Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravindra Kumar / IAS


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ravindra Kumar / IAS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a civil servant, leaning extremely heavily on unreliable sources like press releases, Blogspot posts, Twitter tweets, Yahoo Answers posts and YouTube videos — and with all the references simply contextlessly piled at the bottom of the article without even the slightest attempt at footnoting what content is sourced to which reference, it's impossible to properly evaluate whether his claim of notability is actually properly supported by the relatively few genuinely reliable sources or not. And furthermore, there are serious overtones of self-promotional advertising here, which are not allayed by the fact that the article has been edited by User:Ravi5896 (and represent the only Wikipedia contribution that user has ever made), so there's a potential/probable WP:COI. There might be a genuine notability case here, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced properly, but this version of the article ain't it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with nominator. I have looked into some of the sources and started to try to clean up the article.  However there is no indication of notability except for the climbing of Everest, and being the first civil servant in his department to do so.  Which really, unfortunately is not that notable any more, unless it truly is a first, such as when the first blind man climbed it.  So many people have now climbed Everest that a specific civil servant climbing it is not notable. VViking Talk Edits 01:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the other editors who have posted here. I came across this article and noticed it needed manual of style cleanup, so going through the article and fixing the headers, and spacing, etc., I read through the text and while there might be some notability, I can't see how it would meet notability guidelines for an encyclopedia article. Yes, there are all kinds of references, but we don't know what in the text they are sourcing as they are all added in a general sense at the bottom, plus many of them are blogs and social networking sites which don't meet reliable source guidelines. Reading through the article, I get the sense that's it's more promotional than encyclopedic, and if we were to take out all the promo aspects, fluff and unreliable references, I don't think we would be left with much of an article. Cmr08 (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment -Well, being not hatred of COI and AUTOBIO, -the article indeed in its present shape is very bad but that can be discussed on the respective talk page. Coming to the notability of subject, -they appear to be have received some kind of coverage in some reliable sources such as, -,, , , , , , . -At one instance they appear to be someone notable for only one event (yes, BLP1E for climbing a mountain?), on other side they have won two Indian states highest sports award (Bihar Khel Ratna and Sikkim Khel Ratna award. sounds good?). I need sometime to (look for more sources and) make a !vote on here. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  02:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -Subject meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG for having significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources and having won two prestigious awards. If kept, please move it to Ravindra Kumar (IAS officer) leaving no redirect. (courtesy ping to, and  to take a look at now-version of article.) .  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  01:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Relister's note: Whilst there is a reasonable consensus to delete above, I would be remiss to allow that outcome in the light of the substantial improvements to the article. Hoping the above editors will come back and reassess. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not shown by winning state awards and nothing else meets any notability standards. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What? Read WP:BIO and WP:GNG, then sources listed above in my comment. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  19:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I am new to the editing community and I am perplexed about the very low bar that seems to be used for WP:GNG. Someone is claiming that this individual is notable because he received some local coverage for completing what is now a common challenge.  I do not live in India, but if the Indian press is anything like the Canadian press, this sort of feel-good, "local boy achieves" article shows up in something other than the "News" section of a publication. It does not mean the person is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Walkabout14 (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment -I don't feel like answering each and everyone here. Needless to say but I would expect closing admin to weigh in policy-based arguments and disregard other !votes (and if possible take a look at article). Thank you. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  19:39, 19 February 2015 (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.