Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sibichen K Mathew


 * 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. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sibichen K Mathew

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nomination for IP editor 122.177.56.89, whose rationale was posted on the article's talk page. I have included it verbatim, below. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There is hardly any evidence of notability provided for this person. This article does not provide enough good quality references. Most of the edits are done by only one contributor who seems to have a WP:CoI regarding the subject matter. There is only one good quality secondary source provided and that is a very short news item. He seems to be just a mid-level bureaucrat in India and does not merit an encyclopedia article. The book supposedly authored by this person is also not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.56.89 (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Dont delete IRS agents in INdia have great notability.MR sibichen k mathew IRS is notable around bureaucratic as well as political circles.his book was inaugurated by the governor of Karnataka.he wasinstrumental in unearthing many scams andwasnominated manta times for presidents medal and also got special mention awards from the finance minister.i know there is no personal motives for this but there are many other bureaucrats not notable and even lower than drsibichen having pages on wiki.iknowwiki is not a bureaucrat show off place,but I believe that the page on dr sibichen is encyclopaedic if there. Is any prob withrefrencesi or othereditorsintheindianbioportal can add more references thank you and god bless (Harishrawat11 (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC))
 * Delete, not notable and not enough sources. TV | talk 22:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of any WP:RS to support notability. There is no reason to believe that IRS agents in India are any more significant than the non-notable bureaucrats who do this "work" in the United States. Qworty (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with lack of notability concerns - most of the subject's awards are supported by just one external link to a PDF about a college graduation, and the sole external secondary source that can be found in regard to the subject totals three sentences. The book he's written seems to be promoted solely through the subject's blog sites and lacks notability as well. Sidatio (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks significant coverage by sources. There's a brief blurb by The Hindu, but that's not enough to meet the general notability guideline.-- xanchester  (t)  23:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

he is of the rank of joint secretary i.e is under the warrant of precedence under the president of india.article is also not badly maintained but this really needs some reliable sources.i think i,ll do it (117.192.155.64 (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC))

his book is not very notable but that is not the question.maybe i ll get refrences for the book too...... (117.192.155.64 (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC))

this page also has got satisfactory page views since conception some days even going upto45 views per day.(117.192.155.64 (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC))


 * Delete Looks like a WP:RESUME. No claims of importance in the article and no reliable sources to establish notability. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 12:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

KEEPAdded significant references from different national and international dailies.will try to make the page more like a wiki page and not like a resume.thanks for the comments.will surely follow them.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC))


 * Delete Still can't assess notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * keep he investigated the janardhana reddy case tax case and some other cases as i am not a registered editor i cant be bothered :) but some editor do it and find references,i have seen his name a couple of times in the newspaper.(54.241.120.10 (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC))


 * KEEP added references taking cue from other editors and also established notability him being the joint secretary of the govt of infia under the warrant of precedence under the president of India,as pointed out by a user,also adding 2 more refrences.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC))
 * Note Please do not vote twice. I've struck out your second vote as of now. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: How is he a "Joint Secretary to Government of India" and therefore formally in the Indian order of precedence? Give a satisfactory answer to that and you may be onto something. His book is mentioned in the Library of Congress Cite, but that's really only his saving grace. Apart from that I don't see anything here other than him being a mid-level apparatchik. Faustus37 (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * keep this guy is a senior IRS officer IRS is a premier government service,and he is also of the rank and pay of joint secretary.there are many jsecretary in india hence he is under the precedence and the article is also of good quality.i have seen many low level guys with wiki pages,but as a guy who knows and rrsesrches on IAS and IRS officers,he is notable enough to have a wiki article.(Mejojoseph22 (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2012 (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.