Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Dabi


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Tina Dabi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Tina Dabi looks to be a "low-profile" person. Although there's sourcing for her being a "topper" I don't think this is sufficient for a standalone article. Tina and the other top scorers are already listed at Civil Services Examination. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 14:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. It says something when most of the article pertains simply to her family and education. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tina Dabi page is not just about one event. There are many similar pages like this but once there are ample third party credible sources, it can be created. Same have been done for many new cricketers, players whose pages have been created. Apart from being UPSC topper, its the hard working and inspiring story of Tina of being an incredible Dalit girl which is the main factor for creating the page.--Juneymb (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Above user blocked for sockpuppetry. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of Union Public Service Commission Civil Services Toppers. Being a "topper" is the ony thing that she is known for, desipte how inspirational that may be for some people. This is a clear case where the policy at  Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies.  Tina Dabi is a living person and meets the definition of a low-profile individual.  In addition, the coverage of her is only about one event, her score on the Civil Service exam and the background leading up to that.  Aside from that one event there is no independent coverage. Thus, the guideline Notability (people) (WP:BIO1E) also applies.  If at some later time she distinguishes herself in another way, then her Wikipedia notability may be reconsidered.  Note that Wikipedia notability is not the same as an inspirational story.  If later there is in depth coverage about her in the context of having inspired others to achieve their goals, not just passing coverage, her Wikipedia notability may be reconsidered, but that kind of coverage, if it does occur, is reasonably years from now, otherwise it is just WP:CRYSTALBALL.  With regard to your comment about football (soccer) and cricket players: (1) Sports figures have a specific and different set of notability guidelines. Notability (sports) (2) Such comparative arguments are very weak, see the essays at Other stuff exists, Pokémon test, and in general Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of Union Public Service Commission Civil Services Toppers. Uncletomwood (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Pages of many one time MLA, MP are there on wikipedia. Tina Dabi page needs to be there as she is an example of Dalit uprising and uplifment of Dalit in India.--Rehanpocha (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC) — Rehanpocha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Above user blocked as a sockpuppet of the earlier keep !voter. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Tina Dabi Being a daughter of highly qualified parents, having all advantages best school, best college & elite socialization, she opted reservation thats preserved for economically, socially & educationally backward people. She was trying to enter civil services through the porous & loopholes of the Indian constitution. Becoming topper is an accident. She qualified the first stage exam through reservation. She is not a caste girl. She is a high class top girl with availed with all best advantages possible in India, despite that she opted reservation, thats extremely unethical, immoral & opportunistic. She doesn't stand to the hight of minimum decency,as she deserves reservation in no way. Reservation meant for extremely poor students of this third word India.Tina Dabi should explain the human race that she is backward, marginalised & economically disadvantaged having IES Father & IES Mother. She qualified preliminary exam through reservation, here is the link of her marks obtained. She was not qualifying the preliminary exam itself without reservation. She scored 96.66 against general category cut-off was 107.34. Paper-2 was just qualifying, its mark is not considered.  http://www.qmaths.in/2016/05/upsc-2015-prelims-marks-released-tina-dabi-sc-cat.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloso83 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect per WP:BIO1E. Benjar spells it out well above, so no reason for me to repeat them. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Peter James below makes a good argument why a redirect is unnecessary. 99% of people who search her name will do so because they know she topped the exam and want more information about her. So taking the reader to a list that does nothing more than confirm the fact she topped the exam is rather pointless. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Neutral on keep/delete but this should not redirect. Apart from the inherent non-neutrality for such a redirect from a BLP, there isn't a substantial amount of information in the page it's proposed to redirect to, just as there wasn't in Articles for deletion/Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian) (2nd nomination). Peter James (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, what is the "inherent non-neutrality for such a redirect from a BLP". She was clearly eported by reliable sources as a "topper".  Is there some controversy over that fact? --Bejnar (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If she is notable according to our guidelines, even if only for one event, a redirect excludes information that belongs in her article just because it doesn't belong in the Civil Services Examination article. If not notable, there shouldn't be a redirect at all. Whether neutrality is an issue or not, I would still support deletion if not retained as a separate article as there's only a name in a list there, not even a paragraph. Peter James (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. I was both amazed and amused yesterday to find a page on the name of this year's upsc exam topper. Really? A wikipedia page on the name of an exam topper? Why not separate pages for 2nd ranker, 3rd ranker, 4th ranker and so on. Are they less deserving? Why not a separate wikipedia page for every topper for every year's upsc exam since this exam was made open for Indian nationals. Then why upsc exam alone, why not a page for IIT-JEE topper, CAT topper, AIIMS topper? I know IAS toppers who have resigned from their job and now are devoted to public service by various other means. Some of them have done exemplary work after they resigned from service (Anyone knows Harsh Mander or Sanjeev Sabhlok?). All this unfounded frenzy around this year's topper will settle down soon. As for exam toppers, what they do with their career later in their life will decide whether they deserve a wikipedia page or not. My humble request - let us not make something as pure and pristine as wikipedia a place for politics and propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IK2P (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)  — IK2P (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete as not actually convincing of an independently notable article. SwisterTwister   talk  07:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bejnar and Chris. More significantly, the vote above by Gloso83 shows exactly why the article should not exist for someone who would rather keep a low profile. Let’s not ruin a biography by making it a coatrack for other issues. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 12:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Single events, that too about an exam do not warrant a wiki entry. ChunnuBhai (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * DELETE THIS ARTICLE THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG. SHE HASN'T DONE ANYTHING GREAT AND HAS JUST TAKEN UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF THE RESERVATION POLICY. -- 199.253.242.3 (talk) 09:53, 26 May 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.