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. Consensus is that the notability of the subject has not been convincingly established.  Sandstein  10:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dal Bahadur Thapa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I tried sticking improvement tags on, they were removed without the needed improvement. So now it's time for a full deletion debate.

I see no indication of notability here. Just being a Freedom Fighter somewhere does not confer notability. The subject is mentioned in the given references, but generally only in lists of such freedom fighters. None of the articles appear to be about the subject himself. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks well sourced and has references. Rabbabodrool (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the four citation needed tags? Anotherclown (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't get the logic of the deletion nomination. If the correct thing to do with this article on December 7 was to tag it for improvement, rather than deletion, then what changed over the next 12 days? The removal of tags by an editor is (if incorrect) a behavioural issue, and makes no difference to the suitability or not of this subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me, I use the tags to give an article a chance, short of a deletion debate. If the tags are removed, then the author is declining that chance. I'm not going to edit war to keep a few tags on an article. At that point, I made a look through the "sources" that had been added, and IMHO found them lacking. So the author has tried to add sources, and the best that he appears to be able to come up with are lacking. And he does not want the tags to remain to alert others to the lack. Given all this, and that the article still lacked a credible claim to notability as far as I could see, the logical next step to me was AFD. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: if nothing else, the cited (but not footnoted) referenceCamalina Kiran, Pravana : Sikkim Perspective and Vision - 2003 - pp 353 seems to be a really solid source that gives far more than just a passing mention, giving birthdate, specific details of his imprisonment and alignment with Subhas Chandras Bose, etc. I would imagine that a slightly more thorough search would turn up even more info. Also probably has notability well beyond his immediate verifiability due to the slowness of Indian RS's coming online, but even for the meantime I'd vote keep even just based on that one reference. Needs major copyedit, but that's no cause for deletion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - IMO the nominator is correct. Currently the way this article is written makes it difficult to determine the subject's notablity and on face value a Captain in the anti-colonial Indian National Army (which was quite large) hardly seems notable to me. Likewise despite having a couple of references the article is clearly poorly cited and lacks reliable sources. This indicates to me that the subject probably lacks significant independent coverage and may therefore fail the notability guidelines in WP:MILMOS/N. My limited search on Google Books found nothing that could be added. Of course if by some chance the article is re-written to demonstrate notability (and more references provided to support it) I would be happy to change my vote. Anotherclown (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'd say that some of his notability comes from being among the few INA officers actually brought to formal trial and executed. Plenty were summarily executed in Burma during the war, and the big courts-martial followed the war (most of them acquitted as I recall), so to be an officer actually tried for "waging against the King" and duly executed seems a reasonably uncommon distinction. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed if this can be added to the article with a citation that would go some way towards establishing notablity. If however the subject doesn't have significant independent coverage in reliable sources he is still not notable IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is the primary current concern that the Sikkim book doesn't count as significant coverage? It's certainly independent and reliable. I agree that the other "sources" where Thapa is just mentioned as a name among many are not WP significant, but the Sikkim book has several paragraphs outlining a good number of the basic important facts of his bio. So far as "if this can be added to the article", did you mean some clearer statement that "very few INA officers were executed after formal proceedings in India vice summarily", or just clearer evidence that he was executed? I've glanced briefly, but haven't offhand noticed any clear data on the number of INA formally tried prior to war's-end (when most were pardoned). I'm relatively sure it happened rarely (perhaps why it's not jumping out from books). Give me a handle on what you're thinking would help sway you over and I can glance around for it this evening perhaps. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes what I meant was that if you could add the fact that he was one of the few hung rather than executed in the field that would help (with a reference of course). Re Sikkim: firstly from the limited amount available on Google Books the reference refers to Dal Bahadur Giri (is this the same person as Dal Bahadur Thapa?) it then refers to a Capt Dal Bahadur Thapa. Even if it is the same individual he is only mentioned twice on a single page (AFAIK from Google Books) and it doesn't make it clear what Thapa's role was. It does say that Dal Bahadur Giri "spearheaded the freedom movement in the hills" along with another, Bhagatbir Lama. Such confusion aside I don't think that a minor reference in a single book constitutes significant independent coverage. Certainly it could be used but IMO its not enough on its own. I'm not saying that this information should not be on wikipedia, but it doesn't seem like there is enough material to justify an article on the individual himself. Perhaps it could be included in the Indian National Army article or some other article dealing with anti-colonial activities in India etc. As a project we have deleted many other similar biographies for the same reason. Anotherclown (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: currently does not demonstrate significant coverage per the WP:GNG. If this can be established, though, I have no dramas with keeping it. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:SOLDIER & WP:BIO, bio specifically because neither of the current two references has the subject as the primary focus of what is being written. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2011 (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.