Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akun Sabharwal

:{{la|Akun Sabharwal}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Akun_Sabharwal Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Akun Sabharwal}})

This was deleted, but the deletion has been challenged, so recreating to bring it here. I can't do better than repeat the original proposed deletion nomination text: {{tq|Reason is he is a mid level police officer. not notable. Page is promotional and autobiographical with exaggerations. merely three references with refills.}} While we do have some biographies of very senior police officers—mainly those with direct responsibility for major metro areas—we've never usually hosted biographies of officials at this level. Plus, the article appears to be heavily padded with things which happened to occur on his watch, rather than things for which he was directly responsible. (For those not familiar with Indian police ranks, Deputy inspector general of police means "three levels down from the State police chief" and is equivalent to ACC in the British system or a Deputy Commissioner in the NYPD structure, and despite the name doesn't mean "second in command".)  ‑ Iridescent 15:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Non-Notable mid-level police official of a city Uncletomwood (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Delete I am not sure why we get so many articles on mid-level civil servants in India. Either they pop up more for some reason, or people are better at deleting them. Although I have to admit I have seen a fair number of articles on unnotable politicians in the US as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
• Delete There's definitely a flood of Indian pages which meet no measure of notability and which need to be more closely monitored to avoid compromising the project. Engleham (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep but Rewrite Some of the references are credible reportage. Without judging solely by the rank/status, won't it be logical to consider the commendable contributions made the subject? Curlzon (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
• :What "commendable contributions"? Even if you don't discount all the puffery in the article, he sounds like a completely generic middle-manager. ‑ Iridescent 22:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
• Please Delete no hard feelings, I made the contribution in good faith, but if it is not an encyclopedic subject yet, shouldn't be kept. Slu tsu (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.