Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. Irai Anbu

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 Government of Tamil Nadu. as a viable ATD as consensus is against a standalone Star Mississippi 03:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

V. Irai Anbu

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Promotional article about a chief secretary in a state government. Not important enough for an article. 🄻 🄰 20:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Tamil Nadu. 🄻 🄰 20:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep This person is obviously notable. Adeline2018 (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a promotional article. He has been a popular figure in Tamilnadu among youngsters, as a motivational speaker and also has been a key bureaucrat in Tamilnadu for years so nothing wrong in having a page for him. Maybe we can reduce the contents in the page but not a promotional page for sure. Vishwa Sundar (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the page has been getting more than thousand views per month which shows people look this article to know more about him. So we need a reliable source for people who want to know about him Vishwa Sundar (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly not a valid reason for keeping the article. Badbluebus (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, but the article is promotional and needs cleanup. - The9Man ^Talk 07:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the list at Chief secretary (India), most of them do not have an article. Why is this one different? 🄻 🄰 11:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't arrange notability by subtraction. If you are concerned you are welcome to add articles for these people. Adeline2018 (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Adeline2018 (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

— Duplicate !vote: Adeline2018 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - when the work has been done to fix the issues identified, then we can consider WP:HEY. As is my usual practice at AfD, I won't !vote until the rescue is done. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~: I've gone ahead and removed most of the article as promotional and unsalvageable. There's enough material in Google News that the subject seems to me to pass WP:GNG. --Richard Yin (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the coverage in Google, most of it seems to be only mentioning him in the context of being chief secretary and the rest seem to be WP:NEWSORGINDIA. What are you seeing? 🄻 🄰 14:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upon a closer look at the news sources I think you're right. I don't like the idea of disregarding a large country's news media, but it does seem like most of the articles that cover the subject in any detail are either puff pieces or summaries of press releases. I'll strike my vote and switch to delete. --Richard Yin (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as editors arguing for a Keep are not basing their statements on policy or sourcing. Few people are "obviously notable" and this one isn't or the article wouldn't be nominated for deletion consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to be an author now, [1], although that's more of an interview. This [2], Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the cruft has been removed, but I still don't see significant coverage after I asked for it to be place in the article. I'm persuaded by the deletes. Bearian (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is tricky. This individual was formerly the highest-ranking executive official of a province more populous than any European nation. He comfortably meets the spirit of the statewide office criterion in NPOL, in my view. That said, all I can find is announcements of positions he has held, and promotional fluff like this. To write a biography we need biographical material that can be reliably sourced, even if we exempt this from GNG, as I think we can. If all we can say about him is that he held the position of Chief Secretary, this should be an entry in List of Chief Secretaries of Tamil Nadu...except that doesn't exist. As such I come down as a weak keep, preferring a PERMASTUB to complete deletion, but if someone were to create such a list I would prefer a list entry over a one-sentence article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the spirit of the statewide office criterion apply to the chief minister or governor of an Indian state rather than a secretary? There is a list on the chief secretary article and out of 28 states, only three have articles. 🄻 🄰 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know much about Indian politics but are the secretaries members of the state cabinet? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've already !voted above, but how would people feel about a redirect to Government of Tamil Nadu until more source coverage is available? --Richard Yin (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to give time for consideration of the redirect proposed in the last comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Government of Tamil Nadu or Delete. This had my head ringing and after careful analysis of the page and everyone's input, either one of these option qualifies (imo). Opposed to keep. RangersRus (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As Liz has stated, the people who have voted for keep have not referred to any policy or guideline and instead on personal opinion (which is fine when paired with policies).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 16:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@All Tomorrows No Yesterdays, the !vote by Vanamonde invoke the NPOL which is a policy and not their opinion. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:17, 1 February 2025 (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.