Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arun Kumar Pallathadka (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Arun Kumar Pallathadka
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article was previously deleted for lacking evidence of notability; see link for last discussion. While there is now one article listed that seems to meet WP:RS, that's not enough to satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. It's not quite similar enough to be WP:CSD deletable, so I'm listing for another deletion discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose : the subject has written more than two books and two of them are available in google books online. In this angle, I developed the article and I did not know that the similar page was deleted earlier.Rayabhari (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 11:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP: 1) Indeed it is true that the article has previously been deleted due to lack of reliable sources. But this does not mean that the article cannot be created again with reliable sources. WP:CSD#G4 is not applicable to this article; since the reliable sources have been added to the new article which were not present in the earlier article which was deleted earlier. 2) One of the references is the official website of a cabinet minister in the Government of Karnataka, Ms.Shobha Karandlaje and the enclosed articles in that page are from Udayavani and Vijaya Karnataka which are indeed leading regional dialies in the state of Karnataka. Another reference is of course from Indian Express which is a National English daily and undoubtedly a very reliable third party source. yet another reference is an independent and trusted third party website devoted to the promotion of authors/literature and can be taken as as a reliable source as well. 3) A simple search in google brings ample and multiple citations on the web including the fact that the said person is a member of a Governmental order called Knights of Rizal, Thailand chapter. 4) Further the first book written by him has sold more than one lakh copies in the international market and as per reliable source (ref:2) it is on its third edition with a print order of 2.5 lakh copies as on July 2010. The subject has also won a gold medal in a national-level scientific writing in English as per reliable source (ref:2). 4) The subject has written more than two books and two of them are available in google books online. 5) So in my humble opinion the article presently meets WP:RS WP:GNG and prima facie the article can be kept subject to removal of unverified contents as when it appears. Further I will try adding more third party sources and citations, once this afd is over. Thanks. - Bharathiya (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note: the website of Karandlaje is not necessarily a reliable source per Wikipedia's policies; it's particularly not reliable in this case because it's just a copy of pictures of some other unreliable sources on the author. The Indian Express meets WP:RS and does help establish notability, but one article is not enough. Since the source isn't reliable, we don't know if he's sold lakh (100,000) copies, but, even if so, I'm not sure that that's enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. If by third source you mean isahithy, I'm just about to remove it because self-published blogs definitely do not meet [{WP:RS]]. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment supporting keep: Even the reliable Indian express article mentions the matter of lakhs of copies of books and it can be taken. I beg to differ in the case of website of Karandlaje; It can be taken as a reliable source as it is an official website of a cabinet minister and the pictures attached in that article are indeed from reliable secondary sources and are from Udayavani and Vijaya Karnataka. This can be considered as they are just not a copy of pictures from some other unreliable sources on the author. This references we can consider as it has been published in the official website of a minister. I agree that the just one source is not enough but this is not a matter of one source but it is matter of acceptance of sources. Sadly the regional news papers does not keep internet archives. W.r.t. Isaahithya: It can be taken as a secondary source since it does not appear to be a pure self-published blog. Besides this the subject matter appears in the google autocomplete (as you know it is an automatic feature based on the popularity of searches) and a simple google search fetches thousands of results. Which are indeed substantial. IMHO and under these circumstances the article can be kept. But subject to removal of unverified contents as and when it appears. Thank you. -- Bharathiya (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Comment supporting keep: The article passes WP:GNG along with the satisfactory WP:RS leading to the Partial fulfillment of WP:AUTHOR. Substantial coverage over the web is enough to prove the notability and IMHO the present article can be kept as it crosses the line of passing although with 'just pass' category. I will try to add more reliable references, if afd decides to keep the article. Thank you. -- Bharathiya (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with Vibhijain, Fails WP:AUTHOR. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 10:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Bharathiya, you've already stated that, twice. Please don't just keep making the same statement. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Why not add the sources now so that they can be taken into consideration when !voting, as opposed to having to wonder if they exist at all? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They were there, and I removed them. AfD is not a protection on allowing sources that don't meet WP:RS to remain in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. I'd like to hear more about whether the Kannada-language sources from Udayavani and Vijaya Karnataka linked from this website are sufficient to prove notability or not. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Despite a lust for a wikipedia page, the subject doesn't have enough verifiable, independent sources to confirm notability. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I strongly object the usage of the line: LUST of the subject for a Wikipedia page by one of our honorable editor. We are all editors here and we treat every article equally although our individual policy of acceptance of sources may differ. The subject is not part of this afd and we are only here in this page to discuss the proposed afd as per wiki norms. IMHO Kannada-language sources indeed pass WP:RS along with Indian express; while isaahitya can be a secondary source. IMHO the subject indeed passes WP:GNG as per already stated circumstances. That's why am supporting it and you have every right to differ but accusing subject (who is not a part of the afd) shall not serve any purpose. Sorry and Thank you. -- Bharathiya (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC) 
 * Delete as per the nomination. Evidence of notability is not available.--Juristicweb (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion - In deciding notability of authors, there is a need to have more specific yardstick - because, now, "author" is included with a list of achievers in other areas as seen in wiki WP:AUTHOR -"Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals". I think, authors, writers, journalists are to have different yardstick for deciding their notability.Rayabhari (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I found only one relialbe source,'Writing is the best tool to correct society and that already is used in the article. That will allow the editors to include information about Arun Kumar Pallathadka in some existing article in Wikipedia, but it's not enought for a stand alone biography on Arun Kumar Pallathadka per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG ("Significant coverage") and WP:AUTHOR.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 10:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment : In Wikipedia, it is possible for an author not to be notable under the provisions of WP:Author guidelines but to be notable in some other way under one of the other notability guidelines. Conversely, if an person is notable under WP:GNG guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant. This is what we get from Wikipedia guidelines. So it is enough to pass any one or more guidelines as to be eligible to be on Wiki. However this subject passes WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:GOOGLETEST WP:GOOGLECHECK and WP:GFG. I beg to differ with others over WP:RS and IMHO even sources from Leading Regional Language dailies such as Udayavani and Vijaya Karnataka are indeed reliable sources and meets WP:RS. Their online absence and inability to keep archives is not to be taken as granted for rejecting them. Press Clippings uploaded in an Official website of a Cabinet minister cannot be considered as unreliable and unacceptable. I am not biased but what I am trying to say is accept to learn and respect regional languages as well. English is an Important communication language but the policy of we accept whatever which is in English and we dont accept whatever which we don't understand is not simply acceptable. If somebody don't understand any regional language then it is their problem and not the problem of that language. Sorry I just don't mean to offend anybody, I just felt and wanted to express. Thank you. -- Bharathiya (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide exact publication details for those articles (date, pages the article is on, author, title, title of newspaper, etc.). Additionally, please provide a decent translation or at least a summary of what the articles say. Apologies, but I cannot just WP:AGF that those article meet WP:RS, or that, even if they do, the information that is included is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Editors, including yourself, have posted other links "talking about" Pallathadka before, but they turned out to be passing notions, or not RS, or whatever. Unless we have confirmation that 1) those are authentic, 2) that they are in enough detail to meet WP:GNG, and 3) full publication information, we just can't assume they're enough. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have tried to provide a rough translation/summary of those Kannada Articles at Talk Page. It has been published in the Leading Regional Language dailies Udayavani and Vijaya Karnataka and they do meet WP:RS. The clippings are deemed to be authentic in the absence of online archive of those news papers. And we cannot deny the fact that they have been republished in the official website of a Cabinet minister of a State. IMHO the articles have enough details to meet WP:GNG. I have also provided full publication information as per the available data. Thanks --Bharathiya (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 07:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:AUTHOR. Kerfuffler (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, there's no excuse for this to have been relisted a third time. There's a very clear consensus for deletion. Kerfuffler (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (but borderline) Little indication of wp:notability.  Of the 4 "references" given two are just Google listings of his writing.  One clearly looks wp:notability-suitable, but was brief and 80% consisted of a review of the book.  The other is not in English on a site that is in English, on what appears to be a major personal website which has it in as / for being  "young achiever of the week". North8000 (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2012 (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.