Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parduman Randhawa

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. Michig (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parduman Randhawa

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

Fails WP:GNG. All we have in the way of sourcing actually relates to his father, Dara Singh. Notability is not inherited. Was de-PRODed Sitush (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to father for now. WP:PRESERVE. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per nom.I'm not convinced of the needs for a redirect.Winged Blades^Godric 06:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Isn't that the usual practice for somewhat notable children? What about Wp:PRESERVE? FloridaArmy (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could end up with hundreds of similar redirects, of people who are related to indubitably notable people and have had minor cinematic roles, political offices etc because of the rampant corruption and nepotism in India. This, of course, is not a reason to ignore PRESERVE but there is a clash with NOTINHERITED, a guideline that is so set in stone that it might as well be policy. Of course, it is also not for us to pass judgement on whether or not someone did this or that because of nepotism etc. A tricky one. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial opinion/discretion and NOTINHERITED supercedes PRESERVE.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a horrible practice that in all but one of the cases where I have challenged the concept, it has not been applied to living people for the obvious reason that a living person is not someone else, which means statements in the other person's article are not about them, and could easily confuse the reader and constitute a BLP violation. It's less dangerous when redirecting to a dead person, but that in itself could constitute a BLP violation as this person is very much alive and kicking, and someone who has low English language skills and who doesn't understand how the MediaWiki software works could very well be given the impression that the living subject is his dead father. No, we care about human persons more than precious article history. Deletion is the most safe outcome here. . TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirecting. The problem with a redirect for non notable people is that these redirects are often removed to reinstate the content and have to be reverted numerous times. This person had a very short career as an actor that ended 40 odd years ago if he is not notable now it is unlikely that he will be notable later. If it were for a young actor that is not notable yet why not. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not inherited makes no argument about including a few bits about a marginally notable actor in the personal life section of his father where family are noted. And WP:PRESERVE makes clear the importance of preserving article histories and sourcing. If articoe restoration against consensus is a problem a protection of the page would be the appropriate remedy not violating our policies and going against the best interest of the encyclopedia's readers. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You now seem to bemixing apples and oranges. Did you read what I said above? And, bearing what I said in mind, in what sense is he "marginally" notable? For example, the third assistant cameraman's runner on a film would qualify on the basis of your argument if and only if that person was related to someone who is genuinely notable - it gets a bit ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject in question has not done any notable work and being the eldest son of a famous father does not warrant a stand alone article. FITINDIA 17:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note The creator of this article has created Amrik Singh Randhawa his half brother, Malika Askari his aunt and Randhawa (wrestler) his uncle. FITINDIA 17:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Randhawa is ok, the others perhaps less so. I did mention this issue on the creator's talk page some days ago. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under no circumstances redirect horrible practice of redirecting living people to other people is dangerous and is just a BLP violation waiting to happen, and in this case might actively be one since the father is a relatively recent death and it could easily confuse readers into thinking the subject himself died 5 years ago (since, you know, it isn't unheard of for someone in their 60s to die). No evidence of notability, and no one seems to be arguing for it. Protecting living people is more important than preserving article histories, and just because we can redirect doesn't mean we should. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2018 (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.