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. Discounting the many socks, this discussion becomes a quite straightforward close. The deletes have it based on numerical advantage and policy-based reasoning. GuerilleroParlez Moi12:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I initially misread his position, but as an administrative officer I don't think he meets WP:NPOL. Please ping me if anyone more knowledgeable about the Indian government structure says otherwise. Alyo(chat·edits)18:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Alyo:, please refer to my comment. Indian government system is dependent pn Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers. They head districts, divisions of Indian states and then administratively head union and state government departments. Chief secretaries are very very senior IAS officers and should qualify WP:NPOL. Think of them as US federal deputy secrecies with the only difference being chief secretaries are career IAS officers. 103.59.198.83 (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I spent 15 minutes reading about this before !voting, and while I'm sure they have a lot of responsibility, they do not appear to be "elected politicians" as envisioned by NPOL. I'm an administrative lawyer myself, so I completely understand the importance, but I also know there are literally thousands of civil servants and simply fulfilling their duties does not equate to notability. Alyo(chat·edits)23:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alyo: I would have to disagree with you on that. American undersecretaries and deputy secretaries or chiefs of staff are given notability for simply holding their positions. I don’t see as to why the same should not apply for career civil servants.
The point is not being one of thousands of civil servants —the guy literally heads the state government of India’s biggest state by GDP and is a senior member of the premier civil service of India. He’s literally the chief of staff of the state government. The job itself should confer notability as it does for defence personnel of equivalent status. If UK permanent secretaries (and heads of devolved admins) are given notability simply for their positions (as they should), I don’t see why the same shouldn’t be extended to Indian chief secretaries. Besides there are tons of articles on former chief secretaries and their equivalents (army generals and unit secretaries) who are given notability for holding their position. That should be the case here as well. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk·contribs). 23:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because we don't treat civil servants the same as elected officials, simple as that. When NPOL confers notability on leaders of statewide governments, it's applying to (at minimum) the top three members of this list. When you say the guy literally heads the state government of India’s biggest state, to an American it implies he holds one of these positions. That's what I initially thought when I came across this article in NPP. I do not in fact believe that American state-level (as opposed to national/federal) chiefs of staff are guaranteed notability just because of their position. They might be notable for other reasons, but here the only sources are about Srivastava taking office. There's no other claim to notability. I think unfortunately you're blending a lot of very different topics and positions (for example, I would treat army generals as totally irrelevant to this discussion) and then wondering why they aren't all treated the same. Alyo(chat·edits)23:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am conflating the two because in an Indian context, the two are related. Secretaries of Indian government (chiefs of staff; equivalent to UK perm secs) are treated as equivalent to chief secretaries. People occupying one post move to the other laterally and vice versa. It’s analogous to permanent secretary of the Scotland or Northern Ireland executive (both of whom have articles) and permanent secretary to a UK government department. Sue Gray for example was perm sec for Northern Ireland before moving to Cabinet Office as second perm sec. I’ll try to find sources for him tomorrow (there are some in Marathi) but I genuinely think him holding the post itself confers notability — chief secretaries are responsible for heading state admins as secretaries to the state cabinet. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk·contribs). 23:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: thanks for the suggestion. I do plan to do that sometime in the future. It’s just been I have been off of Wikipedia for a while and WP:NPOL was interpreted to include civil servants in prior AfDs I participated in. But I think it’d be best if there were uniform guidelines for this. Thanks again! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk·contribs). 00:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an example of why I was conflating the two, Shrivastava would chair the meeting of the state disaster management authority, of which the local corps commander of the army, a lieutenant general (someone who automatically qualifies GNG), would be a participant. I think the interpretation of GNG advocated here would lead to absurd situations such as this. And that’s why it’s not done so for UK civil servants, where sub national chiefs of staffs are guaranteed notability. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk·contribs). 00:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — He’s a senior civil servant/Indian Administrative Service officer. Indian government system is similar to the UK and Ireland and differs wildly from the US. Senior civil servants are in charge of the administration of government departments and executives. Chief secretaries of states are regarded as “lynchpins” of administration. As a Chief Secretary he heads a state administration and ranks 23rd on Indian order of precedence — clearly qualifies WP:NPOL. Numerous IAS officers of the level of chief secretary such as Rajive Kumar (who also served as a Union secretary) have articles, so do Union secretaries such as Rajiv Mehrishi (who was also once the chief secretary of Rajasthan or Rajiv Gauba. Think of these people as senior civil servants in the UK of permanent secretary level such as James Bowler or Sue Gray or Japanese administrative vice ministers. 103.59.198.83 (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He ranks 23rd along with literally hundreds of other people, following other hundreds (thousands?) in the 22 long lists of people who come before. That is not a claim to notability. This is not '23rd in line to the throne'. It's how we decide in what order people enter the room and are seated. Valereee (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not with hundreds of people I don’t think. There are only 28 Indian states. So 28 chief secretaries. Indian order of precedence can be a very good proxy of notability — it’s literally the list of senior most politicians, civil servants, judges and military officers. At any rate, the point is that the job itself is notable — chief secretaries head state executive committees among other things and are equivalents to four-star generals and are above corps commanders of Indian Army who qualify GNG because of their jobs. I don’t see why someone who’s responsible for the administration of the biggest Indian state by GDP shouldn’t. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk·contribs). 23:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee is saying there are hundreds of people in total in the 23rd step, not hundreds of chief secretaries. All 3* officers, plus all District Judges, etc. And I have to agree, that chart actually presents a very good argument against using itself for notability, given how many people fit into each step from, say, 15 down. Alyo(chat·edits)00:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. That article has gone through quite a bit of vandalism, I just realised. District judges and all are not in the order of precedence (see the MHA source cited), they are quite junior. And I’d have to disagree with the other part as well, in a government system as large as India’s quite a bit of people occupy important posts. The size of this country is hard to comprehend. But with a billion plus people there are quite a lot of senior moats. That doesn’t make them any less important. There are 50+ union ministers, 100s of state ministers, and 100s of generals — wouldn’t make those positions any less important. There was only chief executive officer of Delhi Metropolitan Council (the predecessor of modern day chief minister of Delhi) for example. Yet the position itself was way less important than a union minister. As is shown in its placement in the order (below secretaries). Yet the position was important in itself as the head of the nominal Delhi administration, which guarantees it notability.
I think this stems from the conflation of Indian/Commonwealth governments and American governments. Both work in a completely different manner. There’s no proper equivalent to a chief secretary in American context — a permanent civil servant who acts as the secretary to state cabinet and heads the state admin, the closest I can think of is like the chief of staff of Puerto Rico.
I still maintain that the job itself congers notability. I’m a state’s rules of business, the state chief secretary — as the secretary to cabinet — is responsible for quite a lot of stuff. Think of them as a sub national equivalent of Cabinet Secretary (United Kingdom) (except that Maharashtra is larger than the UK) — responsible for enforcing the ministerial code among other things. They are also responsible for law and order, development, disaster management among other things. This coupled with the protocol afforded to it should confer the officeholders notability. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk·contribs). 00:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — He’s a senior civil servant/Indian Administrative Service officer. Indian government system is similar to the UK and Ireland and differs wildly from the US. Senior civil servants are in charge of the administration of government departments and executives. Chief secretaries of states are regarded as “lynchpins” of administration. As a Chief Secretary he heads a state administration and ranks 23rd on Indian order of precedence — clearly qualifies WP:NPOL. Numerous IAS officers of the level of chief secretary such as Rajive Kumar (who also served as a Union secretary) have articles, so do Union secretaries such as Rajiv Mehrishi (who was also once the chief secretary of Rajasthan or Rajiv Gauba. Think of these people as senior civil servants in the UK of permanent secretary level such as James Bowler or Sue Gray.
I maintain that the job itself congers notability. The state chief secretary — as the secretary to cabinet — is responsible for quite a lot of stuff. Think of them as a sub national equivalent of Cabinet Secretary (United Kingdom) (except that Maharashtra is larger than the UK) — responsible for enforcing the ministerial code among other things. They are also responsible for law and order, development, disaster management among other things. This coupled with the protocol afforded to it should confer the officeholders notability.
Mr. Manu Srivastava was appointed and Chief Secretary for the State of Maharashtra, with 4 senior IAS officers in race to the position of top bureaucrat of the state following the retirement of State's Chief Secretary Debashish Chakraborty.[1][2] The Officer who has reached to the position of being selected as the Chief Secretary of the the state having the highest GDP itself confers for notability.
In the case of President's rule is imposed in the state, Chief Secretary of the state, as the chief advisor to the Governor, runs the administration of the state. And state of Maharashtra in India being the the state with highest GDP of US$ 450 Billion and third largest state area-wise. Hence the person at the head of bureaucracy of the state carries the responsibility of the State Administration and stands notable. By far the most important, function of the Chief Secretary is to coordinate the activities of the entire state government machinery.
He is the principal channel of communication between his government and the Central government and other state governments and in this capacity plays a significant role in the administration of law and order and planning. --202.189.224.14 (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AlyoI am not the same as @SshibumXZ, however the explanations as given by @SshibumXZ were very much true and I am from the state of Maharashtra in India and know and understand the position of a Chief Secretary. And more over as I saw that the article was re-listed for discussion hence taken a fresh discussion I copied the say of @SshibumXZ and added some of my own. Even though I am not a very regular on Wikipedia, and don’t have an ID nor would like to have one. 2402:3A80:741:1AFA:405B:C1AA:D217:91C2 (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alyo: no. I know better than to engage in sock puppetry. I just have been much too busy with academic work to focus on Wikipedia though I am actively contemplating bringing an SNG discussion with respect to career civil servants in the UK and India. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk·contribs). 17:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are thousands of IAS officers inside this country who are doing their duty, this does not prove that they are notable. She has played her duties which every IAS officer plays, I think not meet WP:BIO. 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It’s unfortunate to have to explain that there are 28 states in India and only 28 out of thousands of IAS officers reach the status of becoming a Chief Secretary. Hence the person having reached this status itself is notable. Voting for Delete just after creating an ID couple of days back and without proper justification for the same, and try to disrupt the sanctity and glory of Wikipedia. Such activities needs to curtailed as this allows an opening for trying to earn money in the wrong way by the way of contacting the principal subject.
As rightly pointed out by UtherSRG, the voter doesn't even have the knowledge of the gender of the subject officer.
I have lived in India for sometime and do understand the Indian bureaucracy as its similar to the one in the United Kingdom. I am in Mumbai at this point of time. After a little bit of research on the subject and available sources, I could come to a point of view of the person being notable and should have a place on Wikipedia.
Every IAS officer has to pass a selection procedure marked by the UPSC with an average success rate of 0.2% and they have an aspiration/goal to become the chief secretary. But very few to the maximum of 28 Officers reach this status.
He is an Indian Administrative Service officer of the 1986 batch and was the Additional Chief Secretary (Home Department) since 27th February, 2021. He has also held charge as the additional commissioner of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (02/06/2005 - 23/05/2008),Additional Chief Secretary of Revenue and Forest Department from February 01, 2020, Additional Chief Secretary (revenue) (01/05/2018 - 24/02/2020), and the District Collector of Nagpur (22/06/1998 - 07/10/2002) and Kolhapur districts (01/12/1995 - 20/06/1998).[1][2]
He was selected by one government (Maha Vikas Aghadi) coalition government headed by Mr Uddhav Thackeray and subsequently was made to continue by incoming new government of NDA headed by Mr. Eknath Shinde which itself gives notability. --Honorablehither (talk) 08:36, 1 November 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.