Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jagmandar Dass Jain

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. DS (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jagmandar Dass Jain

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

Appears to be a promotional (auto)biography, and fails to establish notability as per WP:BIO. This is related to AfD Harsh Vardhan Jain. -Addionne (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KINDLY SEE THE TALK PAGE OF ARTICLE AND THEN YOU WILL FIND THE CORRECTIONS ALREAY DONE LONG BACK.

Talk:Jagmandar Dass Jain

HARRYMAGIC (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, evident WP:COI by article's creator. Top Jim (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially Relevant Discussion
- Thanks to User:Bigger digger for some of these facts:
- Remaining references and external links are either repeats of above or hvjain.com / jaingroup.co.uk - which are the same site.
-Addionne (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails everything! Probably a hoax. No WP:RS that even mention his name, let alone give in-depth coverage. Bigger digger (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And per the HV Jain AfD and this one from 2005, can we have the article and all the redirects salted please? Bigger digger (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible? I kept seeing "horrible" and then noticed that it was "hon'ble" or something. Is this incipient dyslexia? If these photos aren't photoshoplifted and are indeed of him, might this fellow have some minor notability for celeb handshaking? -- Hoary (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha ha! As a politician he would be "honourable", hence the contraction. "Horrible" is more accurate though. If you write WP:Handshakes confer notability, I'll try and find sources that support the photographic evidence... ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Honourable' is a standard title for certain politicians and lesser nobility in the UK. It's always abbreviated to 'Hon'. I must confess to reading this new-to-me version as 'horrible' at first. As to handshakes and such, it's quite possible to be a very minor speaker at something, or to simply BS one's way in, and get photographed. It is also marvellous what they do with Photoshop these days. (They, not me. I've got it and simply can't understand it.) Peridon (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per these reasons and those in the Harsh Vardhan AFD. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another load of unreliable refs. Mind you, one or two at a quick (and weary...) glance might show the existence of someone of this name. (There is also a judge by the name, but he was born long before 1940.) Will look again when I wake up... Peridon (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query Has anyone looked at the photo? It appears to be passport photo size and possibly scanned from somewhere. Why is he in uniform? "Mr Jain started as a Civil Engineer, employee in Indian Military Engineering Services" - can anyone identify the uniform and ribbons? He only was in this service about two years according to the article. Peridon (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Jain was appointed as Honorary "Commanding Officer" Civil Defence, India. First read the article and then comment, I think you people only know how to talk and point the things.

WHAT IS HONORARY DO YOU KNOW ?

Don't jusk put your nose here and there and talk shit everywhere you want.

To reach at this level is unimaginable by you lads OK.

HARRYMAGIC (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These editors are trying to help! Bigger digger (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We see that, and with this honour we would expect some announcement on the part of Civil Defence. Can you find somewhere where Civil Defence or the press announced this? It would go a long way towards establishing notability. -Addionne (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary means unpaid, or paid a nominal sum for legal reasons (something like 1 Re per month). In the case of a university degree, it means no course has been attended, but the degree is awarded based on outside actions. This is an honorary position - i.e. unpaid. (I used to be a lexicographer....) Peridon (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response. The uniform appears to be for the Home_Guard_(India), a paramilitary organization. You can see here some officers of the home guard - the colours and the hat appear to be the same. The article claims he holds the title of "Commanding Officer", Civil Defence in the infobox.

More Factfinding:

...Shri Kashmiri Lal Jain, Secretary - Rajya Sabha, Parliament of India early 1960s)...: rajyasabha.nic.in - the official site of the Parliament of India, has no mention of anyone by the name Shri Kashmiri Lal Jain or any combination of these names. They have a list and a short bio of all members since 1952.
...He is Fellow of Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce (FRSA) England.... Here I think we are talking about the younger Jain - but http://royalsociety.org - the website for this society, maintains a record of all past and current fellows. No Jains are listed in this record.
Smt. Ganga Devi - Neither of the Indian legislative houses, Rajya Sabha or Lok Sabha have this person listed on their website.

-Addionne (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important note Anyone can be an FRSA for the cost of joining. FRS is a different matter. They are not the same organisation at all. The Royal Society is for Science; the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce is for what it says. I don't doubt that he is entitled to use FRSA. I could be if I joined them and paid my fee. So could you. FRS is an important thing. (So is the unrelated RA - from the Royal Academy of Arts.) FRSA is anybody's to get. The link you checked is the Royal Society not the RSA which is at http://www.thersa.org/about-us and has 27,000 Fellows... Peridon (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC) ::::I'd better just add that the RSA is a totally legit organisation, and not some fancy titles-for-cash outfit. They used to run a commercial examination programme, but that's been merged with OCR now. The fees for fellowship are for funding projects, not for expensive cars, etc, as can be the case with a lot of titles and initials 'awarded' by numerous scam and fake outfits. Peridon (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, my mistake. I wonder if FRSA finds it a benefit to have that kind of accidental association? -Addionne (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to confuse them before I had some involvement with RSA (and NVQ) exams. I would think they do benefit from it - at least, some of those joining up will expect to... Peridon (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exterminate (spoken in Dalek voice) for reasons amply explained above. Moreover, considering the degree to which his hagiographer has attended to the niceties of what the "sources" actually say, I doubt what he says about the copyright status of the photographs that are used -- which could be recycled in some article in some other language about the Jain lads. So if I were more familiar with the workings of Wikimedia Commons, I'd direct my flamethrower at the files there too. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, HARRYMAGIC has been blocked as a sockpuppet. DS (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2010 (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.