Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh Khullar


 * 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. There is no valid argument for notability. The position is not intrinsically notable. His high internal rating even if documented is irrelevant.  DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Rajesh Khullar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non Notable bureaucrat. No significant media coverage and does not meet notability guidelines. Uncletomwood (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable diplomat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Still not entirely sure as the Secretary position would seem enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  02:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * He's isn't a Secretary in the Government of India but in a Haryana, a state in India. Non Notable. Uncletomwood (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Passes WP:GNG. Agree with you, as 1988 batch secretary status in India is a senior one whether at state or centre. With all due respect, it seems the nominator has an obsession with submitting Indian civil servant wiki deletion requests. Ahrefimgsrc (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Going by that logic every IAS/IPS/IRS officer should have a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia pages of even Additional Chief Secretaries have been deleted. Please read WP:NOTTHEM Uncletomwood (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I only brought up the persons's seniority level since you casually remarked them as "just a secretary in the state government." Officer is a notable and senior bureaucrat and author with noteworthy national press coverage. Ahrefimgsrc (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * With all due respect to him, he isn't notable as per Wikipedia standards. Uncletomwood (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. Like some of us however, believe it definitely passes the general notability clause. Ahrefimgsrc (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

*Delete - Fails WP:BIO as well as WP:NPOL. Just a run of the mill mid level state civil servant. Uncletomwood (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have struck out your delete as you are the nominator and this could be deemed a double !vote. (Not that votes are what AFD is about, of course, but adding in an additional delete as nominator can make it seem at a glance like there is clearer consensus than is presently extant.) KaisaL (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Khullar holds the rank of a secretary in Government of India and is empaneled to work in that capacity having already served as Joint Secretary. He is one of the more senior officers in the country, of notable integrity and work ethic (look at performance appraisal report), and has directly addressed key policy issues in both state and centre. Article should stay.


 * No he does not. He's just a 1989 batch officer who is just a Secretary in the Haryana State Government. Performance Appraisals are hardly a criteria. He's hardly notable. Uncletomwood (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Factually incorrect. Officer is a 1988* batch officer who is Principal Secretary level in the state and (Addl) Secretary level in Government of India. Performance Appraisal Report (a merit score) is the single most important document when it comes to bureaucratic selections and postings in the state, centre or abroad. Aakanxit (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. He isn't empanelled to serve as an Additional Secretary in the Government of India though he may be equivalent. Please read what empanelment means. His book is also not notable. Check the latest batch (1985) to be empanelled to that post. Also an APAR does not matter to a wikipedia article. There are many officers who might even have a higher APAR score, but that isn't the criteria for notability for a wikipedia article. Check WP:BIO and WP:GNG for more information. Uncletomwood (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Never said that APAR is a criteria for judging Wikipedia notability, just that not every officer get empanelled so easily. So if the person in context has served as Joint Secretary in MOF/GOI, that already distinguishes the officer from any other state IAS/IPS officer. And for empanelment, APAR is most crucial. Thus, Khullar can serve as AS/Secretary post corresponding empanelment. Also worthwhile mentioning here that as Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, he holds the office of and exercises most executive power in the state, so I would refrain from calling them or anybody of similar seniority holding an equivalent state charge as 'just a Secretary' because that would only be demeaning. Judge notability on what the officer has done for the state/centre over the course of their career, and not where they are currently serving. Thanks. Aakanxit (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I shouldn't have referred to him as "just a Secretary", didn't have any intentions of demeaning him. It's the opposite with regards to empanelment actually. I'm sorry but almost all officers get empanelled and only a few aren't empanelled. Serving as a JS in MoF does not make him notable nor does serving as a Prl Secy in the State Government. Going by your argument with regards to his corresponding empanelment, it's a case of WP:TOOSOON Uncletomwood (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm not usually in favour of a third relist, but as this debate has just sparked into life - admittedly due to a new user account that has only commented on this subject - I am happy to extend this for a little bit longer. Additional contributors would be welcome; Are you still unsure? KaisaL (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as there still seems to be nothing else convincing for the needed notability. Notifying for subject analysis.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:49, 6 July 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.