Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prasanth Nair IAS

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 redirect to Operation Sulaimani. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prasanth Nair IAS (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)

Local politicians are not going to come close at all for the applicable notability, there's essentially nothing else actually convincing, thus this PROD should not have been inappropriately removed as such. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep. The subject meets WP:BASIC. See sources below in major, national Indian and other news sources. This is why I appropriately removed the prod that was in place. What is actually inappropriate is for the nominator to state here that such valid prod removal was "inappropriate", because per the source coverage, I viewed deletion by Wikipedia:Proposed deletion as controversial. PRODs are a means to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion, but are contestable in instances such as this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 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. But in this case the subject even though being a local junior level civil servant has multiple independent references as new sources and also passes GNG and Basic. Uncletomwood (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mid-level civil servant with typical mid-level civil servant media coverage. No special notability. But note to nominator: a prod can be removed by anyone for any reason (or none); there is no "inappropriate" removal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Northamerica1000's assessment. Aust331 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I consider Indian news sources coverage of mid level public servants as unreliable to show notability. The uman interest coverage from them here pretty much proves it. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• After reading everything, I am not convinced that a mention in several national newspapers is notable. I'd say delete Pyrusca (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG. Subject is just another civil servant and no claim to notability made in the article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pls see below. // Original comment -- the coverage offered at the AfD is either trivial or routine. For example,

• "The battle between Kozhikode district collector Prashanth Nair and Congress MP MK Raghavan over implementation of projects under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) has been raging both online and offline for the last one week." (links #1 above, routine coverage related to subject's work.)
• Interview with the subject (link #2 above; interviews do not help to establish notability, as they are not RS as to the subject's claims)
• Etc.

The coverage confirms that the subject exists and has the role as described in the article, but is insufficient to build an encyclopedia article. This is by all accounts an unremarkable mid-level bureaucrat, and the article should be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sources provided by NorthAmerica1000 confirm notability. Pratyush (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- the sources offered above are WP:ROUTINE and not substantial enough to build a balanced biography. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Operation Sulaimani: Needs more initiatives like Sulaimani to make a good case of notability on Wikipedia. For now redirect the subject to the thing he is known for. (I'm also somewhat convinced that subject meets the BASIC standard, but that would eventually mean using the same set of references for two articles.) Anup [Talk] 22:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Operation Sulaimani seems like a good solution, as this somewhat of a WP:BIO1E. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Operation Sulaimani It is very clear that the subject is notable because of the single event and it is essentially a WP:BIO1E. I am also unsure if the entire credit of the event goes to the subject. Per WP:NOTWHOSWHO I prefer a redirection to the event article here for a possibly balanced coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:04, 14 September 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.