Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manjeet Singh Riyat

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. The "delete" side says that "first x to do y" does not amount to notability and that this article is merely a memorial. The "keep" side points to substantial coverage in reliable sources. These are all defensible arguments, and we have no consensus about whether the nature and quality of the sources merit an article, so the article is kept by default for lack of consensus to delete. Sandstein 17:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manjeet Singh Riyat

[edit]

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

Manjeet Singh Riyat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not at all notable. Page acts as a memorial. In fact, the user who set it up even posted a message on Twitter saying he established the page as a "tribute" (here). Whilst his death may be sad, Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – being "the first" in something does not merit automatic notability. The United Kingdom had Sikh police officers 7–8 decades ago. It had Indian parliamentarians as long ago as the 1800s (e.g. Dadabhai Naoroji). Being the "first African-American to graduate with a degree in the U.S." or "the first Indian judge in the UK" are notable because they could be regarded as breaking significant barriers, particularly during the time that they happened. Being the "first emergency care consultant of Sikh heritage" is really scraping the barrel as it is so trivial. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of coverage in respectable sources such as the BBC and Guardian means that the subject passes WP:GNG. The nomination's reference to Twitter is a violation of WP:DOX. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough coverage in sources. Notability is not an evenly calibrated bar. Some subjects/topics are more or less notable. This subject is notable enough given the sources. add: Subject is notable WP: Academic Further, why an editor creates a notable article is not significant. We all create articles for personal reasons; reasons for creation have nothing to do with the quality or notability of the article. (And it looks as if the tweet was posted before the article was created.) Littleolive oil (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. If someone can provide significant coverage in reliable sources beyond obituaries, ping me and I'll gladly change my !vote. In the future the topic might still gain notability if this is retrospectively found to have historical significance, but it is too soon to see that. --MarioGom (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC) Edited: striked out WP:NOTMEMORIAL after reading the rest of the discussion. --MarioGom (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which one event do you think this article relies on? And which part of NOTMEMORIAL says that obituaries cannot be cited as evidence of more general notability? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pigsonthewing: The WP:BLP1E event is his death. Obituaries can be cited, obviously, and they can be deep. It was the case with Francisco Hernando Contreras, where WP:GNG would have been met in any case without counting any obituary, but obituaries provided good reference material for the articles and good overview of all events. However, when discussing notability, obituaries are problematic, as they exist for many subjects for whom notability couldn't be established otherwise. For example, obituaries published by institutions that the subject had connection with (e.g. [1]) are very common, and not independent. In the context of COVID-19, where there is pressure to publish about anything that is related to the pandemic, obituaries for healthcare workers have become a non significant event (in my opinion, anyway). Note that I did not consider the tweet and I think it should not be considered at all for the purpose of the AfD. --MarioGom (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The WP:BLP1E event is his death" But Riyat's notability is not predicated on his death - indeed, as a proportion of the content of the article, it is barely mentioned. I note that you cannot show any part of NOTMEMORIAL - on which, with BLP1E, your delete !vote relies - that says we cannot cite obituaries, nor indeed that mitigates against this article in any sense. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing: The article lists facts and I do not dispute them. As with most obituaries, they cite all accomplishments that are significant (in the context of an individual) and it is hard to see how these personal accomplishments contribute to notability. Did these accomplishments receive significant coverage in reliable sources outside of the context of his death? If not, then I don't think they contribute to notability. I just don't know which notability criteria this article does pass:
Not WP:ANYBIO:
  • The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. No.
  • The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. No.
  • The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication. No.
Other additional criteria at WP:BIO (e.g. sports, academics) does not seem to apply. Let's fallback to WP:GNG:
  • WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Maybe.
  • WP:RS: Yes, per The Guardian obituary.
  • "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. Maybe. It could be argued that notability is presumed at this point, but I'm not sure.
There are two specific points that I think this topic lacks:
  • WP:SUSTAINED: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events.
  • WP:BLP1E: Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: [...] I think all of the three listed conditions are met here. But as I said, I can change my mind if there are sources that show that it is not the case or if I got something wrong. --MarioGom (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me which policy supports this Spiderone 11:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An article can be notable and a memorial. Memorializing does not exclude notability nor does notability exclude that an article can also memorialize. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and fails WP:GNG. A consultant in a medical field isn't something that is rare, and saying he was the first X to be Y is strectching notability the same. Also getting tedious, as a radiographer myself, I work alongside doctors and see the effects of COVID, but every time a doctor with a fairly routine medical career tragically dies, it isn't an excuse to create a memorial page. Think of their wider career and the notability guidelines of parent projects. StickyWicket (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Andrew Davidson thanks for stalking my contributions, although Henry Majendie isn't the subject of this AfD - and if you read my comment about consulting parent projects about notability, you might discover he passes the cricket project notability guidelines. The rationale for deleting this doctor is sound, he's a consultant - one of thousands, what makes him unique? Shall I create a page for the 8 consultant radiologists I work under who are no more notable than this chap? StickyWicket (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"he passes the cricket project notability guidelines" I see my mistake, I should have started WikiProject A&E consultants from Derby. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability per GNG is established via the Guardian obit. We often have used the fact that historic figures had obituaries of major newspapers as prima facie evidence of notability. The article would benefit from some WP:HEY expansion to show more about his groundbreaking status, but notability is quite clear as it sits. Montanabw(talk) 20:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If he had not have died, then we would not be having this discussion, because there would be no article. Brycehughes (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Being dead" is not a valid reason for deletion. If the material published in obituaries had been published when he was still alive, the same article could have been written; the deletion rationale above could not. There is, as pointed out above no prohibition on citing obituaries. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If only the car hadn't broken down" - Janet Weiss. But the car did break down, and Manjeet Singh Riyat did die, and we do have this article. --RexxS (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct, we do have an article, however his manner of death was not notable, nor was he notable prior to his death, so I'm not seeing how or where the article gains its notability. Brycehughes (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • His manner of death was certainly notable, as there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources discussing it. GNG. The biography gains its notability by having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources discussing his life and career. GNG. --RexxS (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Obituaries. Long obituaries, I'll grant you, but obituaries nonetheless. This is not sustained coverage, but rather a cluster of obits appearing at once, relating a sad end to an accomplished individual. But there have been many sad ends to accomplished individuals, and many obituaries relating them, and those alone do not confer notability. Brycehughes (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: meets GNG: "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources":
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-52362791
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-nhs-staff-deaths-derby-hospital-manjeet-singh-riyat-sikh-a9475816.html
    https://inews.co.uk/news/manjeet-singh-riyat-derby-consultant-coronavirus-death-age-tributes-2544733
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-a-e-consultant-dies-in-hospital-he-worked-in-after-contracting-covid-19-11976198
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/manjeet-singh-riyat-derby-emergency-consultant-dies-coronavirus-a4419391.html
  • That's more than enough. For those arguing WP:BLP1E, let me remind you what BLP1E states: "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: ... Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. That shows that BLP1E is never a reason for deletion. It is only a reason to merge from a biography into an article about an event. In this case, are you really arguing to merge the present biography into the event Death of Manjeet Singh Riyat? How pointless would that be? --RexxS (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RexxS, As far as I can remember, WP:BLP1E is often part of deletion resolutions when that single event does not meet notability criteria. Specially in combination with absence of WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED. MarioGom (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarioGom: You don't have to remember, you can read the policy: WP:BLP1E. Does it or does it not state that each of three conditions is met and In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article? The policy clearly states that a BLP that fits all three BLP1E conditions should be merged into the article about the event.
    The notability criteria are GNG - period, and both the BLP and the event have more than enough significant coverage to meet GNG. There is no policy for deleting a BLP that passes GNG without merging it under BLP1E.
    Do you really believe that the coverage I've listed above is insufficient to meet SIGCOV? You must be making a joke.
    Now, SUSTAINED is a reasonable consideration, but we won't know if the coverage is fleeting for a while. But SIGCOV says "topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." Nobody has shown it does not meet all of those conditions, so the presumption remains that the article may exist. If you want to bring a deletion request based on SUSTAINED, you need to show that the sourcing is ephemeral, and you have no way of doing that right now. --RexxS (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RexxS, that's not how I would interpret the text of WP:BLP1E: In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. This clarification says "usually" and it is part of bullet point 2, not the introduction, which says Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: [...]. This interpretation is not something unseen. See two very recent examples: Peg Broadbent and Sérgio Trindade. Regarding WP:SUSTAINED, my understanding is that the nature of obituaries is ephemeral (not sure if that would be the right term though). I think given the amount and frequency of obituaries, they are a poor signal for notability. They all look like routine coverage to me. I think there may be exceptions, of course, where a particular death produces unusually high coverage for some reason. MarioGom (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarioGom: The quote is part of one of the three conditions, and the introduction is clear that each of those conditions must be met for BLP1E to apply. That much is plain English, and I don't see what room you have to "interpret it". If an article meets BLP1E, then it clearly meets the policy to merge it into the event article. Every article that meets BLP1E should be merged. That's what the policy says. If you want to claim an exemption on "it is usually better to merge ... " (i.e. not always), then I'll remind you that the introduction states "We generally should avoid ..." (i.e. not always). Those sort of indicators that exceptions may apply are quite normal in our policies, but the onus is always on whoever tries to create an exemption to justify it. What is your justification for going against policy and not merging?
    Those examples are worthless because our policy cannot be overriden by anecdotes.
    Nobody can say whether the present coverage will not continue and spawn further coverage; we have no way of knowing, so SUSTAINED cannot be a viable reason for deletion until the coverage has clearly ceased. It's too soon to determine that, so having passed GNG, the presumption remains that the subject merits an article. --RexxS (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He - and not only his death - were covered by BBC, Independent and many other papers. I would have supplied links but see that others found the same, above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has long been consensus that if the major national newspapers and the BBC etc all see fit to publish detailed obituaries, then that person is notable.----Pontificalibus 08:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This is one burst of coverage, but we need sustained coverage over a period of time to gauge his notability. Störm (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not true. [WP:NTEMP] "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." We cannot and do not try to tell the future and must deal in the present and the sources we have now which is this case are enough to establish notability. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quite a few people seem to re-parroting 'NOTMEMORIAL' because someone looked off-wiki and brought back an innocent Twitter comment which is now being presented as grounds for deletion. I feel WP:NBIO has been met through a number of respected national media outlets publishing quite detailed obituaries of Singh which have focussed on this individual's achievement as the first Sikh Accident & Emergency Consultant to be employed anywhere within the UK's National Health Service, as well as reporting his contribution to academic emergency care. I note this Punjabi site also writes about him. It's a reality that we often only manage to get enough good sources to write about people after they have died. (see Andy Nisbet for one such example I created). Nobody with an ounce of sensitivity goes on Twitter and says, "hey, I'm so pleased person xxxx has died - now I can write about them on Wikipedia". But that's often how we get enough sources to jump over the bar of demonstrating notability (i.e. the world's mainstream media have taken note of them), as here. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)    [reply]
Nick Moyes, regardless of the validity of WP:NOTMEMORIAL in AfD, note that is has been mentioned in every similar article listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/COVID-19. So I would not assume that other editors meant it as a response to the mentioned tweet, except for those who explicitly said so. --MarioGom (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom: well, as that was the basis for this particular deletion proposal, I can only assume that every commenter here will have seen that suggestion and been influenced by it in one way or another. What has or has not been said in other deletion discussions is not relevant here, in my view. Thanks though, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will also add that WP:NOTMEMORIAL actually states: "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements [of WP:BIO]". Where is the suggestion that this page was created by a friend, relative or coworker of this person? Or done out of sentimentality? Notability has clearly been met by the broad national and international media coverage they have received, so NOTMEMORIAL is well and truly trumped. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Moyes, re deletion proposal, fair enough. I thought it was worth mentioning, as it is recently a common place for COVID-19-related AfDs. After reading all feedback here, I agree that WP:NOTMEMORIAL is generally a clumsy argument for these cases. Although WP:BLP1E/WP:SUSTAINED still may apply (I know, I know, several editors here argue that is does not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioGom (talk • contribs) 00:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this man has achieved a great deal; notability is confirmed by the subject being the the first Sikh to be appointed as an emergency medicine consultant in the United Kingdom and the first Sikh to head up an A&E unit in the United Kingdom. That is very great achievement in itself. I wonder if Florence Nightingale had just died whether someone would want her article deleted too. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where do we draw the line here? Shall we also give an article to the first Sikh to eat a packet of Maltesers? Spiderone 13:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • With respect, eating a packet of Malteasers is hardly a comparison to being the manager of A&E unit (or in American speak: Emergency Room). It seems to me that footballers can achieve notability far easier than medical professionals. Perhaps we rate sport higher than people trying to save people's lives (perhaps that is an indictment on today's society). Are we to have an article on EVERY footballer that ever existed? It seems to me that people are rating medical professionals who fall ill with this virus to be worth less because they are doing it as part of their job. To achieve the status of managing an A&E unit is no easy task, especially for BAME people. If this article is deleted, we should also delete most of the footballer articles that have been created in deaths for this year. What is notability? Where are the names of eminent doctors to be recorded? or are they to be forgotten? Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support Merge if an article was created to remember all those medical professionals who lost their lives during this pandemic trying to save the lives of others. Otherwise their voices, their contributions to society will be erased as if they never exisited. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a borderline WP:GNG, otherwise I support @Rhyddfrydol2:'s suggestion. This is Paul (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough good sources to satisfy GNG. NOTMEMORIAL does not apply. Agathoclea (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see quite a few users on here simply saying "yes I think he passes, keep". Where's the evidence of notability? There is A SINGLE source on the article that pre-dates his death – it's a medical journal. Anyone can be noted in a medical journal, it doesn't merit notability. I've just done a Google search on him between March 2000 and March 2020 (one month before his death). Guess what? Nothing comes up. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under the misapprehension that sources, or indeed notability, must be pre-mortem. That is not the case; though if you believe it is, you are welcome to cite a policy saying so. Also, no-one is "saying 'yes I think he passes, keep'", "simply" or otherwise. Again, feel free to cite a diff, if you think you can prove me wrong. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 29 April 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manjeet_Singh_Riyat&oldid=1079196520"