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. MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Havaldar Gajender Singh[edit]

Please keep hi profile..if you could keep a terrorist overhere why can't you keep a brave soldier..shame on you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.239.17.86 (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet notability guidelines. The only notable item mentioned in this bio is dying in the November 2008 Mumbai attacks while fighting terrorists. Rawr (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once again i am asking same question is terrorist are more notable than a martyr? there are many articles on terrorists. Is this wiki policy to make notable terrorist rather than a martyr? Aminami (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please do not mistake notability for honorability. --Alan Au (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand The person is notable for playing an important role in the history in the fight against terrorism,... if the article has to be deleted, the article relating to the attacker Azam_Amir_Kasav needs to go too,... for the same principle of Cover the event, not the person.one event.Msolution (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand same article is Sandeep Unnikrishnan Aminami (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The mere fact of being killed does not make a person notable. It is possible that he will become more important as a symbol to the people of India. In that case the article could be restored. Sandeep Unnikrishnan, as an officer, seems to be more important now. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Steve I dont know where are you from but in India a martyr is above of all. even above of God. a martyr, in our India, doesnt need any reward from Govt. of other. each commando wants to become a martyr. Ask to any Indian that who is above of all? President, Prime Minister or a martyr. The Indian will say offcourse a martyr. So dont wait for any other notability or reward. Aminami (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this person is in the news only because one event happened to him. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Reyk _YO! 05:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for someone who had been in service for less than 1 year, it will be difficult to prove any notability beyond association with one event. --GDibyendu (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —-- Tinu Cherian - 07:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For what is a very sad story, I can't help but agree that one event makes him fail, as does WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I'm sorry for your loss Aminami, I suspect you must know him, but this isnt the place to pay tribute. Johnson8776 (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sorry being killed in a terrorist attack isn't a claim of notabilty Secret ^account 12:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the notes above about WP:NOT a memorial. See Ryan Clark for a similar example at the USA's infamous Virginia Tech massacre: individual victims, unless already well-qualified-enough for notability (e.g. Liviu Librescu at Virginia Tech), don't become notable simply by being victims of a famous terrorist attack. Nyttend (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable on his own. Can be mentioned in the parent article. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ONEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. As remarked above "notability" is not necessarily an honor. This was a brave person who died for a noble cause, voting "delete", however, is independent of that. --Crusio (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Could you perhaps give a reason for this !vote and why WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply in this case? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete , but this should also be applied to Azam Amir Kasav article. Terrorist kid, also associated with one terrorist attack, does not deserve a separate article and can be included only in main article. Why would his early life etc. be of any importance? Padalkar.kshitij (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Deserve": as said before, notable is not equal honorable. As despicable as these terrorists are, they may be notable (I haven't looked at this particular article, hence "may"), whereas their victims may not be. That is not somehow a sign that WP finds the terrorists "more deserving" than their victims. --Crusio (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is not even 'that' notable. He is not the head or an important person in any of the terrorist organizations. He is of importance only in regard to this article. WP should not find (and hopefully is not finding) terrorists "more deserving" --Padalkar.kshitij (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He may not be honored today, but soon he will be honored by the Government, so keep and update it, he will become an notable person, its only now he has been recognisation, so lets give him a place on WP - Suresh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.150.249 (talk • contribs)

Keep He is honored already and the importance of person should be measured by the importance of his actions not length of time. The WP guidelines should not be used to selectively remove certain articles and ignore others. Gajendra Singh is important in Indian context. Just as some people of the Mumbai attacks are important in the context of other countries Israel, USA and others. Selectively bringing Afd also amount to POV because ones is suppressing certain article and letting others be. 221.249.25.218 (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above two "Keep" nominations do not have any regard to the WP policies and guidelines, they are just emotive rhetoric. "Importance" in a country's context does not necessarily make them notable. As has already been mentioned numerous this, this person fails WP:ONEEVENT WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BIO insofar as he is not notable outside of this. Further, you've misinterpreted WP:POV - if other articles are similar to this, they, too should be nominated for deletion. Would you care to provide examples? Johnson8776 (talk) 02:13, 6 December 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.