Indian States. Moreover, while I'm aware of WP:DEADLINE, the fact is that sources are far more readily available for, say, Stan Blake or Marty Martin than for Indian Administrators. The notion that sources "pretty obviously exist", and that someone will come along some day, merrily translating Punjabi newspaper articles for our benefit, is rather implausible. Indeed, the burden of proof is on others to show that sources for an encyclopedic article do exist: as far as I can see they don't, and unless they're found (with the stipulation that nothing in WP:BIO renders this man inherently notable), then deletion is the answer. - Biruitorul Talk 06:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Phil Bridger (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:BIO, WP:GNG; not because it would be too onerous to have articles on a few thousand IAS, IPS or IFS officers, but because in this (and most other) case we don't (and won't) have sources to write a biographical article beyond reflecting trivial press coverage of public events and appearances. Abecedare (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete cant find anything notable other than he has a job. -- Docku:  What's up?  21:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not say whether he has passed I.A.S. If so, keep him. According to the references included, he is an I. A. S officer and hence must have passed I. A. S. Check it out. If he has passed I.A.S, he would become commissioner eventually. Commissioner is equivalent to a mayor of a big city in the US.
 * not sure about the last part. there are mayors in India in big cities elected by people. -- Docku:  What's up?  02:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Mayor and Commissioner are two different roles. Mayors are elected politicians. Commissioners have to pass regeorous scholarly tests. Yes, I think mayors are also there in India. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC) --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner may be I. A. S. (class I exam.) passed or I. A.S promoted (means passed class II and down the road promoted to Class I (equivalent to I. A. S). If Singh has passed I.A.S, he can be notable. Otherwise it is for further discussions. Check it out. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Closing administrator please note that I have made further comments above the relist line in response to another editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

District collector (the senior colonial government official) of districts in India and else where, which has a present-day population of about 2 million. This would make him roughly equivalent to a mayor of Houston or Brisbane. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2009 (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.