Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukhdev Singh Babbar

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 keep. Note that merging was considered a valid option by a few editors, including the nominator. - Nabla (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhdev Singh Babbar

Doesn't satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. Didn't have any reliable or neutral sources. Also is unknown outside of "Khalistan" circles. Google search only returns POV pro-Khalistan sites.vi5in^[talk] 04:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 04:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The India Tribune is a reliable and major newspaper of the area, and a human rights watchdog both seem to suggest notability for the person. -Parappathebagel (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I checked out IHRO. For being "International", the articles seem to be only focused on Punjab and India. --vi5in^[talk] 18:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since IHRO, a Human Rights Watchdog is a NPOV, hence it should be considered as a source confirming this person's notability.Singh6 (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite a few sources backing up notability as can be found here. Added one. ascidian | talk-to-me 22:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rethink - Although I still believe this person is notable, until a NPOV version can be established a Merge/Redirect to Babbar Khalsa may be the best option.

Comment/Reply - Sir, I challenge you and the whole respected Wikipedia community to prove following sources as POV: The New York Times, Amnesty International, Amnesty International, The Hindu, The Tribune, The Vancouver Sun, United Nations, Asia times, CBC News Canada, Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict, Sify, India Today, The Indian Express, The daily Excelsior And If these are NPOV, then this person is surely a Notable personality.Singh6 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Three Thousand Nine Hundered (3900) Google hits backing up notability. Please check [1]. Also The New York Times, Amnesty International, Amnesty International, The Hindu, The Tribune, The Vancouver Sun are definitely reliable sources. Removing this article will be a great in-justice and will be considered as equivalent to murdering history. And several World level News/Reports backing up notability as well, including United Nations, Asia times, CBC News Canada Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict, Sify, India Today, The Indian Express, The daily Excelsior Singh6 (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you tone down the rhetoric? I'm glad you came up with sources. No one here is trying "murder history". --vi5in^[talk] 03:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: "Regarding toning down my sentences"- I have personally seen various crimes/murders committed by Indian security forces in Punjab. The related news always appeared on The Tribune, one of north-Indian newspapers and Ajit, a regional newspaper of India etc. Since [http://www.tribuneindia.com/2008/forms/archive.htm “The Tribune (a 125 years old newspaper group) does not have online editions prior to 2001 and Ajit didn’t have any online editions untill very recently , hence I went through extreme desperation to prove some importance of these Historic personalities/and India’s Famous muder victims. Indian government always tried to suppress information about its murders by emposing various means. Now whenever I see someone suppressing/deleting information about these historic personalities even after their murders , then I feel that Indian agents are now murdering the history as well, and that results in my crying tone.Singh6 (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Stating things like "I have personally seen varous crimes/murders committed by Indian security forces in Punjab" does very little to improve discussion on this topic. We're trying to see whether this article merits inclusion or not. We're not discussing your opinions, views, or personal experiences. So really, please tone down your rhetoric. I'm not trying to be too cynical, but I find it hard to believe that you could accidentally change someone's Comment to Keep. --vi5in^[talk] 15:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reply: Respected Sir, I had given the reason of my crying tone (rhetoric per your directory) on seeing someone intentionally murdering history. I also find it hard to beleive that your Google search only showed POV (pro-Khalistan) sites, Should I consider that vi5in lied, or should I consider that it was just an accident. Singh6 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ok, I can understand your indignation regarding this AfD, but realize it's nothing personal. So please stop making it so. Saying things like "murdering history" is pointless hyperbole. As far as the Google search, this is what I saw. Note the preponderance of forums and POV sites like sikhlionz? I notice now a Tribune link there that I did not see before. On this basis, I guess there is sufficient notability to merge/redirect this article. But it really doesn't have enough information or notablity to be one in its own right. --vi5in^[talk] 17:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reply: Dear vi5in, I have seen your contribution towards Wikipedia which I really respect. I have started editing Sukhdev Singh Babbar article now with all world level references, including information from The New York Times, Amnesty International, Amnesty International and United Nations etc. It will take few days for me to find/complete information about this historic personality. I am also against using POV references, but please note that sometimes it become impossible to find real NPOV references because of non-availability of their online editions in India which I have already mentioned and proved in my previous reply (I would like to get your kind assistance to face these issues in the future). Some of the Indian press-houses were not that advanced prior to 2001. I sincerely hope that because of [Sukhdev Singh babbar] being a notable person whose name figured in several newspapers in several countries, Amnesty International and even at the level of United Nations, Wikipedia will keep this article as it is.Singh6 (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Since the nominator vi5in has accepted sufficient Notability of the subject and advocated its merger (and Not Complete Deletion) by himself. See "here".Singh6 (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Singh6 has changed the post from User:Parappathebagel from a "Comment" to a "Keep". see here. ascidian | talk-to-me 03:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:Mistaken change of ‘one’ word, i.e. “Comment” to “Keep” happened while I was editing my own entry. I am new to Wikipedia and I am still learning how to enter links and information in various codes. Un-intentional mistake has been corrected, i.e.User:Parappathebagel ‘s info. Please accept my sincere apologies.Singh6 (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be pov version. Only a few linesShalimer (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reply “Only A few lines” does not mean that even “these few lines” should be deleted at all. Being an Indian, you might have hate for anti Indian Personalities. You edit/modify a lot of Sikhism/Sikh related articles/biographies without even a single discussion.Singh6 (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/Redirect~~ to Babbar Khalsa. There are some mentions in newspaper reports, so this person is somewhat notable. utcursch | talk 05:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep -- major expansion with good references. utcursch | talk 10:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merge/Redirect seems like a good idea. There seem to be large number of stub-quality articles on Babbar Khalsa members. Perhaps they could all be merged/redirected. --vi5in^[talk] 15:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guy seems to have been an notable militant separatist leader in the 80s. I had not heard of him until reading the newspaper on the new york times. Therefore, after reviewing the evidence and all the newspaper reports, he is definitely notable so my vote is keep. However, the article should be written neutrally written (non-pov) to keep it valuable.--Sikh khalsa (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable militant leader. I agree it should be NPOV.... but dont delete it!!!!!!!! Sunnybondsinghjalwehra (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was the leader of the largest of the Sikh militant groups of the 1980s and 1990s. That's pretty notable, in my book. We've got citations from news sources without a dog in this fight that say as much. Fixing the POV will be necessary, but is a separate issue from deletion. skoosh (háblame) 13:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. The founder of the Babbar Khalsa, the largest militant/extremist/terrorist group in India for a decade is immediately notable. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: One of the founder of Babbar Khalsa International, obviously notable. NPOV disputes? That needs rewriting. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2008 (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.