Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raghuvendra Singh Rathore


 * 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. bd2412 T 19:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Raghuvendra Singh Rathore

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We assume auto-notability for Supreme Court judges or Chief Justices of High Courts.

Fails WP:GNG and/or WP:ANYBIO. &#x222F; WBG converse 08:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:JUDGE states (modified for brevity) that "Judges who have held sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office are presumed to be notable". Yes, it does say that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included", but I would be very surprised if there was not sufficient secondary sources to establish notability, even if only in Hindu, and as such I don't believe we should delete this article until a Hindu-speaking editor who can confirm that there is nothing to back up a claim of notability beyond his high position. --  No COBOL  (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I had assumed that finding sources would be hard, but I should have searched immediately. While most of the articles revealed mention him in passing, there are others that discuss him in more detail, such as this horrific incident. Looking up Zee News, it doesn't appear to be a tabloid either, so it is possible it is true and thus reinforces the notability of the concerned individual, and hints towards additional references on non-English platforms. --  No COBOL  (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , what the heck is Hindu? There is a language called Hindi and I speak that. &#x222F; WBG converse 11:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hindustani language. But yes, Hindi would probably have been more correct. As for the references; in that case, perhaps you can search for them, and if you can't find any note that to us? --  No COBOL  (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: I have added a couple of references and text concerning the subject's National Green Tribunal role. Aside from the incident noted above, a Google India news search shows significant coverage of recent decisions led by the subject: . Overall, enough for WP:JUDGE criterion 1. AllyD (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , SIGCOV? Any judge across any court (unless at the lowest tier) will get such routine mentions. Which source has covered his activities/ judicial performance in detail? &#x222F; WBG converse 11:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The minimum requirement for appointment as judicial member in the subject's current role is to have served as a high court judge (see 5(1) on p4 of the 2010 Act), which the subject satisfies through his 2007-15 Rajasthan High Court role. I see no reason why our WP:JUDGE presumed notability criterion for "judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" would not thereby be met? That the decisions of tribunals over which he has presided are being reported in the media provides supplementary verification of the subject's active role, but my keep opinion is centred on the WP:JUDGE criterion. AllyD (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , the usual SNG/GNG debate...... &#x222F; WBG converse 12:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: Sometimes "a presumption of notability" gets confused with automatic and the bar is set higher on BLP's. In the case of a state Supreme Court judge of India (there are 1076) with a population of over 1.3 billion people there is certainly a presumption. Rajasthan has over 68.5 million people and 50 high court judges. When backed by sources there is notability. In this case there are sources and some were added. Otr500 (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Otr500. /Julle (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2019 (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.