Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toofan Singh


 * 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Toofan Singh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NSOLDIER. A young militant who did not held any top post in the organisation and died at the age of 19. The subject lacks WP:SIGCOV and only finds passing mentions or a couple of line description about his involvement in crimes. Another editor opined that the article was ""  D Big X ray ᗙ  06:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. A very obvious keep actually. A self-styled Lt. general and second in command of the KLF in its early days. Oodles and oodles of sources. Not only that - he's been the subject of glorification in books and film - e.g. film - which are banned in India - . Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz Thanks a lot for the kind comments. Talking about the sources you presented this is a passing mention. sikh24.com is not a reliable source and you will find all kinds of sikh propaganda there.  " Self styled " is the operating word here self styled and self assumed titles doesn't really mean anything.  WP:MILPERSON Clearly defines the criterias for such bios and this one fails it. I would like to hear from you which particular clause of WP:MILPERSON is satisfied here, If convinced I am ready to withdraw my AfD nomination. He was a militant of KLF who was involved in multiple crimes and a film glorifying him was banned is pretty much all the content that is available about this person. (I am not counting the trivia about his funeral since it is an obvious publicity stunt with no reliable source backing up that claim.) -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:MILPERSON merely creates standards for presumed notability - and is a poor fit for terror groups in any event. Soldiers may pass GNG if they don't pass MILPERSON - and many do. This is particularly so for irregular militants for which MILPERSON is of dubious relevance (as opposed to WP:PERP and WP:NCRIME). For this particular militant - it is quite obvious he's been the subject of a very extensive glorification campaign since he was killed in 1990 (the latest banned full length movie being just one example of such glorification). It also seems his death was fairly notable at the time he was killed (e.g. there are sources from the 80s and 90s (e.g. the source I threw out above was from 1990 when he was killed) - despite being young, it seems he was important or that his death caught on very early as martyr story). It is quite clear to me he passes GNG. There may indeed be WP:NPOV issues in the article - but that's not cause for deletion. Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, It appears that our standards for notability are very different. lets ask the obvious questions. Did this person cause a major terror event that was widely reported ? No. Did this person do anything that was widely covered ? No. I am yet to hear from you on the basis of which sources you are claiming this subject passes GNG. The terrorist group sympathizers made a propaganda movie glorifying him that was a flop and tanked everywhere it was released without getting any coverage. Just because he was the subject of a propaganda film does not provide automatic notability. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm basing my !vote here (as elsewhere) on WP:SIGCOV - not on his "success" or lack thereof in terror. We have coverage of the movie (2014-2019) - . Now, if this was just the movie - I'd say - just merge it to the movie. However coverage of Singh pre-dates the movie. He's covered in sources on terrorism in India - e.g. 2005 book "A well-known militant of the KLF, Toofan Singh Toofan alias Jugraj Singh which expressly states he is well known. or 1999 book "Dreaded terrorists namely Jugraj Singh alias Toofan Singh", 2005 book "Yugraj Singh alias Toofan Singh Toofan of the Khalistan Commando Force who was responsible for more than 150 killings", 1990 reporting "This trend has been on the increase since a "bhog' for a slain terrorist chieftain, Jugraj Singh alias Toofan Singh in Batala police district two months ago evoked a tremendous response. And while the Government..., 1990, 1999, 2000. And I suspect a newspaper archive search (as 1990 is for the most part not digitized + these sources are referring to media coverage in late 80s and 1990) - will bring a whole bunch of more sources here. So - coverage in 1990. Continuing coverage in the context of being a terrorist leader in the decades since, a full length feature film on him (+a whole bunch of other propaganda online), and coverage of the film and its banning (in which Toofan is also discussed). This all is WP:SIGCOV. 07:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What you call as the coverage of the movie is actually the coverage of the "announcement of ban on the movie". Moreover, articles talking about the movie can't be used to claim notability of the subject. The sources you listed i.e. siksiyasat.net, sikh24.com, singhstation.net, etc are Sikh right wing blogs/propaganda sites and those propaganda articles cannot be used to claim anything. Rawat Publications, Trikuta Radiant Publications, none of them are noteworthy or trusted publication houses. Also it should be noted that all of these including are passing mentions in a line or two of the subject. The SIGCOV is decided on the sources that are available. As a contributor who regularly contributes to India related topics, I can tell you that the sources from 1980s in India are widely available online, and one doesn't need to invoke WP:MUSTBESOURCES for this time period to claim notability. I will agree to disagree with you on the SIGCOV here. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hindustan Times: Censor declines to clear ‘Toofan Singh’; The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has refused to clear Punjabi film ‘Toofan Singh’, which is based on the life of Jugraj Singh ‘Toofan’, Khalistani militant who was killed in an encounter at 19., and lots more pops up in the simplest news search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * E.M.Gregory we are discussing the person Toofan Singh and not his movie.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SIGCOV. and Note that if even a not-very-good or outright propaganda film gets  SIGCOV, it's still SIGCOV, and that age of death is irrelevant, only the quality and extent of coverage is relevant to assessing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, the film is a tick towards notability but although there are news items that describe Singh as "a top militant", and"terrorist chieftain", these are just snips, i have been unable to any indepth coverage, so at the moment, this looks like a Merge to Toofan Singh (film) with a paragraph or two. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, because sourcing isnot limited to the film. He shows up quite well in a gBook search .  Article needs expansion, but sourcing exists and notability is clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thankyou, looking at the gbook search above agree that sources are there so i change to Keep (a small trout to coola for being a silly kitty would be appreciated:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. E.M Gregorys rationales are very convincing.BabbaQ (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep easily meets GNG. Nomination is meritless. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Harmanprtjhj (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.  D Big X ray ᗙ  07:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Note that this comment is by D Big .  Nothing unusual in page creator arguing "Keep" while page nominator argues "delete.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * E.M.Gregory please check WP:AFDFORMAT, where it explains that he was expected to explicitly declare the conflict of interest, which he did not, hence the tag, per WP:AVOIDCOI-- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:29, 29 March 2019 (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.