Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pankaj Choudhary (police officer)


 * 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. North America1000 02:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Pankaj Choudhary (police officer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person. Choudhary received some brief press for leveling accusations against his employers that he was punished (by receiving poor or unwanted reassignments) for pursuing prosecutions against politically connected persons. As far as I can tell, nothing came of his accusations. This article appears to be an attempt on Choudhary's part to resurrect the matter in a new forum. The article has been extensively pared down from this version, to the point where it asserts no notability at all. Had Choudhary's accusations resulted in an overhaul of the governance of the IPS, that might have made him notable, but as just a person with an axe to grind, no so much. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as A7, no claim of significance. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * definitely not an A7 candidate. You may want to check the article history. VQuakr (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Still definitely delete though. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Judging from the history, this article is the remnants of a once very exhaustive vanity article by the subject himself. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "remnants" from yesterday? VQuakr (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it stands for "Reminder: Pankaj shouldn't have violated BLP yesterday. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  01:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong delete I understand why it's not speedyable, but there's no real shred of WP:BIO notability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear from the delete !voters what steps they took to evaluate the five news stories from the article that mention the subject, and how they determined that they do not meet WP:BASIC. This subject may well not be notable, but no one has made a decent argument thus far. VQuakr (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The five sources I presume you are talking about are those used in the last version of the article before Anna Frodesiak cut it down to size. Let's look at them:
 * This article from Officers' Times (a publication by and for the officers of the Indian Police Service) appears to have been written by Choudhary himself. (The English translation shows Choudhary as the author.)
 * This, this, this, this and this are all reports about the single incident wherein Choudhary complained about being "shunted" (i.e. transferred to a less desirable posting) for prosecuting the wrong politically connected person. Choudhary's allegations made a spot of noise briefly, but ultimately came to nothing. WP:BLP1E applies here. Generally in the case of BLP1E, we might redirect to an article about the event, except there is no such article. This event was just not that notable. Lots of employees (in the IPS and elsewhere) complain that they are treated badly for wrong reasons. Choudhary might be right, or he might not, but since the case came to nothing, there's no basis of a Wikipedia article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 03:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with above, as a result he clearly fails WP:BLP1E. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, even though I have to point out that he has been transferred for allegedly investigating politically-connected people not once, but twice (in 2013 and 2015). However, the coverage of both events seems so limited and so routine, especially in the developing world, that they should not really register on Wikipedia. No longer a penguin (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per the sentiments so accurately expressed by above. Might I add, VQuakr, no decent argument has been made to keep said article either, indeed, no one is officially protesting said deletion with a 'keep'. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk  12:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment VQuakr's point (a valid one) is that arguments made at an AFD discussion should be based on Wikipedia policies, not just WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do point out to me an argument in this said discussion, that has been based on the arguments you mention? —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 13:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there were any such arguments; I just pointed out that VQuakr wanted an explanation why the sources that are available are invalid, because if the sources are valid, then deleting the article might not be a wise choice. But, since we all appear to be in agreement that the sources are not valid indications of lasting notability, we have a valid case for deletion. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I just don't believe the sentiments made prior to VQuakr's comment were inapropriate, as VQuakr so deemed. They certainly went a lot further in explaining why the article ought to be put on the scrap heap – than those who opposed deletion, whom, well.. don't seem to exist in this discussion. Nevertheless, you're right; there is a growing consensus that this article ought to be deleted, so I shall leave it at that. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk  13:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * in general the tone of the AfD seemed to be much too "let's get this guy for daring to be ignorant of our inclusion criteria" rather than dispassionate assessment of the subject. I also hadn't seen any discussion that addressed the additional sources that existed in earlier versions of the article. WikiDan did a great job in his reply of addressing both issues. Since the default result of an AfD is to keep, the presence (or lack) of keep !votes isn't directly relevant. I do agree that the case for notability has not improved since I proposed its deletion. VQuakr (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment We also have Pankaj Choudhary, which is about a politician. The user editing Pankaj Choudhary (police officer) appears to wish Pankaj Choudhary (police officer) removed and to start fresh by usurping and changing Pankaj Choudhary. See here. Please also see the history of Pankaj Choudhary to see what happened there. I'd suggest watchlisting that one. Thanks. This is all just FYI and I thought this a good place for it seeing that the editor wished this article to be promotional and now wishes it blanked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Mid-ranking officer (superintendent) far too junior for an article without a very good reason, which there doesn't appear to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete--no claim of significance.. autobiography written by self — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamstraw99 (talk • contribs)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2016 (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.