Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manu Kumar Srivastava

Manu Kumar Srivastava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NN government civil servant UtherSRG (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I initially misread his position, but as an administrative officer I don't think he meets WP:NPOL. Please ping me if anyone more knowledgeable about the Indian government structure says otherwise. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, @Alyo:, please refer to my comment. Indian government system is dependent pn Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers. They head districts, divisions of Indian states and then administratively head union and state government departments. Chief secretaries are very very senior IAS officers and should qualify WP:NPOL. Think of them as US federal deputy secrecies with the only difference being chief secretaries are career IAS officers. 103.59.198.83 (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I spent 15 minutes reading about this before !voting, and while I'm sure they have a lot of responsibility, they do not appear to be "elected politicians" as envisioned by NPOL. I'm an administrative lawyer myself, so I completely understand the importance, but I also know there are literally thousands of civil servants and simply fulfilling their duties does not equate to notability. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Alyo: I would have to disagree with you on that. American undersecretaries and deputy secretaries or chiefs of staff are given notability for simply holding their positions. I don’t see as to why the same should not apply for career civil servants.

    The point is not being one of thousands of civil servants —the guy literally heads the state government of India’s biggest state by GDP and is a senior member of the premier civil service of India. He’s literally the chief of staff of the state government. The job itself should confer notability as it does for defence personnel of equivalent status. If UK permanent secretaries (and heads of devolved admins) are given notability simply for their positions (as they should), I don’t see why the same shouldn’t be extended to Indian chief secretaries. Besides there are tons of articles on former chief secretaries and their equivalents (army generals and unit secretaries) who are given notability for holding their position. That should be the case here as well. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 23:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Because we don't treat civil servants the same as elected officials, simple as that. When NPOL confers notability on leaders of statewide governments, it's applying to (at minimum) the top three members of this list. When you say the guy literally heads the state government of India’s biggest state, to an American it implies he holds one of these positions. That's what I initially thought when I came across this article in NPP. I do not in fact believe that American state-level (as opposed to national/federal) chiefs of staff are guaranteed notability just because of their position. They might be notable for other reasons, but here the only sources are about Srivastava taking office. There's no other claim to notability. I think unfortunately you're blending a lot of very different topics and positions (for example, I would treat army generals as totally irrelevant to this discussion) and then wondering why they aren't all treated the same. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am conflating the two because in an Indian context, the two are related. Secretaries of Indian government (chiefs of staff; equivalent to UK perm secs) are treated as equivalent to chief secretaries. People occupying one post move to the other laterally and vice versa. It’s analogous to permanent secretary of the Scotland or Northern Ireland executive (both of whom have articles) and permanent secretary to a UK government department. Sue Gray for example was perm sec for Northern Ireland before moving to Cabinet Office as second perm sec. I’ll try to find sources for him tomorrow (there are some in Marathi) but I genuinely think him holding the post itself confers notability — chief secretaries are responsible for heading state admins as secretaries to the state cabinet. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 23:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      As an example of why I was conflating the two, Shrivastava would chair the meeting of the state disaster management authority, of which the local corps commander of the army, a lieutenant general (someone who automatically qualifies GNG), would be a participant. I think the interpretation of GNG advocated here would lead to absurd situations such as this. And that’s why it’s not done so for UK civil servants, where sub national chiefs of staffs are guaranteed notability. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 00:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — He’s a senior civil servant/Indian Administrative Service officer. Indian government system is similar to the UK and Ireland and differs wildly from the US. Senior civil servants are in charge of the administration of government departments and executives. Chief secretaries of states are regarded as “lynchpins” of administration. As a Chief Secretary he heads a state administration and ranks 23rd on Indian order of precedence — clearly qualifies WP:NPOL. Numerous IAS officers of the level of chief secretary such as Rajive Kumar (who also served as a Union secretary) have articles, so do Union secretaries such as Rajiv Mehrishi (who was also once the chief secretary of Rajasthan or Rajiv Gauba. Think of these people as senior civil servants in the UK of permanent secretary level such as James Bowler or Sue Gray or Japanese administrative vice ministers. 103.59.198.83 (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point — his status is equivalent to a four-star general, India’s vice chief of army staff, and secretaries to Indian government. 103.59.198.83 (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • As an aside this was me through my uni’s collective IP. I apologise for not logging in. Been a while since I edited on here. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 23:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• He ranks 23rd along with literally hundreds of other people, following other hundreds (thousands?) in the 22 long lists of people who come before. That is not a claim to notability. This is not '23rd in line to the throne'. It's how we decide in what order people enter the room and are seated. Valereee (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not with hundreds of people I don’t think. There are only 28 Indian states. So 28 chief secretaries. Indian order of precedence can be a very good proxy of notability — it’s literally the list of senior most politicians, civil servants, judges and military officers. At any rate, the point is that the job itself is notable — chief secretaries head state executive committees among other things and are equivalents to four-star generals and are above corps commanders of Indian Army who qualify GNG because of their jobs. I don’t see why someone who’s responsible for the administration of the biggest Indian state by GDP shouldn’t. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 23:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Chief secretary (India); unless this job confers notability, this person doesn't appear to be notable. Valereee (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]