Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijayant Thapar (officer)

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. ^Complex/_Rational 20:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayant Thapar (officer)

[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)

Repost of previously deleted and salted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijayant Thapar * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
Perhaps previously the article didnt had enough references which are updated, such as his website, book published by a Colonel and other references which were published after 2016 (after the AFD took place) and they are being used as reference. The previous AFD took place 9 years ago, which is a long time. Again, neither does this article fail WP:BIO nor I have used any fabricated references. This article fulfills all the criteria of WP:BIO. All the references used are cross checked and up to date. There are other articles as well on officers who got Vir Chakra with much less references. Pl check the list of officers with Vir Chakra.[1]. I think deleting the article based on an AFD which took place 9 years ago is not justified , as maybe that time the article didnt had much reliable references and the person had not gotten enough media coverage. I am unsure why an user is saying the article contains 'salted materials', perhaps you should check the references I have used. -- CaptShayan — Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My use of the word "salt" refers to WP:SALT. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get it that the article was recreated after getting deleted. But this time the article contains better and accurate references. It does not fail WP:BIO nor WP:NOTE.

I don't think it's okay to delete an article based on an AFD which took place years ago AS the article is an updated version of the previous deleted article with more accurate references. CaptShayan (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More then half of the references I have used were published a few years after the AFD took place, so it is not 'repost' of previously deleted articles. You can check the date of the references. CaptShayan (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When an admin WP:SALTs an article, then they are declaring that they do not want an article on that subject to be created. Recreating an article at an incorrect title to circumvent that block is inherently disruptive behavior as I see it. Other members of the community are apparently more tolerant of this than me, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't created at an incorrect title, as he was an serving officer of Indian Army. However, I don't understand why don't you want a better version of a previously deleted article which had poor citations. CaptShayan (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was created at an incorrect title. We only disambiguate articles when there's something else to disambiguate them from - I refuse to believe you didn't try to create this at Vijayant Thapar, see you weren't able to, and resort to this hack to get it done anyway. And I will do everything in my power to stamp that sort of trickery out. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a trickery but a willing to contribute. CaptShayan (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you want to believe, believe it man. But I hope you will at least let others contribute to this AFD instead of taking a decision on the basis of a 9 years old AFD CaptShayan (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am letting others contribute. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:CaptShayan seems to be cavassing editors to participate in this process, namely (Explicit, Redrose, and Significa liberdade). BusterD (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page title seems to demonstrate gaming a clear G4 outcome to me... BusterD (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BusterD: If you and Pppery feel a G4 deletion makes more sense, feel free to go ahead. I initially declined the G4 nomination due to the age of the AFD, as well as a more complicated history in draftspace following the 2016 deletion discussion. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the decline is a preferable choice; I was merely stating the obvious (that they were gaming a clear speedy by using the disambiguator). BusterD (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad the old AfD is getting some reading in this process by newer editors. Note the way we used to rely on the Military History Project's WP:SOLDIER as a standard, back before this purely project guide was deprecated. BusterD (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for two principle reasons. First, I agree with Pppery that the article was likely created in an attempt to evade the salting at Vijayant Thapar - better to have drafted the article and submitted it via WP:AFC, where the discussion on the article's merits could properly have taken place. Second, it is a clear copyright infringement, probably {{db-copyvio}}-worthy, of this honourpoint.in source (and also [2], though this in itself may be taken from the honourpoint.in source) - pretty much the entire Kargil War section is copied or closely paraphrased in chunks from that. My third, somewhat secondary, reason is that this seems to be a clear instance of WP:BIO1E, in that Thapar was only notable for his action at Battle of Tololing. Taking all that into account, I suggest deleting this article, with no objection to a couple of encylopedic sentences about Thapar included in the Battle of Tololing article in an appropriate place, referenced to the Ebury Press book, which looks like the best source. I would then have no objection to Vijayant Thapar being created as a redirect to Battle of Tololing. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The gallantry award is the third-highest in India and would be equivalent to something like the Military Cross in the UK. Now, we have 2,170 articles on MC holders (out of 52,204 awarded) but if you look at as random selection (Category:Recipients of the Military Cross) then the vast majority either (a) have also received a higher award such as the Victoria Cross or (b) are notable in themselves - either very high-ranking officers or notable for something outside of their military service. Black Kite (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. The subject won a "third in precedence" award. Literally hundreds of deceased warrriors received this award, whose name is cognate with manly in Latin, another Indo-European language. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article doesn't have a lot of information and a ton of issues. I don't think getting a single medal is notable enough on its own. The subject could be mentioned elsewhere as suggested by SunloungerFrog. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single third-level gallantry decoration is rarely sufficient for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:SOLDIER. RangersRus (talk) 19:09, 3 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.