Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atul Chitnis (3rd 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 keep. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Atul Chitnis
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is one of the articles on subjects which I found to be inherently non-notable while on a look out for biographies of entities over India and specially in the soft-ware development sector. Most of the references quoted on the article are primary sources of information and cannot be deemed as "reliable" and "independent" (as per WP:BIO) since they are owned by the subject of the article themself. (e.g. atulchitnis.net, COMversations) [BIO says: The person must have been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.] Other sources that have a transitional mention of him as a subject seem to be related to the FOSS.in movement based in Bangalore, India (which is itself has not received any significant coverage). [BIO says: ''That a person has a relationship with a well-known person is not a reason for a standalone article; see Relationships do not transfer notability. However, the person may be included in the related article. For example Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander'']. The BBS documentary source does not fall within the definition of a reliable source as per the guideline page. [From RS: ''A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.''] Neither is it intellectually independent of the subject. The "Livemint" link only talks about his affinity towards "rock music" and does not speak of any of his contribution towards the "open source" or "LINUX" software movement in Bangalore. All the other websites cited without the "ref" tags are not websites of primary information and cannot be termed as independent, reliable secondary sources. Atul Chitnis is neither an academician nor a recognised professional either in India or internationally. AFAIK, the rediff interview link is the only secondary, independent source of information from a reliable source, although which does have a non-trivial coverage, but which cannot be addressed as substantial. The above does not apportion a claim for notability on the subject of the article, since multiple indepedent and secondary sources of information are required. The secondary sources which are linked on the article are only trivial coverage on the subject. This article should be redirected and merged with FOSS. It appears that the subject of the article also has an active interest with his own article, from which it seems that Wikipedia is used as a vehicle for self-promotion. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 10:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional note: From Notability: ''Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability.''

In particular, we must ask ourselves the question, would this article be of any significance if someone viewed it 10 years later?

From What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collectino of information (which means that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not just an information resource). ''Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news. Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for Wikinews.'' -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 10:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Important note: The article was cleaned up after the initiation of the AfD. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 11:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Summary: The crux of my argument is that the subject of the article does not qualify under the conditions laid under WP:BIO as have not been subjects of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 11:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This article was speedy kept last time, and kept unanimously the time before that. This is the most thorough deletion nom I've seen in quite some time, and the nom doth protest to much, methinks. While the article certainly suffers sourcing issues, the notability claim is simply unfounded. "Would this article be of any significance if someone viewed it 10 years later?" An article about the developer of the first online service in India and the founder and coordinator of one of the largest open source conferences in Asia? I think the answer is quite clearly yes. Speedy keep. - Che Nuevara 12:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If this article was speedy kept last time, the reason was that there was apparent trolling going on, where somebody had created a singple-purpose account for disruption; which does not relate to whether the subject is notable or not. The non-notability claim is well-founded in my opinion, since the subject is not the creator of the first online service in India. He was the creator of the first "BBS" online service. He is not the founder and director of one of the largest conferences in Asia. He is purportedly the organiser of the largest open-source conference in India, where the open source movement is still in the primary / grassroot stage. This kind of work might attract trivial publicity, but fails the criteria of inclusion on Wikipedia. Apart from that, my other arguments have been completely ignored on the notability of the subject. You state that in a way that implies "you think [that] should be included", but our inclusion guidelines do not permit it. We are not here to discuss guidelines and policies for inclusion, but to see whether the guidelines permit the inclusion of the subject as an encyclopedic entry. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Trolling last time doesn't change the fact that it was unanimously kept the time before that. This guy is clearly notable -- why are you pushing this so hard? - Che Nuevara 10:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You haven't yet stated why you think the policies and guidelines say that the subject of the article should be included on Wikipedia. Stating that he clearly is notable does not make him notable. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 09:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Community consensus has already determined him to be notable. Nothing significant has changed since then.
 * Consensus can change. Please re-familiarise yourself with the concept of consensus. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He is the founder of a large and significant open source conference as well as a pioneer in the Indian Internet industry.
 * OK, I concede the conference is significant, atleast in India; apart from that saying that he is a pioneer, requires appropriate citations. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Poor sourcing is not a reason to delete an article. If an article cannot be sourced, it should be deleted, but if an article is not sourced, the proper response is to attempt to source it.
 * Agree with you there, although this remains as one of the factors affecting the outcome of the AfD. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:N and WP:BIO are controversial guidelines. Since Chitnis already unanimously survived an AfD based on notability, the burden of proof falls on you to demonstrate in at least some way that the prior consensus was flawed. In this light, your argument does not hold water.
 * Irrelevant. N and BIO guidelines have been stable since a long time now. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You misquote and inappropriately quote guidelines. Your quotation from WP:BIO about whether notability is 'inherited' is not relevant at all, as Chitnis is not, as far as I'm aware, related to anyone else particularly notable, nor is such a claim made in his article. Your claim that "Wikinews [...] is better suited for present topics receiving a present burst of news coverage" is also not relevant.
 * And you are tending to interpret guidelines in a normative manner. Chitnis is only notable because he is related to FOSS in India. The subject does not become notable solely on the basis of appearing on news sources to comment on the open source movement. The notability guidelines require substantial (non-trivial) coverage on him and his work. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your claim that Linux Bangalore "has not received any significant coverage" is just plain silly. (Note that that's only its old name!)
 * I concede. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that you gutted the article and then tried to claim it had no sources casts doubt on this entire process.
 * To return the favour, that you are so vehemently inclined to include this article casts doubt on your involvement. The article has not been gutted, it was cleaned up, I invite you to review the history and include any important source which I might have missed out. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers. - Che Nuevara 17:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You too. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * God knows, I don't particularly like the man. And there's no shortage of controversy and not a few mailing list flamewars around him including a very long one I had with him some years back. But one thing he definitely is - is notable in India for the reasons User:CheNuevara mentioned besides having been around the Internet and BBS scene for several years now.  Speedy keep, with possible edits to concentrate on what he is notable for (linux, bbs, the comversations column, the foss.in conference) rather than information about where he went to college and what his favorite bands are.  srs 17:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see my response to CheNuevara. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: The nominator in this deletion request completely gutted this article after nominating it for deletion. - Che Nuevara 17:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - A simple gnews search netted 44 hits, including over 2 dozen in mainstream indian newspapers and Wired magazine. Baka man  23:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Google is not the basis of establishing notability, however I do accept the fact that he has appeared in multiple news stories, where he has commented on the open source movement and nothing else. He has not received any significant (non-trivial) coverage on himself or his work anywhere. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   Baka  man  23:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Subject is notable. And if open source does indeed catch up in India, the article will surely be relevant 10 years down the line. Antariki Vandanamu 07:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The major issue here is the nominator finds the subject to be "Inherently non-notable", since the article lacks non-trivial reliable and independent sources. However, a quick search reveals that there are plenty of references available. Ignoring the trivial one-line mentions in several notable (and independent) publications, here are a few of them: Interview with The Times of India, interview with Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, news article in The Hindu, article in Heise, interview with Rediff (none of these are one-line mentions, and all the publications are reliable and independent). If you feel that the article lacks good references, it's better to tag it with primarysources or refimprove instead of nominating it for deletion. Also, I don't see any evidence of the subject making any edits to the article, that can be deemed as "self-promotion" (as alleged). The article history indicates that User:Achitnis has made only five edits to the article, all of which are minor edits involving formatting, fact correction, adding a photo or tag: . He seems to be more interested in Katrina Kaif. utcursch | talk 05:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer: I have met Atul Chitnis in real life, but there is no conflict of interest involved here. I've met him only once -- during FOSS.IN 2006, where we talked for a few seconds and exchanged a few words about the Wikipedia article on FOSS.IN. I am not involved in any of his ventures or his FOSS-related activities. utcursch | talk 05:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the subject has been mentioned in various news stories and has been interviewed. The information that most of the articles give about him is that he is the chairman of the "FOSS" or the head of "Exocore", and that was the foremost reason I gave for a redirect and merge to the FOSS article. Although, substantial coverage on the subject is not established, there are a number of trivial sources in existence which might make him border-line notable as per our BIO guideline. The article cannot in the current circumstances go beyond a stub. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Mentioned"? Did you read those articles that utcursch posted? They are primarily or entirely about him. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't read German and so you didn't read the Heise article. But this is real press coverage. - Che Nuevara 17:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - I am an active volunteer in DebianWomen, founder of UbuntuWomen, Linuxchix and some local Libre communities and have to agree with Zamkudi that the ref's dont provide his notable contributions to Libre software communities. Libre software is indeed catching up in India and if every contributor had to have a page on Wikipedia, narcissim would never wane. Svaksha  10:25, 10 October 2008 (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.