Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. V. Ramesh (2nd nomination)

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.  Sandstein  19:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. V. Ramesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-Notable Civil Servant. Fails WP:BIO WP:POL Uncletomwood (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable civil servant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – well-sourced article on a senior civil servant in India. Difficult to see what the objection could be. Unanimous keep in first afd. 400 hits on the first search above, including a wide range of solid publications. If only the notability of LDS officials could be established so easily. Oculi (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Oculi. Meets WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article's citations are mostly made up of dead links and passing mentions in non-notable media. The only usable references I could find included [1] and [2], which do not help the article meet necessary notability requirements. Aust331 (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Reference 1 & 3 404 error, 2 gateway timeout, 4 subject not referenced & not authoritative site, 5 host not found, 6 dead link, 7 subject not referenced, 8 & 9 document not found, 10 subject not referenced, just calendar list. Looks like the authors threw references against the wall and hoped something stuck, but it has not. No notability demonstrated.--Rpclod (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not a good article, certainly, but he does seem to have held some pretty senior posts. Enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. one of the many recent articles on mid-level executives in the IAS> Not notable--the equivlent positions are not consideedn toable in any country, and the refs are the usual mix of pr & notices. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't think a principal secretary in a state government could possibly be considered "mid-level"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He is indeed. Senior would be only the Chief Secretary and Additional Chief Secretary/ DG of Police (Head of Force) and DG/ Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/ Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Uncletomwood (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting administrator note - Oculi, AusLondonder, Necrothesp: Can you provide any sources that establish the notability you claim? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED. An office in the civil service is not inherently notable unless it can be shown that the subject has done something to distinguish themselves. More importantly, the sources have to specifically be about the person. It would be easy to find google hits when the subject has a common name and often announces government decisions. But notability needs to be shown independently of these routine news. As far as I could see, I did not see anything to distinguish the subject from a run of the mill civil servant. The coverage has been more about stuff related to his office than actually about him. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL and fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He is just another IAS officer and nothing special about him. Thousands of bureaucrats in India have done what this man is doing. Claims are highly exaggerated and glorified. Article fails GNG and BLP. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, to be honest, I do not see any notability. Obviously any person who held mid-level government posts is well sourced since his transfer to different positions is documented, but other than that it looks to me like run-of-the-mill career.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.