Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalyanasundaram (2nd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyanasundaram

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

Delete per WP:N and WP:V. Claims of notable achievements and awards could not be verified, and the things that can be verified do not amount to notability. This person was recently AfD'd and the result was keep; I myself !voted keep, based on what appeared to be coverage in a reliable source, The Hindu, primarily this article. But since that discussion was closed, there has been extensive discussion at the article's talk page, which revealed the coverage to be credulous repetition of outlandish and unlikely claims. This person appears to be hero-worshipped and mythologized in India, primarily on social media sites. But the huge claims about him (a $5 million "Man of the Millennium" award from an unspecified American organization, a nonexistent award from the UN, President Clinton seeking him out when he visited India, etc.) could not be confirmed by any independent source. The unverified claims have been deleted from the article, and the verified information that remains - he exists, he founded a non-notable charity, he received an award from his local Rotary organization - does not meet the criterion of notability. MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel this is some kind of fan-promoted hoax; for all the reasons given by editors in the article's talk page, especially in the What to do with this article section. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Checking the sources then, I also had the impression that this is a hoax - but is it perhaps a notable hoax? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 18:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a notable hoax unless there are Reliable Sources exposing it as a hoax. We can't expose it ourselves; that would be Original Research, and would probably also violate Wikipedia policy about biographies of living persons; we would in effect be calling him a liar, which we can't do without strong backing from Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my opinion the subject of the article is not notable. Many of the claims that have been made concerning awards and independent recognition of the subject are verifiably untrue. The research for each claim has been carefully enumerated in the talk page. The page has been updated quite a few times in the past with copy/pasted details from social networking campaign material, the origin and purpose of which is unclear - the page is being referenced as evidence of the truth of the unverified claims that have been made. I was the nominator in respect of the previous deletion discussion, and would like to thank the other contributors, in particular MelanieN, for further research that they have carried out to clarify the situation here 4letheia (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been keeping a close eye on the further research appearing so far on the page, as yet although some of the claims seem on the face of it quite impressive such as appointed by the 'international refugees organisation', when you look at the details, this isn't a large UN organisation and is in fact a small for-profit immigration advice service which is now appears to be obsolete and was not notable itself - the awards that are listed such as from a local school and the local rotary district and the local booksellers association don't in my view add up to notability in an encyclopedic sense. There is a short film which is viewable on youtube (seems to have around 100 or so views at the moment, and this had a showing at a Tamil film festival in Norway), in my view this is not notable coverage. Separating the myth from fact has proven to be pretty difficult in this case, I think significant independent journalistic coverage in the future may change my mind, but as yet, too soon and not yet notable in my view. --4letheia (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Considering the incredible research displayed on the article's talk page, I don't see how this can't be hoax - or a fraudulent exaggeration of something completely non-notable. This leads me, however, to ponder - what is the policy on a piece of information that can be traced to a generally reliable source (in this case, the article in The Hindu), but which can be shown to be false? Does WP:Fringe cover this? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to look for any written policy when common sense takes care of the decision. Any source, however reliable the publisher may usually be, can be mistaken. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several referenced awards have been added to the article; the notability or significance of those awards is under discussion on the talk page. Meanwhile the author of the article posted this comment which relates directly to this discussion, so I am copying it here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I have no doubt that this person is notable and the article should remain. I dont have enough time right now to work on it. But I will try to find time shortly. I am aware that I will have to accept the decision of deletion if it happens in between. But I guess that the person is so important that someone will start creating it again. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

Not sure if I should laugh or cry here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing administrator please note: during this discussion someone moved the page from Kalyanasundaram to Palam Kalyanasundaram leaving a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 20 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.