Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranjit Lal Jetley

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The result of the debate was keep per little/no consensus and nomination withdrawn. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ranjit Lal Jetley

Delete. Prod was "awfully praiseful article about NN person, partially edited by subject.". Deprodded with "seems to have been written about in newspapers". Well, if that were our metric here, God save us... Lots of contents, little sense. Undersignificant individual. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Crazy Russian, could you edit your above comment Deprodded with "seems to have been written about in newspapers" as it's not true (newspapers unrelated to deprodding) and seems to have confused Andrew Lenahan, below. Cheers, JackyR 22:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see Kappa's note here [1].

Apologies, I missed that. JackyR 17:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In any event, by now it's pretty obvious that RLJ is not simply an officer in the Indian army, but is a very prominent one. Don't judge me too harshly, though, as some have begun to do, because the article as it was when prodded sounded like terrible vanity, was edited by Jetley himself (!) and did not explain how very distinguished he was. I still don't understand how, by the way, but I understand that he is, and that's enough. Nomination withdrawn. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep (for the moment, I could change my mind either way) and tag for cleanup. This article is terribly difficult to read, but it seems to assert that its subject played a significant command role in the outcome of a military campaign between India and Pakistan. Pending some more informed comments from the subcontinent, that sounds notable to me. Metamagician3000 01:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the crazy russian. Eusebeus 02:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A Google search for "Ranjit Lal Jetley" came up with five results all from Wikipedia and mirrors see [2]. A search of other verifiable sources came up with nothing as well. Seems to be unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 04:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 05:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete tagged as uncited and needing cleanup for over a month, and not fixed. Article editors have had long enough to fix the problems, so this appears to be unverifiable. Just zis Guy you know? 09:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment according to the articles talkpage he was also known as Lt. Gen Joginder Singh Dhillon. No vote, but Lt. Gen. Dhillon, if he is the same person seems somewhat notable. Jcuk 10:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, Jetley was mentioned in Dhillon's obituary. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 10:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I guess I misunderstood "Lt. Gen Joginder Singh Dhillon != Ranjit Lal Jetley". Change from no vote to Keep Jcuk 21:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Exclamation mark is a negation symbol. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep with cleanup, per Metamagic. It seems to me that a Major-General in any of the world's (say) ten largest armies is sufficiently notable for an article. This particular article needs a lot of work to make it readable and NPOV. Bucketsofg✐ 14:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, per User:Bucketsofg. Unless the article below is kept, in which case Strong Keep just to remind us the Real World exists... :-) JackyR 16:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to Strong keep if can find references. For comparison, we have William Elphinstone (major-general), James G. Blunt, Christopher Carleton, Henry Gladwin... If these are notable, then clearly so is Jetley. Needs a good clean-up, but that's not the same thing. Now feel systemic bias is at work... JackyR 23:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep, we need references! Otherwise the article will be nominated again. -- ReyBrujo 16:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficiently notable. Zaxem 17:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep and tag for cleanup per Metamagician3000, and could be a possible instance of systemic bias. TheProject 18:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep needs to be wikified. Arbusto 22:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If the facts stated in the article can be verified from secondary sources (which I suspect they cannot), then weak keep. Else delete. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, JzG. Very unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 13:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, San Saba 13:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and wikify. The Indian army is a notabale organization in the world. Moreover, the post of Major-General is a very high ranking in the army. Anyone holding this post is notable in international standards in my opinion. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless references can be found to verify the mentioned claims. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I've been reading up on almost anything related to the Indian Army and have until now not come across this person. Even if he does exist, it doesn't warrant an inclusion in Wikipedia. This is not a repository of all the ex-servicemen unless they are notable. And since the said person isn't notable, it would be wise to delete this article to prevent nonsense. Idleguy 17:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If our only inclusion criteria has fallen to include anyone mentioned in a newspaper, we're in deep deep trouble. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. His work in the Indian Army seems to put him a long way from "nn" territory, at least in my book. The article needs a cleanup, particularly to remove the more fauning and POV language ("he contributed by making an assessment of the effect of Pakistani weapons against ours" is quite revealing), and references are obviously needed. Deletion would be a mistake though, it's still salvageable. I'm not sure how mounting a high velocity gun on a Sherman counts as an "innovation", though. The British did that with the Sherman Firefly during the war. Leithp 23:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

At that point of time India being a Non-aligned country but with good relations (later defence treaty) with the Soviets and dirt poor, socialist economy, innovation of putting the gun unaided by British scientists who had done it before was notable - reinventing the wheel, so to say.AshLin 17:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The fact that Jetley got someone to write about him or did so himself does not mean that he did not play the major role in Indian defense research and development that he had. The article is relevant but as agreed by all of us needs source verification, complete rewrite and removal of POV. I have taken it upon myself to do up this article as a matter of Indian military prestige and have done an initial but inadequate rewrite. In a sense, I am happy that Crazy Russian did an AfD, brought my attention away from Indian butterflies to the Indian military. I was earlier avoiding this domain because of my percieved lack of NPOV if I got involved. Let me have my chance, guys. AshLin 17:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's already been withdrawn, AshLin. No need to plead. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks Crazy Russian, will make it keepable. AshLin 17:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and let AshLin make a rewrite. Tupsharru 17:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per AshLin UnDeadGoat 22:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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.