Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Salaskar


 * 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. I'm closing this one early since there appear to be sources which would allow for improvement through editing (the deletion policy gives deletion as a list resort for articles that cannot be edited to meet standards), also, there's a near unanimous keep vote, by established non-Indian editors. I suggest people to improve the article as soon as possible and if required, we can have a review in a couple of months. Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Vijay Salaskar
"killed while fighting terrorists" clearly fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT a memorial.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Not just that! Actually Salaskar was considered as the best encounter specialist in India. He is believed to have killed almost 75 criminals in shootouts. This article must remain on Wikipedia. In such cases, Indians who know better than the foreign editors should be the best judges. I have edited the article now. I have also added a Rediff interview link to the article, which is a clear indication that this man was famous even before his death. I hope you would accept the fact that the interview was taken before his death!!!! -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This article should stay!
 * Hell you cannot have dual rules, one for Asians and another for whires, Vijay Salaskar was a brave man, he had a record of killing goons.


 * Comment, Sreejith didn't mention whites but non Indians. So let me assure him that not all non-Indians are against a decent coverage of all things Indian as a part of our coverage, or in favour of deleting this article, and of course all are welcome to contribute. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Please read WP:BIO and see whether this meets the criteria. Taprobanus (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep looks like we can improve the article with RS sources Taprobanus (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The article should stay as this person in a brave soldier of India and no damn policy can rule out his heroic act. Borfee (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)borfee
 * Delete - Per nom, "fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT a memorial". Wikipedia does not cater to the requests of Indian patriots. Tatarian (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not 1E because he was in the news multiple times before for hunting bandits. As for patriotism, well some people actually like bandits because they think the government is crooked, so police hitmen aren't always entirely loved.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The particular point states this: "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." This person is not a low profile individual. He was one of the best encounter specialists in India. He has killed around 75 criminals. This man was among the top police officials in the country. See, the media reports of his death came with his name in the title, like "Salaskar killed". That itself shows he was not a low profile individual. This articl must stay. -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Stating again; from the Rediff interview that was taken in 1999, a good 10 years back, it is clear that Salaskar was not an ordinary person. Wikipedia must have a page for him. -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Keep as clearly notable in life by wikipedia standards, seems a shot against our coverage of India, where our coverage remains poor. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The whole material cannot support notability of the subject to have a separate article. Mention it in the main article, the attack, and that's enough. Dekisugi (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there must be lots of sources from human rights/justice type groups somewhere about his extrajudicial killings... YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're sure, then please provide those. Otherwise it's an original research. Dekisugi (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.Borfee (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)borfee
 * Keep The article clearly meets the following basic criteria for Notability (people)


 * Keep: He has been in the news as an encounter specialist having killed about 80 gangsters and his death is not his only claim to notability. He has been in the news before. March 2008-- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - this trivial mentioning of one small news article does not enough to support his notability. Dekisugi (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   — Redtigerxyz  Talk 16:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Redtigerxyz.  Docku:  What up?  16:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:BLP1E does not apply here on two counts. First, for the reason that it is about biography of living persons. Second, Salaskar was in the news as early as in 1999 . Salih  ( talk ) 17:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep (I'm the creator of the article) along with the other keep arguments here, I'd like to say that (1) Salaskar was notable for being a senior Mumbai police officer, period. His article is relevant to others such as Mumbai Encounter Squad. His killing of criminals and presence with Karkare and others in the team fighting the terrorists denotes his importance to the units fighting terrorism in Mumbai/India. (2) Salaskar is noted by most news agencies as one of the key police officers killed in the attack. Shiva   (Visnu)  18:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Open and shut case of systemic bias. Salaskar was notable for gunning down the most wanted underworld criminals. It is the death of a notable Salaskar that made headlines, not the other way around as the nomination statement goes. I wish nominators in the future do a bit of basic research on notability instead of just reading a developing article. This list of sources including some from the BBC, Times of India, NDTV, and Indian Express should put a lid to this debate. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete -- I am from Mumbai and my heartfelt sympathies go out to Salaskar's family and others affected by the ghastly attacks. However, we must maintain a sense of objectivity and neutrality and not be carried away by emotions. While it is sad that Salaskar died, it also cannot be denied that he does not pass the notability criteria. If you do wish to honor him, make mention of his act of bravery (along with a small description of his police career) in the Main Mumbai Attack article instead. But as I said, this article has to go - it doesn't meet the notability criteria. -- User: rajiv_pnp


 * You are contradicting your own understanding of WP:Notability by saying If you do wish to honor him.  Docku:  What up?  20:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete- As per Tatarian. See WP:NOT, please. Cheers.  Im per a t § r (Talk) 20:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Clear case of (hopefully systemic) Bias. Any Western policeman who had killed 75-80 mafiosi in shootouts would be a national hero and clearly notable. Which Salaskar is. He would be notable without his death in the recent terrorist attacks - so BLP1E is being used as a straw man argument—see the several references in the article about him. I'm suggesting speedy because the ugly AfD tag on the top of the article might dissuade new Indian editors from joining. ~ priyanath talk 23:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no grounds for a speedy keep.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Considering this is extremely likely headed for keep, and the strong emotions around this right now (for example, the fact that the captured terrorist's article is not being challenged, while the hero's is, has been rightfully noted), I think if an admin closed this early he would be doing the right thing. WP:IAR applies here, if it ever does. Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 02:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep- The AFD discussion for 'Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan' has started it all. While there was some justification for AFD for that article, the AFD for this article on Mr. Salaskar is unfortunate. He killed more than 75 criminals in his service and was covered in newspapers for every encounter. He was entitled for an article even before his death in this terror strike. This AFD is actually out to destroy wikipedia. For Example the AFD on the article on Todd Beamer is closed as majority of people have voted for it. There is no discussion about the 'Notability' in the context of wikipedia policies. Contrast that with the AFD on Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan where it is closed as emotions are involved. When the regular registered editors are voting with national bias, how can we be sure that this bias is not creeping in the articles on wikipedia. Varun


 * Strong Keep If a terrorist is more notable than a martyr. You can delete otherwise Keep this page Aminami (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep very notable for participating in wars against underworld, ie, by killing lots of bandits.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Striong Keep Once again i am asking same question is terrorist are more notable than a martyr? there are many articles on terrorists. Is this wiki policy to make notable terrorist rather than a martyr Aminami (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepIn India a martyr is above of all, even above of God. a martyr, in our India, doesnt need any reward from Govt. of other. each commando, mitlitry person or policeman wants to become a martyr. Ask to any Indian that who is above of all? President, Prime Minister or a martyr. The Indian will say offcourse a martyr. So dont wait for any other notability or reward. Aminami (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable before he died. Notable after he died. Sarvagnya 05:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. For reasons already stated by SqueakBox, Srijeath and others. Academic Challenger (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: same reason as given by Sarvagnya.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article passes the GNG, and as Sarvagnya and others point out, there are RS's mentioning him before he died.  So even contorting WP:BLP1E to apply to him (deceased), he doesn't fit, as he isn't a one event guy.  A more appropriate guideline is WP:BIO1E, which is worded a little less stringently.  But in addition to there being RS's with info on him apart from the 1E,  it contains the clause "unless ... sources have written primarily about the person"  to make it consistent with the GNG (2RS=N). So even under the strictest interpretation, BIO1E thus does not really apply to this article.  In any case, BLP1E and BIO1E suggest  redirection, not deletion.   When there are substantial RS's like newspaper articles that put a person or a topic in the title, the article is very rarely, perhaps never, something suitable for deletion. There are sources specifically about him, with him in the title in the refs - perhaps they weren't there when the debate started. But now it is clear that according to our policies and guidelines, this is a keep. What BLP1E and BIO1E and Not a memorial are for is to discourage articles on people like the victims of such attacks, private individuals for which  an article based on reliable sources would just say things like "died in the attack" and  little more, and who at most should be treated in a list or as a redirect to the "one event.".  Not people who have gained real notability, or attracted more notability, due to their prominence & actions in the "one event". John Z (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2008 (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.