Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surendra Singh, 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. The consensus of the discussion is that the subject lacks sufficient notability independent of the riot to merit a stand alone article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Surendra Singh, IAS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Bureaucrats are not inherently notable. Further due to lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources the subjects fails general guidelines about notability. He has only passing mention in few sources. Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 00:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Surendra Singh was criticized during Muzaffarnagar communal riot, he was in news during these period later immediately CM Akhilesh Yadav transferred from Muzaffarnagar as he was DM of Muzaffarnagar. According to news sources, It has Allegation on DM that he is Hindu and might be communal. He was also in news in Durga Shakti Nagpal case for supporting her and Govt. harassed those IAS officer who supported Nagpal . He was recently honoured with Election Commission of India's First Award for Best Electoral Practices on 25th January 2013 for his great achievement and performance in Pratapgarh district, UP. --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't stand alone as an article. Should be merged with incident's article page or else deleted. Drsharan (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔   02:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep more sources have been added. Not just notable for one incident. Meets WP:GNG requirements, see in particular the discussion in the cited "Muzaffarnagar riots" article.   --Bejnar (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. District magistrates are far too junior to be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No claim of inherent notable, claim is has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Bejnar (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply a mid-ranking official doing his job with the normal coverage given to such an official. No real notability. I see no particular reason why he is any more notable than any other district magistrate in India. And apart from a minor administrative award, certainly not prestigious enough to make him inherently notable, the article makes no obvious claims of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Prime Minister doesn't usually hand out "minor admin awards" in person. Comments like the following are not common for District Magistrates: Known to be a good, honest officer, he had come down hard on his own administration for corruption and had even started a massive campaign against encroachments and illegal constructions. This kind of administration had never been witnessed earlier in Muzaffarnagar, and Surendra Singh was immensely popular for it. You may disagree about the basis for the coverage, but he meets WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Important people present minor awards all the time all over the world. Smiling photos in the newspapers with shiny, happy awardees look good to the electorate. As to the comment you quote, why on earth does that make him notable? So he did his job. Period. The fact that he did his job properly and previous incumbents did not and people therefore thought he was a great guy does not make him notable in Wikipedia terms. No, he does not meet GNG. Routine coverage does not equal significant coverage, which is what GNG require. If this was the case we would have articles on pretty much every city and district councillor and executive in the world, since they tend to get considerable coverage of their routine activities in the media, but many have been deleted for just this reason. Routine coverage of an individual doing his job is not sufficient unless that job is a very important one. And district magistrate is not important enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the fact is that he is not ordinary, and more importantly for AFD, that he has received in depth coverage that meets WP:GNG, despite being what you consider a lowly bureaucrat, That is not true of most people in his position. --Bejnar (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Where is this "in-depth" coverage? Let's actually look, shall we. Of the ten references in the article, we have: his personnel record on a government website; a photo of him on the website of his district (cited twice); a routine government article on him launching a driving licence system; a list of district magistrates on the government website; two routine news articles which mention his appointment (along with a number of other officials); a news article on the riots (the only reference that mentions his name more than once); a news article that mentions his award (along with others - his name is mentioned precisely once and there is no further information given on him); and a reference to a print magazine that I obviously can't check. Wow. That's a lot of "in-depth" coverage, isn't it? No, it isn't. It's about normal for a mid-ranking official. It really does not make him any more notable than any other official of his level. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the entire riot article, you seem to have missed several paragraphs. --Bejnar (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I said the riot article is the only source that mentions his name more than once. What exactly did I miss? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Even though the riot article is considered acceptable, still we have only one good source.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose that you don't like the non-profit NGO report on his education initiatives either. --Bejnar (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, this report is not about him, but about an educational programme he helped to introduce as part of his job. His name is mentioned three times, with a brief biography. It's hardly unusual for officials to be given brief biographies in reports. Any conference report has brief bios of the speakers. It doesn't mean they're notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment If we had the Hindi version of his name, we could see both if he has a page in Hindi Wikipedia which might contain more sources establishing notability and perform a Hindi news archive search. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * His name in Devanagari script is "सुरेंद्र सिंह", as in this article मुजफ्फरनगर: बीजेपी विधायकों की गिरफ्तारी संभव. However "सुरेंद्र सिंह" is not an uncommon name, see, e.g. Surendra Singh (disambiguation) --Bejnar (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete the riot is notable, but Singh, as a mid-level government employee is not himself notable. EricSerge (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per EricSerge MarlovianPlough (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2014 (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.