Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalyanasundaram

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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyanasundaram

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

in this article about the biography of a living person there is no substantial reference provided for any of the information which seems to originate in social networking posts, additionally the details provided in the article are not credible particularly relating to the various apparently non-existant awards mentioned. The articles mentioned as sources show no evidence of fact checking other than reproducing details from a unknown source. The dubious information has been disputed several times and keeps reappearing without appropriate references (as the story is being heavily shared on facebook, without sources) so this is likely to be a controversial delete, but I feel keeping this article undermines wikipedia, and I suspect the existence of the article is being used to substantiate the facts for which there is no reliable sources elsewhere 4letheia (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to "Paalam Kalyanasundaram" (I'm not sure if Paalam is a nick name, or his first name). I see several sources, including an article in The Hindu. - MrX 15:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly? does such an award as 'man of the millenium' from the US government and 'United Nations Organisation' [sic] 'outstanding people of the 20th century' really exist? I would suggest that if they did there would certainly be more authoritative sources. I sense there is a lot about this article, combined with the social networking campaign, which leads me to be very suspicious. --4letheia (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know, but "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" would seem to apply. - MrX 21:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only comment I can add to that is, if we really used that criteria, then we might as well copy all of the urban myths from snopes and add them to the wikipedia as 'verified fact' - there are plenty of dodgy sources out there that have reproduced them. Have I missed something or isn't the present situation exactly the same? --4letheia (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You've missed the fact that Snopes doesn't assert that every urban myth is true, for starters. If you want to address the reliability of the source, cite it and explain why The Hindu is unreliable in this instance. Don't descend into fallacy. It's "criterion", by the way. Uncle G (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for your contribution to this debate. My point is that there are urban myths which are asserted in many apparently reliable sources (NOT snopes) to be true, and as such would prima facie seem to achieve some level of verifiability - such prima facie verifiability is to my mind necessary but in some cases insufficient without good consideration of the reliability of the source information. As I pointed out above, I've researched the question of the awards mentioned, viz 'man of the millenium', and 'United Nations Organization outstanding people of the 20th century' and these do not seem to be supported by any sources you would expect to see in such a case. It is only my opinion, which is why I raised this debate, but it seems to me that the inclusion of these awards in the original source articles seems to me to undermine the credibility of the various extraordinary claims made in those sources. I understand that a short film may have been made about the subject of the article and it would be fantastic to have some input from someone that may have seen this or can provide more local sources for the facts therein. Incidentally, my use of criteria was intended to be plural, but thanks for the thought anyway. --4letheia (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and now someone has deleted the entire content of the article including all the tags about disputed content and lack of references (none of which were added by me) and replaced it all with copy and pasted text that has no references whatsoever. I give up. --4letheia (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 4letheia (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable and there are reliable references to confirm notability. If you feel that some of the facts are misrepresented, correct them. Don't nominate for afd.--Anbu121 (talk me) 18:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the claims in the article which weren't supported by any of the references and removed some of the references which were not pertain to the content of the article or were inappropriate sources - what is left to me looks a bit thin, and I would argue not notable. To paraphrase - he is a social worker, he works with kids, he donated some of his earnings - what's notable? --4letheia (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the article is notable by seeing at the kind of references. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability guidelines require "he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." - I just don't see how an article or two in the Hindu which doesn't even provide enough details to know who gave the awards can count as notable. Other sources just seem to be word for word reposts of the social networking promotion campaign. Where are these multiple pubilshed sources? --4letheia (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this page was previously deleted - how do I find the details of the previous deletion discussion and the reasons why it was recreated? --4letheia (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log is here: [1]. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added several more references and information, and deleted the nonsense "man of the millenium" award. I think he is notable and the article now demonstrates it. I also found him referred to as P. Kalayana Sundaram, and his organization as Palam, Paalam, or Anbu Palam. Presumably these are transliteration differences. --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, possible problem with verifiability after all: he is repeatedly referred to as the founder of Anbu Palam in Chennai - after his retirement per one source - but this says Anbu Palam was founded in 1953. --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2012 (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.