Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajeev Kumar (IPS)

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. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 21:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Kumar (IPS)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a WP:BIO1E. Nothing notable except the one event. All the other sources are from non-WP:SIGCOV sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and West Bengal. UtherSRG (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - Tagging @Seawolf35:, who reviewed, I would make two points on this. 1. From my side, I don't think being a director of the state police unit is the only notability that counts. He is also a former police commissioner of Kolkata and was involved in Saradha Group financial scandal. So, that also counts. 2. Even if it looks notable on 1E, his successors like Anuj Sharma and Rajesh Kumar also considered as 1E (only commissioner of Kolkata). These persons also don't provide significant coverage references. So they should also tagged as deleted.
Since creating this page, I prefer to avoid voting. --CSMention269 (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I reviewed so I am involved. But aside from the 1E notability, he also seems to be notable for his appointment, his appointment was among controversy, see [1], and [2] and [3]. There are some more sources, but he is notable for more than the 1E alone. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 15:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it seems that his biggest claim to notability is the accusation against him. If that is true, it should be at least mentioned in the lede. Llajwa (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Heads of state police forces (which are generally pretty big) in Indian states should clearly be seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point us to a notability policy that indicates this broad conclusion? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an informed opinion, based on the fact that nobody in such a position in a western country would ever be deleted (and is therefore covered by WP:BIAS). I can also point you to the sadly much overlooked WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I refute this. Would you create Patrick J. Callahan who is the New Jersey State Police Superintendent purely based on being in that role? That's the equivalence you are making, and it is not held up by policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This exact same point has been raised before by American editors who don't understand how policing works in other countries, but no, I'm not making that equivalence at all. State police in India carry out all policing in the state. State police in the USA only have a very limited role, with local police departments carrying out most policing. You need to compare the size of the two forces (2,800 in NJ against 79,000 in West Bengal, and that's one of the smaller Indian state police forces), then you'd realise just what a lack of equivalence this really is. A closer equivalent would be the Chief of the NYPD, but more than doubled! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With West Bengal having a population of 10x that of NJ, that's only a difference of less than 3x the size per capita. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And still - there's no policy basis for your argument. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is your point? I'm talking about the size of the force the man heads, not the relative population of the two states. Somebody who heads a police force 79,000 strong which is responsible for all the policing in a state with a population of 91 million is clearly a notable player in the world. That is just WP:COMMONSENSE, as I said. In the real world, not wikiworld. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that there are plenty of state police forces in the US that are of the size of that of West Bengal. The heads of those organizations do not have articles, unless they are otherwise notable. A prime example is Steven C. McCraw, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety. The department has an article, but the director doesn't. I'd wager the department is larger than the West Bengal police force, as it includes more than just police. Size of the department they run isn't a notability factor. WP:COMMONSENSE is just a wrapper to WP:IAR, the anti-policy. So I'll ask again, do you have a policy basis for your keep !vote? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that there are plenty of state police forces in the US that are of the size of that of West Bengal. What!? No, there really aren't! Now you really are joking. The NYPD, with 36,000 officers, is by far the largest law enforcement agency in the United States. The Texas Highway Patrol is 2,800 strong (and I'm damn sure the TDPS doesn't have an additional 76,000 people on top of that, or even close!). The California Highway Patrol, which provides state policing for the most populous state in the USA, has 7,000 officers. You do know IAR is a policy, right? Whether you like it or not. I'm sorry that you don't think it's common sense that an officer who heads an agency this size is notable, IAR or not, but I must agree to disagree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp, I agree with you, but not all persons who holds such positions is notable. For instance, Surajit Kar Purkayastha (predeccesor of Kumar as CP, Kolkata) has hold such post. But his successor, i.e. Virenda K. is not quite notable. Manoj Malaviya counts as notable as grandson of Madan Mohan Malaviya. However it would be appreciated if you answer @UtherSRG's question. CSMention269 (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is notable as a relative of someone else. But these people are all notable because of the post they held. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi @Necrothesp, agree with you, but can you or anyone clarify if he is just an acting DGP or full time DGP? (Full time DGP requires approval from UPSC, I guess). If he is acting, he can not be notable based on that appointment. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User4edits, according to their official website, it stated that he is serving as principal secretary to IT department holding the charge of DGP West Bengal. I remember last time when Manoj Malaviya was appointed as acting DGP, before confirming by UPSC after few months as permanent DGP of the state. Though no acting word is mentioned in their website (as 24/01/2024 per website), some media stated he took charge as acting DGP on the time of his appointment. CSMention269 (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CSMention269, I do not know of any full-time DGP of even small states such as Goa being the Principal Secy to IT Department; as you said he is holding the charge of DGP, and therefore is only acting DGP, and therefore I would vote for:

Draftify until he is appointed as a full time DGP.

User4edits (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This individual has been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. These events include his appointment as DGP of West Bengal (The Hindu, The Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, Telegraph India, etc.) the Saradha chit-fund affair (The Quint, The Indian Express 1 2 3, NDTV 1 2 3, Hindustan Times 1 2, The Hindu etc.), and generally his role as Calcutta Police Comissioner (The Indian Express, NDTV, The Quint, The Week, etc.). He clearly passes WP:NBASIC owing to these sources, and this pretty clearly isn't a WP:1E situation. Some complaints were made about the current state of the article at the time of the nomination, but deletion isn't cleanup and the immediate presence or citation of specific sources in an article are not required provided that notability-indicating sources merely exist (which they do). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:THREE: Can you specify which 3 references pass WP:SIRS? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. If you click through all of them, or conduct a brief online search, there's certainly more than three. Here are three examples for ya.
Bhattacharya, Ravik (20 September 2019). "Explained: Who is Rajeev Kumar, Saradha-linked IPS officer who is now CBI's most wanted?". The Indian Express.
This source dedicates ~650 words to Kumar. The source describes a general overview of his career, beginning with him joining the IPS in 1989 and his appointment to head the Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate in 2012. It then goes on to describe his involvement with investigating the Saradha chit fund scam, his appointment to the head of the Kolkata police comissioner, with a brief summary over his removal by the elections commission and his removal afterwards. It also describes some of his educational background ("BE in computer science from the University of Roorkee") and notes some of the posts he held as a policeman. (Another profile on Kumar from the same author was published after his recent appointment in West Bengal. I don't want to count this as a second of three sources, but there's more information there if you'd like to take a look.)

"Controversial IPS Officer Rajeev Kumar Is Bengal's New Director General Of Police". Press Trust of India. 27 December 2023.
This source, from the Press Trust of India (link above via republisher NDTV) dedicates ~800 words to this individual. The article describes Kumar's job, notes his relationship with Mamata Banerjee and Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, and provides a thorough summary of his career through that point. The article is particularly thorough for the parts of his career beginning in 2011 and ending in 2019, and notes his appointment to the head of West Bengal's police forces at around the time of his date.

Chaudhuri, Monalisa (28 December 2023). "West Bengal: Rajeev Kumar gets DGP charge on Manoj Malviya's retirement". The Telegraph.
This article, from The Telegraph, was written shortly after the appointment to a post in West Bengal. The article, which is about 500 words, provides a brief overview of the positions that he has held, both before and after the chit fund scam, as well as some details on the appointment itself.

There are of course many, many other sources that could be used here to satisfy SIGCOV, and this should not be taken as an exhaustive list. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:04, 3 February 2024 (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.

Rajeev Kumar (IPS)

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.