Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranjit Lal Jetley

Ranjit Lal Jetley

Delete. Prod was "awfully praiseful article about NN person, partially edited by subject.". Deprodded with "seems to have been written about in newspapers". Well, if that were our metric here, God save us... Lots of contents, little sense. Undersignificant individual. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (for the moment, I could change my mind either way) and tag for cleanup. This article is terribly difficult to read, but it seems to assert that its subject played a significant command role in the outcome of a military campaign between India and Pakistan. Pending some more informed comments from the subcontinent, that sounds notable to me. Metamagician3000 01:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the crazy russian. Eusebeus 02:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search for "Ranjit Lal Jetley" came up with five results all from Wikipedia and mirrors see [1]. A search of other verifiable sources came up with nothing as well. Seems to be unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 04:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tagged as uncited and needing cleanup for over a month, and not fixed. Article editors have had long enough to fix the problems, so this appears to be unverifiable. Just zis Guy you know? 09:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment according to the articles talkpage he was also known as Lt. Gen Joginder Singh Dhillon. No vote, but Lt. Gen. Dhillon, if he is the same person seems somewhat notable. Jcuk 10:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, Jetley was mentioned in Dhillon's obituary. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 10:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I guess I misunderstood "Lt. Gen Joginder Singh Dhillon != Ranjit Lal Jetley". Change from no vote to Keep Jcuk 21:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with cleanup, per Metamagic. It seems to me that a Major-General in any of the world's (say) ten largest armies is sufficiently notable for an article. This particular article needs a lot of work to make it readable and NPOV. Bucketsofg✐ 14:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per User:Bucketsofg. Unless the article below is kept, in which case Strong Keep just to remind us the Real World exists... :-) JackyR 16:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep, we need references! Otherwise the article will be nominated again. -- ReyBrujo 16:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently notable. Zaxem 17:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep and tag for cleanup per Metamagician3000, and could be a possible instance of systemic bias. TheProject 18:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs to be wikified. Arbusto 22:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]