Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandra Dhari Singh

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Dhari Singh

[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)

Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies of living persons (WP:BIO) requires that the subject receive significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. The existing article primarily relies on routine announcements and official listings, such as his judicial appointments and transfers. These do not constitute the in-depth, independent coverage necessary to establish encyclopedic notability.The article also lacks citations from independent news outlets, academic publications, or other reputable sources that provide substantial information about Justice Singh's career, judicial decisions, or impact on the legal field. The absence of such sources violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy (WP:V), which mandates that all material be attributable to reliable, published sources. The article predominantly focuses on recent events, such as Justice Singh's transfer proposals and appointments, without providing a broader historical context or analysis of his contributions to the judiciary. This emphasis on recent events without substantial historical significance may violate Wikipedia's recentism guideline (WP:RECENT), which cautions against giving undue weight to recent developments. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A clear pass of WP:JUDGE, which specifies that judges who have held...(for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office are presumed notable. As a justice of multiple Indian state-level high courts (the equivalent to a U.S. state Supreme Court justice, although the Indian state high courts are larger panels) he would qualify. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep precisely per Dclemens1971. Under WP:JUDGE, the subject is an automatic keep, and undoubtedly coverage exists for a person in such an office. BD2412 T 02:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens1971. Mccapra (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the consensus is that judges at the highest state courts are notable, and if there are at least some reliable sources in the stub, then it's kept. Bearian (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i have created article of the sitting judge of an Indian High court and as per consensus it is notable and are not liable for deletion Aruunn (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2025 (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.