Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akilnathan Logeswaran


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Akilnathan Logeswaran

 * – ( View AfD View log  Logeswaran )

Written like a promotional text and clearly Too soon. Pure highlighting memberships and awards without noticeable impact. --DonJusto99 (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Promotional material for sure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Lim (talk • contribs) 09:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything mentioned is verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources, therefore not Wikipedia:Too soon. In what way do you see it as promotional? Everything mentioned has references. --Wedderkop (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No real relevance has been highlighted in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Where is the actual encyclopedic pertinence in a cumulation of memberships? The "Publications" mention an estimated 50-100 contributors for a couple of pages of content (http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Renew_Europe_report_2018.pdf). It clearly seems like a lot of hot air. --DonJusto99 (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Clear relevance as the person has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. That one publication has more contributors does not make the article less relevant. --Wedderkop (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The second one doesn't even mention him as author. The third one is again a collection of 30-40 contributors. --DonJusto99 (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right, I mistakenly added that one to publications. Besides from that the publications are just a small addition to the article. The rest of the article retains validity and significancy according to the Wikipedia guidelines.--Wedderkop (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I disagree. The structure can be improved, but considering all the verified facts and achievements, this is hardly a Too soon. --dracona94 (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  13:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  13:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  13:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  13:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Another indication for relevancy, DonJusto99 also considered the German article for deletion. The article will be kept as sufficient publicity of Akilnathan Logeswaran is evidenced by media mentions. See: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/1._März_2018#Akilnathan_Logeswaran_(bleibt) --Wedderkop (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * See also Sockpuppet investigations/Dracona94. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The sockpuppet investigation has been closed with no action: “Unrelated to each other.” --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete lacks the level of coverage to be shown to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you think so? There is plenty coverage from reliable, indpendent sources like Forbes, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Deutschlandfunk Nova - to just name a few. Can you further explain your point of view? --Wedderkop (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I don't like multiple relists but I can't pull any consensus out of this. Here's hoping for more input...

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. A political activist still in his 20s, so it could simply be WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, everything mentioned is verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources, therefore not Wikipedia:Too soon. In addition, there is plenty coverage from reliable, indpendent sources like Forbes, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Deutschlandfunk Nova. Can you please reason your statement? Malala Yousafzai is just 20 and a relevant political acitivst (with an article since more than six years). Age has no relevance nor is a factor for notability. --Wedderkop (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The sole mention I find in Forbes is a listing one year in Forbes 30 Under 30, one of twenty 30 under 30 lists in that Forbes publishes annually. This is not sufficient to source an article, the fact that it is almost the sole available source in English is more of aconfirmation of this being a case of WP:TOOSOON.   He has a page in the German-language Wikipedia, which is probably a better fit for an individual who has insufficient notability in the English-speaking world, but, frankly, I scanned the short list of gNEws hits, almost all in German, several quoting him about a notable cat on the campus where he was a student Augsburger Campus-Katze wird zum Facebook-Star others merely essays he wrote for HuffPost, and it made me doubt that he has sufficient notability to support the page on our German version.  Page is heavily sourced to outfits he is involved with; there is just not enough independent sourcing to support a page.  Delete as PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. The general notability guideline explicitly says that sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Therefore German sources count as much in the English-speaking world as English sources. The Süddeutsche Zeitung for example is one of the largest daily newspapers in Germany, Deutschlandfunk Nova is part of national German public radio broadcaster Deutschlandradio. The cat story is just a side story. --Wedderkop (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Forbes 30 Under-30 list for Europe in "Law & Policy"; finalist of the Global Social Venture Competition; among the Youth Champions at the 2018 Davos; Stand Up For Europe co-founder; etc - all properly sourced. The text needs clean up so that it no longer comes across, as it now does, as a promotional piece, but, as a political activist, the subject is already notable enough. -The Gnome (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He was, according to page and sources cited, Logeswaran was one of the co-founders of the Munich Hub of the pan-European citizens' movement Stand Up For Europe. That is not a sufficient claim of notability. Nor is are the prizes for youthful activism.  Recent efforts oat expansion make this appear to be a clear case of oversourced PROMO and WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The text being highly promotional, as I already noted myself, does not by itself merit an act of defenestration. If that were the sole criterion, it'd have been quite easy to rid Wikipedia from myriads of ego-boosting, paid-hack-created, fluffery & puffery BLP garbage on arrivistes and related fauna. The question is, and this is how this article is dragged to the stand, whether or not the subject is notable. End of story. Methinks it meets WP:GNG. You might think otherwise; I couldn't possibly comment. -The Gnome (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely a talented person in terms of self-marketing. The Global Shapers have around 6,000 members according to my brief internet research, while only very few of that group (Akilnathan Logeswaran included) were smart enough to issue a press release following their acceptance. I am still tending towards delete as I think that a rational reader should take at least a 50% haircut on the achievements stated in this promotional article. --2.126.23.98 (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback 2.126.23.98. I don't know how you can "still" tend towards something, as I haven't seen your IP somewhere else in the comments, but I also have not seen any arguments why this article should be deleted. As The Gnome stated, the question is if this article meets WP:GNG. Significant coverage is given, secondary sources are reliable and independent. Therfore this person is notable as defined by Notability. I haven't seen one comment in this whole discussion that would question this. I understand if someone personally thinks, this person is to young or too self-promotional. But this is not the question for this discussion. Therefore still strong keep. --Wedderkop (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the word "still" was meant in the light of the other postings and ongoing discussion. That being said, it seems that every third posting in this thread is from "Wedderkop". A defence by one single user to keep an article is fine 2-3 times, but posting the same arguments after almost each and every comment adds some bias to the discussion for new readers. In my view, the article does not meet the notability guidelines and many points are just "nominations" (not actual awards) and "memberships". The German Wikipedia should be sufficient for this case, not need to have an English article. --90.221.107.15 (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete due to reasons stated over the last couple of weeks, also supported by the apparent lack of interest by Wikipdia users in a further discussion on this topic. --2.216.218.40 (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Third posting in a row from a Sky Broadband IP with no other postings. Still no valid arguments. Apparent lack of interest by Wikipdia users in a further discussion on this topic does not indicate anything at all. --Wedderkop (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, he appears more interested in self promotion than activism in my opinion making his claim to notability much weaker. Szzuk (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a null and void argument: There exist many Wikipedia articles, for better or worse, about persons whose sole purpose in life is self-promotion! Did I hear you say kardashian? Well, gesundheit. Self-promotional behavior that results in Wiki-acceptable notability is not grounds for deletion. I did not make the rules. -The Gnome (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - I read the sources and understand a little German, and so was able to also review the sourcing at his article on the German Wikipedia.[Logeswaran] Overall, there's not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. There's no indepth profile of him - more just brief mentions and lists that he is on, but with little biographical info that would put this into the keep territory for me. Likely a WP:TOOSOON.TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  18:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.