Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepak Rawat

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Despite the walls of text, the editors arguing for "keep" failed to convince. Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Rawat

edit

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

Deepak Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable civil servant, previously deleted, fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article shouldn't be deleted. It is a good article. I was just searching for it. I can see there is lot of notability here. So plz don't delete it. Thanks.


  • Keep:The article creater has added the more reliable sources (you can check).

Added references have notability because the whole (new given references) news is around the article (Deepak Rawat). All new references turn around the article i.e. Deepak Rawat.

You should review again the article because there are new references in which a significant coverage has been given.

As some normal reference could help to create an article. As it is given in this article- plz read--. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AFCSTANDARDS&redirect=no

Thanks. Regards. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 User talk:Aj Ajay Mehta 007

  • Comment: Why isn't there notability, If many official governmental websites references are available for that matter. Also a lot of reliable newspaper sources are available. There are lots if discussion about the person.

Point(1)--Isn't enough of these 30+ sources and references.Even pages like(I am giving one of example, there are many-many) Ashok Khemka has only 13 references.

Point(2)---Even now after your reply on that deletion page, I have added too many sources and references to that article that is directly turn around the topic of article i.e.Deepak Rawat. The whole news article of those newly added (even some of old) references are about this article i.e. Deepak Rawat. It is a significant coverage. As you mention GNG...What GNG says is that---{{{{"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. ##Here read this specifically---?But it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.?}}}}}}}

This GNG also says that..it doesn't need to be the main topic of the article. Even though there are many references where the main topic of the news article is Deepak Rawat. There are many. Therefore it is a significant coverage of this article. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


Isn't the reference is all about the article Deepak Rawat-- 

https://www.jansatta.com/crime-news-hindi/uttarakhand-famous-ias-deepak-rawat-caught-electricity-stealing-in-village-says-you-area-a-forge-pradhan-haridwar/1676837/ 

and

https://www.rajyasameeksha.com/uttarakhand/15464-story-of-ias-deepak-rawat 

Point (5)--And I am not favouring the person or don't want to just praise him. I have written what truth is...Even I have written about Supreme Court of India's slap on his actions and also about Murder charges on him with suitable references.

Plz answer with my given points numbering so everyone could easily understand about what references we are talking about. Thanks. Regards.

Dear, Just giving three may not be the best idea. It's like you gave given 56 delicious (56 भोग😁😋😉) food items(all are awesome) and you have option to eat only 3. I can't give marks to all references like who stood first, who came 2nd etc. But I would try to find some of best soon. Thanks. Regards. User:Aj Ajay Mehta 007 User talk:Aj Ajay Mehta 007

  • Comment: Dear Kichu🐘, As you have asked for three best sources.it was really tough (even as of now, it is tough) to give rank them as 1,2,3 or even 4,5,6.....

I have given some above...and also there are many on page Deepak Rawat. Out of them some are also official governmental sources.

Apart from all these-- Here are the some of best 3 sources for page Deepak Rawat --👇👇

1st-- https://www.jansatta.com/crime-news-hindi/uttarakhand-famous-ias-deepak-rawat-caught-electricity-stealing-in-village-says-you-area-a-forge-pradhan-haridwar/1676837/

2nd-- https://m.timesofindia.com/india/when-the-district-magistrate-is-a-youtube-star/articleshow/78118583.cms

3rd-- https://www.aajtak.in/education/photo/ias-officer-deepak-rawat-ex-dm-haridwar-profile-how-clear-upsc-interview-tedu-1027326-2020-02-18

Thanks. Regards. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 User talk:Aj Ajay Mehta 007

  • Comment: Aj Ajay Mehta 007, this[1] first source seems like a paid one. It contains lot of terms and phrases to promote the subject. The second one is from Times of India, which is considered between reliable amd unreliable. The third one seems quite good. So the next better option than deleting this would be a draftification so that a reviewer can analyse this better and move it to mainspace when this is ready. Regards Kichu🐘 Need any help? 18:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 🙄🤷Paid one. I personally don't know about is it paid or not(also not with full surity). But I can say it is not paid. Because this news is given in many national newspaper. If one do good work,there would be terms and phrases for his work's appreciation (it do not make it paid in any sense) And you are saying that it seems like paid one🙄I am very sorry to say but..(using word seems) it's like you are assuming. How one can decide just by assuming anything. (A judge don't assume during hearing on any case, and give someone guilty, just by assuming that one has done wrong).

And this article is ready as it always was. Because all these good sources are there in article.

If it seems (your assumption) paid one. Here is another one. 1st-- https://ndtv.in/uttarakhand-news/when-haridwar-dm-ias-deepak-rawat-caught-stealing-electricity-in-the-village-1966720


If you still think that every news agency or newspaper of India is paid by this person (Deepak Rawat, I am wondering how much money one can have, trillion of dollars) then, here is news against him ,As one would not give pay for printing against himself(I have also given this and many more in the article), Where He has been charged for attempt to Murder Case-- https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/attempt-to-murder-case-filed-against-haridwar-dm201801031919090002/

Also here-- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/matri-sadan-seer-files-attempt-to-murder-plaint-against-dm/articleshow/62356630.cms

Here is work check by Deepak Rawat-- https://www.rajyasameeksha.com/uttarakhand/14602-haridwar-kumbh-work-check-by-ias-deepak-rawat

Here NDTV report about Deepak Rawat IAS-- https://www.ndtv.com/others-news/nainital-district-magistrate-wants-public-to-report-corruption-cases-directly-to-him-769002

Thanks. Regards. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 User talk:Aj Ajay Mehta 007

  • Aj Ajay Mehta 007, Im not assuming anything. Times of India already have an history of paid news. See The_Times_of_India#Paid_news. And these news like murder atttempts or any other controversies were the ones which I said weree routine coverage. Hope you understood. By the way, I want you to show me my comment where I said every news agency is India is getting paid. You are not supposed to say that I said these things which I did not say. And see, this is a community discussion and everybody has their right to express their views in a polite manner. Whether you accept the opinions of others or not, you are expected to keep a mutual respect between them rather than scorning them. Regards.Kichu🐘 Need any help? 02:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


and dear,defcon5, and all other users, who are voting for delete, without answering things,just giving prob of sigcov.....

©©---there are many other sources,where whole topic is all about the article Deepak Rawat

Plz (try to) answer in accordance with points (numbering)--It will be great of you....

Point (1) -Leave Times of India link...there are many other, that I have given..like(I am just giving an example, not you to force on necessarily rely on that particular link of times of India) NDTV report on that same news(I have given above , see)..One wouldn't pay to print against himself, that is of course of a murder charge...(Leave murder charge, I am not being on specific news,) Also I have given this news link of ANI....See other links plz..

Point (2)-And about Times of India Although I am not a spokesperson for times of India...But as of your given link of (times of india paid news), The first line of that article is that It has been criticize for paid news...You know there is hierarchy for that...that is👇

1st is Criticism and 2nd is Allegations and 3rd is Guilty

They have been criticize by critics like a film has been reviewed by critics.It is not like a court order. One can criticize anyone. Only on basis of criticism or simply allegations one can't be given guilty of anything. Even though I am not getting why one would pay for printing against himself 😔 strange. ( Plz remember there are other links also of Ndtv, the wire, hindu, bhaskar news, and too many...also take a concern about that)

There are also another media links. Plz Also consider about them.

Point (3)- How a murder charge can be a routine coverage. This is not like brushing your teeth daily. (Plz, remember, It is not just about murder charge, My whole point is there is sigcov as all other news agency like ndtv, ANI, the wire, hindu,..many others....?also there are many news about this article)

Point (4)-I haven't said that you said every news agency is paid...Let me take a review on what I have written is that ""if you think"" . It is more like a question.

Point (5)- Topic of discussion shouldn't be around times of India is paid or not---And specifically remember it is not just about times of india news, whether is it paid or not, It is much more of about another sigcov news of another news agencies.like ndtv,bhaskar, also some official governmental websites.

Point (6)- I am not saying bad thing about anyone or not saying a single bad word. I have mutual respect to you or everyone else on wikipedia or everyone in the world.🙏वसुदेवः कुटुम्बकम्भ--The entire world is a family...पूरा विश्व एक परिवार है.

Point (7)-Plz (try to) answer every point separately. So discussion could be good. Thanks. Regards. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 User talk:Aj Ajay Mehta 007


  • Comment: Must read----

Dear,Kichu🐘 and dear,defcon5, and all other users, who are voting for delete, without answering things,just giving prob of sigcov.....

Point (1)--All of u not answering, Plz answer the things, those I have written above first.... 

and Let me say it again that, if you don't want to accept times of india than there are news in aajtak,ndtv,the wire,ANI, if you don't want times of India source in article,so remove it simply, It doesn't make sense to put the article under deletion process. For sake of sigcov and GNG, there are many other links of Ndtv,aajtak,the wire, bhaskar,( many more), also some official government websites. This makes notability. Where the whole article is about Deepak Rawat, that is in depth about Deepak Rawat.

Point (2)--Now if you are putting this article under deletion process, just because of the reference of times of india,then that link should removed, article shouldn't put under deletion.

Point (3)--Then like page- Narendra Modi has the reference of times of India (there are many other pages, where the references of times of India is given, but all those are not under deletion process, there shouldn't the double standards for anyone and for anything) Narendra Modi has the reference of times of India(just giving one example, the link is given under @""early life and education"" section)--the reference is---

https://m.timesofindia.com/city/ahmedabad/Modi-is-a-Teli-Ghanchi-OBC-BJP/articleshow/34084111.cms

Having this reference on that page doesn't make the page to be put under deletion process, but in this case, it has been given delete vote.

Point (4)--If there is reference of times of India on page like Narendra Modi, then you should delete the link, not the article. Same is the case here, If that link is here, remove the link,not the article (means don't put it under deletion, remove bad or poor links).

Point (5)--If you think, this reference of times of India on page Narendra Modi don't define Notability, sigcov, and GNG, then with due respect, that's what I am saying, only (just a single or some number of) reference of times of India doesn't define to put the article Deepak Rawat to be put under deletion process.

Point (6)--There are lot of references,where the article Deepak Rawat get sigcov, GNG, and Notability because the entire article in depth in some links(number of links,given in the article Deepak Rawat is written about the article Deepak Rawat.

Point (7)--Plz (try to) answer in accordance with points (numbering). As Everything will be clear, and It will be great of you

Thanks. Regards. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 User talk:Aj Ajay Mehta 007


Point (1)-Well firstly, not done anything is not a criteria(as far as I know), sigcov is. Well, If you don't find by searching it -""DM Deepak Rawat IAS""- on google(merely, plz search in the news section for specifications, that is by some suitable news etc. Sources like ndtv,aajtak,ndtv,the wire,the hindu,bhaskar news,jansatta,toi etc. and many more & Mostly in that news, you will find in-depth about the article Deepak Rawat.) I will leave the debate for sake, if you really don't find anything. Where you will find in-depth news about this article, how one can say there is no notability about the person.

Point (2)-For more plz, re-read the things, I have written above in this page.

Point(3)--'And not done anything...' (here,how you define not done anything is unclear...plz Clear) ,there are many pages of many IAS specifically, what they have done. And if you will say they disclose corruption,than let me tell you, he also has done same. i.e. disclosure of corruption.....

For more on this, read this--(shortcuts)--
Shortcuts




Point(4)- Ply try to answer in points (numbering). So everything will be clear.


Plz. Answer till this point.

Thanks. Regards. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: as I see it, this passes WP:NPOL– " A politician (Beaurocrat) who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles,like in this ([1]) by journalists." There's two features from different publications. The article's got many secondary sources so far.

As both per WP:NPOL, because he "has been written about, in depth, independently in articles, by journalists," and per WP:BASIC, because If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk • contribs) [reply]

  • Delete Run-of-the-mill civil servant who does not meet WP:ANYBIO as there is no significant coverage of him in multiple reliable and independent sources. WP:NPOL concerns notability of politicians, not civil servants, and in any case there is no in-depth press coverage. @Aj Ajay Mehta 007: Please read WP:BLUDGEON and stop posting walls of text in response to every other participant here. You should assume that editors who take the time to post their assessment here have done their due diligence by reading the earlier discussion as well as the article itself, and by checking the sources therein. Your repeated requests for answers is disruptive behaviour, and you seem to think that the fact that other editors don't choose to enter into discussion with you means that you are right. --bonadea contributions talk 07:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: Well, Article Deepak Rawat was in list of Deletion of Politician--[2] Therefore, I added this.- WP:NPOL

Well, All after this, Leaving it, I'm done. ✍️👉 WP:NOTDEM, WP:NOTBURO.

Thanks. Regards. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.livehindustan.com/uttarakhand/haridwar/story-deepak-rawat-got-national-award-2705884.html

https://newstrack.com/education/deepak-became-ias-by-answering-this-question-521057.html

https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/attempt-to-murder-case-filed-against-haridwar-dm-118010301000_1.html

https://www.bhaskar.com/uttar-pradesh/lucknow/news/ias-deepak-rawat-who-made-headlines-for-raid-against-corruption-6012115.html

https://ndtv.in/uttarakhand-news/when-haridwar-dm-ias-deepak-rawat-caught-stealing-electricity-in-the-village-1966720

https://ndtv.in/india-news/kumbh-mela-uttarakhands-one-official-plays-down-super-spreader-another-admits-it-2413424 --This one also would help to improve COVID-19 pandemic in India article.

Many more in article.

(These are the news,not like the opinions in Godi media) and those are not listed in the list of wiki RS sources doesn't mean they are nowhere fit for wiki (as it has been written in that wiki RS article. If one thinks that only news published in the new york times or Washington post makes things(person) reliable, then Ashok Khemka shouldn't be an article as there is no news about it in the new york times. Then congratulations is enough word for them.

Thanks. Regards. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

edit
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.
  1. ^ "Aaj tak news about IAS Deepak Rawat".
  2. ^ "Listed here".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deepak_Rawat&oldid=1108510088"