Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Vijay Kumar

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.

S. Vijay Kumar

S. Vijay Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Civil servant who has had a distinguished but nevertheless non notable career. The article is sourced to routine announcements of appointments, press statements and links to the organisation’s he has served. No in depth coverage in independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and India. Mccapra (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would seem to pass

WP:POLITICIAN doesn’t apply to career civil servants. Mccapra (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Not doubting you but what's the policy backing for that claim? BrigadierG (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only relevant policy I could find was

WP:POLOUTCOMES which states "Civil servants who assume a political office on an interim or caretaker basis are not considered notable just for having briefly held that office, even if holders of the office are normally considered notable.". This does not describe this individual's career - he was appointed as a minister to lead certain policies from what I can see. BrigadierG (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

No the article doesn’t say he was a minister (or he would be notable). It says he was Secretary in the ministry, i.e. a senior civil servant. Mccapra (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, perhaps there is some geographical difference. I'm from the UK - here, secretary for state is the most senior role in a government department. But even so,

WP:POLOUTCOMES says "Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable". It seems like he's still probably notable. BrigadierG (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I’m in favor of Keep here.

WP:POLOUTCOMES seems to pretty clearly include cases like this as notable. Honestly, even if I was unsure I would be in favor of keeping the page. When it comes to politics, I think it’s prudent to lean inclusionist, as the more information available to the public the better. I don’t see any real advantage gained by deletion, though I do understand if others disagree with me. Yitz (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

the whole point though is that this is NOT politics. This is the holder of a civil service role. Mccapra (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:GNG. POLITICIAN doesn't apply, as Mccapra has noted. He was appointed to various positions, not elected. As such, I only see routine announcements about those appointments and not much else. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he's a mining secretary and sits on some kind of institute, with sources that appear legit enough. I'm not really seeing the delete argument. Andre🚐 22:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the delete argument is that there is no policy-based claim of notability. We do have bios on some senior civil servants if they have particularly noteworthy careers, were awarded high honours etc. but the mere fact of being a senior civil servant does not confer notability. Mccapra (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the sources that confer the notability. If the sources aren't legit I will change my view. Andre🚐 18:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject is verifiable but I'm seeing nothing approaching multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject. No cited assertion of significance. Like many worthy bureaucrats he lacks significant independent coverage. BusterD (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 1. I couldn't find reliable independent sources other than the Reuters article, which only quotes him, it's not substantively about him. 2. There does seem to be a categorical misunderstanding on the part of a number of !voters. It's pretty clear that he is the top civil servant in a government department - what was generally called the "permanent secretary" in most countries that followed British civil service systems. He is not the political head of a government department, like a minister or Secretary of State. Therefore he isn't notable based on
  notability for politicians. Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent WP:RS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we do not have SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2022 (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.