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 and salt. I've been clerking, but never !voted, so I don't feel this is an involved close, nor is there really a question of the outcome as notability is ot clear and a further relist would likely bring more disruption than sourcing. I am opting not to draftify at the moment given the shenanigans of both editors, however if an established editor such as Necrothesp or Ravenswing would like this to incubate and see if sourcing can be found, I have no objection to doing so. Just ping me. Star Mississippi 20:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pallab Bhattacharyya[edit]

Pallab Bhattacharyya (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)

Notability concerns have been expressed and creator has chosen to request testing at XfD rather than AfC which may have a slightly lower bar. Not fit for mainspace as is but position(s) may be sufficient to confer notability, though normally such positions will generate RS which are certainly not well leveraged into the article and not suitability wikilinked Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment With objection to the AfD/XfD, I want to give my opinion that the subject has the citations to verify the content. And a Director General of Police level officer with the additional charge of the State Intelligence's Chief (tons of citation are always not needed) are enough to pass WP:GNG. State Intelligence is also a SPY AGENCY, hence as other SPY AGENCY's officers don't reveal much about their personal life, it is hard to put vast info about the person. The article should be KEEP. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 04:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note Arunudoy is the article creator who seems to have self-passed their article out through AfC and who as part of this edit Special:Diff/1069654300 seemed to request/challenge "Nominate for deletion" yet seems to object to the AfD here. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Djm-leighpark: Requesting for nomination of AfD alawys doesn't mean my vote is to delete the article. I wanted the article for AfD check. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 05:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Onel5969: reviewd the page, I guess, now its passes W:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Djm-leighpark: as @Onel5969: was the the user to object the wiki entry, he/she reviewed recently without any change, you can now eligibile to withdraw AfD/SfD. -NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope. Best not presume anything about anybody's braincells, especially if you keep pinging them. NPP tutor say: "Unlike CSDs and PRODs, you can mark AfDed pages as 'reviewed' after tagging them, as their fate will be decided via discussion and they can't fall through the cracks if tags are removed (a bot will restore them so long as the AfD discussion is open).". The the image that was previously here can be correctly sourced it would be eligible, certainly at lower resolution, for upload to the English WikiPedia under fair use criteria. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP A Director General of Police level officer is noteable enough. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: A DGP nd Chief of SPPY AGENCY doens't pass WPLGNG? Strangefrom you. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969:, WP:NPOL isn't applicable here. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Someone who held the highest possible rank in the Indian police is very clearly notable. Passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: As it happens, he neither served in the national police, nor did he have the highest rank in the national police service. He served in the provincial police, and the highest Indian police rank is Director of the Intelligence Bureau. I'm unclear from where you get these erroneous notions. Ravenswing 11:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I said he served in the Indian police. As an Indian Police Service officer he did just that. And Director general of police is the highest rank in the IPS. So there is no "erroneous notion" here whatsoever. Director of the Intelligence Bureau is essentially the most senior appointment that can be held by a DGP. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - I agree that someone who held the highest rank in the Indian Police is notable but this page needs expansion to add additional information beginning with what they did or were involved with whilst serving at any of their positions. For example here, here and here all mention him and could help with creating a couple of sentences on his role.Gusfriend (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete: As it stands, the subject does not pass the GNG, and there are no other notability grounds which he meets. I'm not sure where some editors got the notion that the subject led the "Indian" police; his highest position was as head of a provincial police department. No one would claim, for instance, that the head of the Massachusetts State Police was presumptively notable, and there are no notability criteria which claim so. Neither is being a police head detective heading a "spy agency," as the article creator stridently maintains. As far as NeverTry4Me's assertion that a policeman isn't interested in details of his life getting into the press, that may well be -- but the only answer to that is "Then an article on him cannot be sustained," as indeed there are no articles on 25 of the 28 current Indian provincial police chiefs. The GNG doesn't have waivers for whatever putative excuses there are for subjects to lack significant coverage. Ravenswing 11:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did anyone say that he led the Indian police? I said he held the highest rank, which he did, as DGP is the highest rank in the IPS. And I would indeed also assert that "the head of the Massachusetts State Police was presumptively notable" per WP:COMMONSENSE! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eeesh. The article detailing IPS ranks says otherwise. As far as "presumptive notability" goes, its very definition means that some notability guideline states so. No notability guidelines on Wikipedia accord presumptive notability to provincial police personnel, and WP:COMMONSENSE doesn't empower you to invent your own rules to suit your own preferences. Ravenswing 17:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which article would that be? IPS, Police ranks and insignia of India and Director general of police all agree that this is the highest rank. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right on the gazetted officers illo of Police ranks and insignia of India. It very clearly lists "Director of intelligence bureau" before "Director general of police," with an augmented shoulder insignia to boot. The Director general of police article does not say "highest rank of police." It says "highest ranking police officer in an Indian State or Union Territory." Kinda hard to miss. Ravenswing 20:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Kinda hard to miss the footnote as well. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

            ...which is uncited. Retswerb (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

            Merely the most senior appointment of DGP, which is the highest rank! Your assertion is like saying the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the highest rank in the US military, and other admirals and generals therefore only the second highest ranks! But irrelevant anyway, given no guideline says that one is notable and the others are not. It should be blatantly obvious, in my opinion, per WP:COMMONSENSE, that the holders of the highest possible ranks in a national police service of a country the size of India are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

            (shrugs) Then go hop over to WP:BIO's talk page and either seek to amend NPOL to include police chiefs, or advocate the creation of a NCIVILSERVANT guideline (because cabinet ministers aren't presumptively notable either), and blessings be upon you. XfD, however, runs on the notability guidelines that exist, not the ones we wish did. Ravenswing 18:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

            "cabinet ministers aren't presumptively notable either". Er, yes they are, per WP:POLITICIAN! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

            Only in a Westminster-type system, where as a prerequisite to being a minister they are elected parliamentarians; WP:POLITICIAN does not cover appointed officials. Honestly, you seem really heavily invested in "winning" this AfD, which is odd given that other than the now-indeffed article creator, you're the only one advocating keeping it. As it happens, I find nowhere in "common sense" anything defining it as concurring with your personal POV. My take on common sense is that notability guidelines ought to be taken literally, as opposed to what I would wish them to be were I Dictator of Wikipedia. Ravenswing 08:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to be the equivalent of a US State Police head (usually a Colonel), in a state roughly the size of Maine. Unless there are reliable sources to show why this individual has received coverage above and beyond what is routine for a civil servant's hiring, transfers, promotions, etc...then the subject does not meet the notability guide. ValarianB (talk)

• I don't think that Maine (or Massachusetts) is a fair comparison. It's population that matters, not area, and Assam has more than 20 times the population of Maine and four times that of Massachusetts. The closest US state in population is Texas. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair, but the point remains, even the head of the Texas Ranger Division doesn't have a Wikipedia page. ValarianB (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the chiefs of major US police organisations have generally been kept if taken to AfD. And the Texas Ranger Division is only 234 strong! The Texas Highway Patrol would be a closer match, but still not accurate as the police of an Indian state provide most policing in that state, whereas most American policing is on a city or county level. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand by my assertion that no sourcing exists to support the subject's notability, and the position itself is inherently not notable. You can continue to travel this minor tangent about state size if you like, but I am done. ValarianB (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that the conduct issues have been resolved at ANI, let's try for consensus. I advise participants to be aware of bludgeoning the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After reviewing the arguments for "Keep" above, I find them unconvincing. The coverage presented so far is utterly routine for a civil servant and does not significantly cover the subject in any meaningful way. Compare the coverage for this person to that for, say, Cressida Dick. For Dick we have coverage of multiple events and crises that have been part of her tenure. For Bhattacharyya we have little more than teh markers that would allow us to present a resume. There is no support in the GNG or any applicable SNG for the proposition that being a police chief, of any level of any size polity, is inherently notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT I see that everyone who is on the side of "DELETE" is just passing their opinion with some demand(if not seeking) SIGCOV about the subject person's personal life. But none noticed that this has focused some on his personal life (spouse, children, etc are not mentioned in the source). Beyond that, the subject person was the chairman of the Assam Public Service Commission, a position that can be held by only an IPS or IAS top rank officers and appointed by the Government, not by a political consensus. Additionally, and, most importantly, the subject person is also a member of the High-Level Committee of Clause 6 of the Assam Accord formed by Ministry of Home Affairs, India, where the Clause 6 of the Assam Accord is the most burning issue related to Assam Movement which is one of the world's biggest Student protest. A government officer who has/had held 3 government positions, appointed by the Government of India, is simply notable as per WP:COMMONSENSE. These facts are being ignored in this discussion and kept beyond focus here. I wonder, why, here are most notions about GNG, where adding too many citations can lead to citation bombing. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 07:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with the comment about the page for Cressida Dick which is certainly worth aspiring to but in the interim can I suggest that you check out the pages of Simon Overland and Christine Nixon? I am sure that there are a lot of others but they both include more details about what they did during their service.Gusfriend (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We are talking about the GNG because that is the only notability criterion pertinent to the discussion. There are no notability guidelines according presumptive notability to any non-elected government civil servant at any level, regardless of the positions he or she can claim, period. Ravenswing 13:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NeverTry4Me:, what in any of this discussion gives you the frankly bizarre idea anyone is asking for personal details of this person's life? No matter what their past or present positions, notability requires coverage that is simply not demonstrated. Neither WP:COMMONSENSE nor some notion of inherent notability are escape causes from this basic requirement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify or possibly Delete, if that is a valid combination. I think is should never have been removed from draft. NeverTry4Me, who used to be Arunudoy was desperate to get it into mainspace, and I thought at the time that it wasn't ready for it. I thought and still do, that several months should have been used to build the sources, look for suitable newspaper articles on the subject to strengthen the article. And that could still take place. But Ravenswing's and Eggishorn's are very strong here and a useful indication of its current state. I think it should be drafted. If that is not suitable, delete it. scope_creep^Talk 13:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - normally, I would have no issue with draftifying, however, due to the article creator's behavior, I do not believe that is a suitable option in this instance. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Now I do not have any objection on Draftify, as I have learned some from this discussion. I will expand, modify with WP:SEC as I am getting some sources through Yahoo, Bing, and Yandex searches than Google. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 21:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

disruption by sock, article creator
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Delete He never occupied the highest rank Director general of police and not specially (writer apart from being a police etc.) notable. In different branches (border, home, crime etc.), there are several police officers with the same rank as Bhattacharyya. Run-of-the-mill case! GeezGod (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC) — GeezGod (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply] Comment @GeezGod: then what are this, this, and importantly these are about? Per your say Times of India and News18 are biased?? You should check this WP:COMMONSENSE--NeverTry4Me - TT Page 08:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment He was just an ADGP [1]. Check that link, please. So many ADGPs are there for different branches. We don't need separate article for everyone. You can mention them in Assam Police page as official or former official only (that to not needed IMHO). GeezGod (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment @GeezGod: ADG, even after I have given you the sources? My above resource have given his DG rank. Additionaly this, this, this, this supports his DG Rank, regardless of branch of Assam police. Please check citations first, then place your opinion. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] CommentThis is a common mistake made by newspapers. In each state police force, there should be only one DGP. Note: Even special DGPs are equivalent to ADGPs. The current list of key officials is as follows: [2] GeezGod (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment, again you are repeating mistakes in comments. IDENT, please note, IDENT. As per your say, 'common mistakes' by major Indian newspapers? That is not a valid comment. Are you into journalism? If so, then please edit your COIN and improve the articles. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] CommentDon't be defensive. What I mentioned will be understood by other editors. For designation of officials, I urge that you go to official sites. GeezGod (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Per Police ranks in India, I am in opinion that you are missing The IPS ranks. Period. Full stop from me. :)) --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment Oh God! His designation as DGP was misquoted in the news over what I said. He was an ADGP and Special DGP with no notable coverage or specialisation. No more comments. I'm tired. GeezGod (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per Eggishorn. ––FormalDude talk 03:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Tangentially, NeverTry4Me was just indeffed. (This should take draftification off the table, seeing as the article creator won't be around to improve it.) Ravenswing 18:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was going to relist on account of that, but I think we have enough days remaining for consensus to develop without being bludgeoned. Maybe I'm too optimistic. Star Mississippi 00:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Star Mississippi - not sure what re-listing would do, it's pretty clear the two choices are draftify or delete, but since they've been indeffed, not sure what draftify would accomplish. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. Optimism is mostly that the block will cover the time remaining here. I was very close to a partial block before it landed at ANI. Star Mississippi 03:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Position itself is inherently not notable. LibStar (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteor Draftify As per above argument. DMySon (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This article and discussion has attracted many problems and socks. Assuming the result is not to remain in mainspace I strongly suggest a closer salts and also makes it a requirement any return attempt to mainspace goes via a discussion process such as AfC or DRV; with inappropriate/incompetent DRV's being immediately closed and DRV nom. sanctioned for disruption if appropriate. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Seconding as admin who has been monitoring the page and associated disruption and ANI threads. There is no way this sanely ends without salting Star Mississippi 14:11, 18 February 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.