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. RasputinAXP c 21:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Kan Singh Parihar[edit]

The article does not take a neutral stance on the subject. It is not strictly factual, but flattering and biased. Obie09 21:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. He's from India, there aren't any hits on him in English, but NPOV isn't a reason to delete (a reason to revise, maybe, but not delete). --ColourBurst 21:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note This has been deleted before [1] as nothing but a weblink. I thought there was an earlier AFD on it. The hagiographic phrasing sounds very familiar. Fan-1967 22:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Speedy Delete (recreation of deleted material). --ColourBurst 05:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it's a really, really bad non-neutral article, but that has little to do with deletion. Slap a NPOV tag on it, or fix it. I don't know enough about the Indian justice system to determine the level of his positions to determine notability, so no vote. Kuru ^talk 22:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hoax? No sign of him at Rajasthan High Court OK - he's there as Kan Singh Dlyons493 Talk 22:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has been mentioned as 'Kan Singh' in short in the above URL pointed out. Please see again. He is very much a reputed personality who has done a great work for social upliftment in Rajasthan. He deserves a place on Wikipedia. There is no copyright violation as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LRBurdak (talk • contribs) .
- Justice Shri Kan Singh Ji Parihar spent his life in the service of people, in the service of justice and in the service of law, whether as a Naib Hakim, a Government Advocate, a Judge of High Court, Chairman of an enquiry commission for emergency excesses or as a Vice-chancellor of University of Jodhpur, or now, as an honest citizen devoting much of his time in reading and in the service of the downtrodden and persons in need individually or through voluntary organisations. is word-for-word from [2] Dlyons493 Talk 04:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note Anon IP 4.249.114.184 (talk · contribs) keeps removing AFD tags. Interestingly, that IP is in Colorado. Fan-1967 22:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I knew there was an earlier AFD. here it is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justice kan singh parihar. -- Fan-1967 22:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Copyvio from [3] Dlyons493 Talk 22:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The revision by Ambuj Saxena (talk has removed the copyvio but as he says there is little verifiable and notability is questionable. </>Dlyons493 Talk 11:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Has been a judge of Rajasthan High Court ( known in Court's web site as Kan Singh ) and also Vice Chancellor of Jai Narain Vyas University at Jodhpur .However the article badly needs be rewritten in wikipedia style .Shyamsunder 16:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Somebody tried that during the last AFD. Once the rewrite had been completed, the original author blanked the article. I guess if the fawning hero-worship was not there, the author didn't want an article at all. Fan-1967 04:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revise A simple revising instead of deletion would do the trick. I suggested the deletion in the first place, but I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy, sorry. Revising makes more sense. Obie09 03:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Justice Kan Singh Parihar is not only known to the world of law having remained as an illustrious lawyer, a great Judge of the Rajasthan High Court and a able Vice Chancellor of the Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, India, but he is also known to the common men and citizens of Rajasthan, India. Please look at the attached web page [4]. People of all walk of life have high regards for him. In my opinion there is no need to delete this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.102.211 (talk • contribs)

Comment It is clear that he is a notable judge. It is also clear that this article is absolutely, totally unacceptable. This is not an article. It is a hero-worshipping testimonial that has no place in an encyclopedia. Fan-1967 18:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have gone through the article twice, but couldn't find any notability. A Chief Justice may be notable for the post but not a jugde. Also, being the VC of a university isn't inherently notable. What's more, the article fails WP:NPOV (by a wide margin), WP:V (no verifiable sources given of the "claims"), and WP:NOR (that includes all the service claims). Failing all the founding policies of Wikipedia, I have no doubt in saying "Delete". — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article is to be revised then we need to find credible info on this guy. The page referred to be the author of the article [5], as said before, won't be sufficient. I did a Google India search for the Justice and found nothing. However, he is in the Wikipedia entry List of people from Rajasthan and List of notable people from Jodhpur. So either he is notable, and needs an article, or the Notable people from Jodhpur entry needs to be revised. Obie09 00:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I noticed this article when I was reading about Rajasthan, particularly the city of Jodhpur. It is interesting to know that he is someone notable from Jodhpur. So I think the entry of this article is worth keeping.

KEEPJustice Kan Singh Parihar has done great work for the rights of farmers of Rajasthan and for the common people. He is undoubtedly a notable person and meets notability criteria policy of wikipedia WP:BIO. A person becomes notable not just because of his high post but because of his great work and contribution to the society as a whole. Information on him is authentic and verifiable (Please see his web link and other information on him [6]

[7] [8] [9] Rajasthan High Court).This article will be revised and improved in wikipedia style, therefore, it should not be deleted.Jodmar 06:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems that I didn't make myself clear in my objections, so I have copyedited the article to remove most of non-neutral text and flowery language. Some objective claims have been left in the article with a ((fact)) tag on them. The only reference the article mentions is non-verifiable and most probably not even applicable as a reference. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I visit wikipedia frequently and noticed comments regarding this

article. There are lots of articles in wikipedia. But it is not necessary that those articles should apply to people who live in other parts of the world, of course not. Whatever you contribute to Wikipedia is not necessarily useful or interesting to everyone. But it can be good, useful, and informative to the people of the related country or certain region. Wikipedia is a very broad educational site it should not reflect with someone’s likes or dislikes. I do not feel there is any hero-worshipping. I support this article. I agree with Obie09’s “Revise” July 24, 2006. (Not for deletion). July26,2006

Comment I totally disagree with Ambuj Saxena’s comment. His objections are totally baseless and prejudiced. It seems to me that due to negative approach or attitude he is denying the facts.

There are enough authentic and verifiable information regarding Justice Kan Singh Parihar’s article. Please see again attached links of his web site [10], which is endorsed by the Vice-President of India. Is this not the reliable source? Also see that what other notable people think about him [11]. Link for reported cases [12]. & Other links as well. [13] [14] Rajasthan High Court All links which are provided here comply with Wikipedia’s Citing sources.Therefore, this article should stay in Wikipedia.(Jodmar 04:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Comment on the comment above. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My copyedit has been reverted by Jodmar with edit summary "Original article should not be changed while it is being reviewed by other viewers for their opinion on the original article." Note to editor: According to the top boilerplate text, "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Copyvio from [15]. Or if the content has been changed again from that version just Delete. It seems practically impossible to have a NPOV article - so get rid of it as fast as possible (and protect from recreation)Dlyons493 Talk 12:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jodmar is grossly mistaken on policy. AFD frequently results in reworking an unacceptable article into an acceptable one. Reverting to a version that is absolutely, grossly unacceptable is odd behavior from someone who wants the article kept. We have articles here, not fawning tributes and hero-worship. Fan-1967 13:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even though he may meet standards for notability, it seems clear that the proponents of this article are unable or unwilling to accept Wikipedia standards for an article. That leaves no alternative but to delete unless someone can come up with an alternative solution. Fan-1967 13:43, 27 July 2006 (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.