Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanniaperumal IPS


 * 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. Notability based on his rank has not been verified by sources. However, no prejudice against undeletion (request on my talk and link this AfD) or recreation if sources verifying his rank / other notability can be found. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Vanniaperumal IPS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable senior law enforcement official. The General Notability Guideline has not been satisfied by the coverage I was able to find during a WP:BEFORE search. There is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources - just a lot of passing mentions, run-of-the-mill stuff, and a Youtube video. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blatantly promotional. Deb (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Terrible article, but the rank of IGP is senior enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not without verification it isn't, and even then the GNG needs to be met - people don't get an article based purely on a rank they once held. It appears that the rank, in this case, is similar to some sort of district commander, rather than the most senior officer in a police force - but, there's no verification, so... Exemplo347 (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "people don't get an article based purely on a rank they once held". An odd statement, given that generals and admirals do! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Insufficient coverage in independent, secondary sources to establish notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Very weak keep I agree that IG is sufficient (if I understand it right, that he's the head of the Tamil Nadu police; if it's a smaller unit than a state, I would not consider it notable. )  DGG ( talk ) 08:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * At the risk of undermining my own keep opinion, no he isn't the head of the state police. That's the Director-General of Police. IGP was once the most senior rank under British rule, but not any more. Now it's in charge of one of the sub-divisions of the state police. However, that still means he's in charge of policing millions of people and commands far more police officers than the heads of many of the world's police forces who do have articles. He's easily equivalent in rank to an army general officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, he was in charge of a city's police, and then in charge of a sector. But, like I've pointed out, there's no verification of this that meets the GNG anyway so this argument is moot. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2017 (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.