Talk:K. A. Soman

Notability
I think this is a very clear case of self created article. Most of the pages that come up as a result of google search is also created by the person referred to in the article (His blog, his profiles in various art forums, etc.) This clearly does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, some of which I quote below.

''Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. ''

Few mentions in the local pages of a newspaper does not meet the notability standards of Wikipedia.

I am marking this page for quick deletion --- Did a quick google search and was able to find news articles and other material on the subject. I think the subject is Notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.119.181.242 (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I too found the subject notable. I have added some references that I've found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.164.82.29 (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the subject is rather notable, judging by the direct quotes and works that may be found via a Google search on his name. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 16:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly a case of self created article. If everyone in the world starts a page like this, it would negate the purpose of Wikipedia. Please nominate for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.129.89 (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the page was "self-created" is irrelevant--the question is, is the person notable. The page contains links to 2 newspaper articles, in major Indian newspapers, written specifically about this person. That's already usually enough to meet WP:GNG. However, I do think that a lot of the article should probably be removed, and possibly reworded, as its excessive and a bit promotional. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

This page does not meet the following criteria from the Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Disagree that this person is notable.

Here is the criteria: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. - "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

I contend that this article is notable because it violates both what Wikipedia is not and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The following criteria are violated by this article:

1. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

2. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. This person has few articles in local pages of newspapers which itself sound like self promotion. The rest of the material is self created by him.

3. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.)

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. We want biographies here, not autobiographies. Independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Even if you did manage to pull off an autobiography conforming to our content policies, it still may not get checked simply because you made it. Self-created articles are often listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. Beware that third-party comments may be most uncomplimentary. Many people exaggerate their own significance or notability above what third parties would think. If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, an article you create about yourself may qualify for speedy deletion.

4. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

- If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. - It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented – as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

5. With respect to the above article, note that the living person mentioned in the article remains and is likely to remain a low profile individual.

6. See also, Wikipedia's notability guidelines for creative professionals here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals

Creative professionals

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I request editors who have previously rejection of these articles to reconsider their decision. If every one creates a biography page on Wikipedia based on few news articles in local media, then Wikipedia will not have any encyclopedic value. It will be an indiscriminate collection of information.

24.184.148.205 (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit attributed to me were not made by me.
I was drawn to this page today because I just learned more than 20 edits have been made on this page under my name. I made a small spacing edit today just so I would have an opportunity to write in the edit explanation that these other edits were attributed to me were not made by me. I did not make these edits or these comments affiliated with the edits. Not only has someone made these edits under my name, it appears they have used comments I’ve made on edits on other pages and pasted them herein to make it look like me. I know nothing about this article and have never been here before. I will be changing my password. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)