Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devadas Krishnadas (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Devadas Krishnadas
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Renominating, as the first AfD was closed as soft delete and then challenged. This is a well-disguised advert for a non-notable individual. It has been bombarded with references, but not one reference meets the requirements of WP:GNG: (1) significant coverage, in (2) reliable, (3) secondary sources, (4) independent of the subject. There is also an excessive number of WP:PRIMARY sources. Given how far this article is from achieving these criteria, this article is unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia today. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Adding that the bulk of content on this page is contributed by SPAs with suspected COI:, , and now an IP address. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly masquerading as a notable subject, yet utterly fails WP:GNG. This is a firm delete. Megtetg34 (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Fails GNG, CEO of non-notable company. There is no significant coverage of him. Contributed articles to various Singapore's newspapers which could nudge him to being notable. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am grateful for the opinion, which I had requested because the first nomination saw minimal participation. Just writing to add, for policy context, that Notability says as follows: Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete For openness, I was pinged here by Kohlrabi Pickle to give an opinion. Article presently fails WP:GNG based on its current structure as pointed by by the nominee. However, a source labels the subject as a "public intellectual" and asked if he would enter politics, while the subject himself was embroiled in a controversy with a politician last year. Subject has also authored a few books, one which had its foreword written by an active minister. As an outspoken ex-civil servant (unique in Singapore), he could qualify for notability if the article is rewritten bereft of its promotional content. Unless someone is willing to rewrite it and engage the page's main editors however, the article presently fails guidelines. Seloloving (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am grateful for the opinion. I feel I should add a short response to the claims of potential notability because as nominator, that is what I am challenging:
 * The subject was not involved in the dispute with the former politician Calvin Cheng. That was a Dhevarajan Devadas, whereas the subject of this article is Devadas Krishnadas. The dispute was over a comment, which Cheng had written on the subject's Facebook page (which is the extent of his involvement).
 * I'm not aware that the subject is known for being outspoken in Singapore because his views are relatively uncontroversial, but even if that is true, it is not unique in a Singaporean context. A very large number of politicians are former civil servants. Admittedly, they mostly populate the ruling party, but they also include the opposition politicians Hazel Poa, Sylvia Lim, and Leon Perera. There are also a number of other former civil servants who are much better known for being outspoken, such as Ngiam Tong Dow and Bilahari Kausikan.
 * I make these points only to establish that the main issue is not the writing (which is undoubtedly, as Seloloving points out, mightily problematic) but that the subject simply does not meet Wikipedia's tough criteria for notability and that is a problem that rewriting cannot fix. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right. My research was incomplete and flawed. Apologies. Seloloving (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right. My research was incomplete and flawed. Apologies. Seloloving (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Question the veracity of the claim that "not one reference meets the requirements of WP:GNG: (1) significant coverage, in (2) reliable, (3) secondary sources, (4) independent of the subject." Many of the references stem from reliable mainstream media in Singapore, including Channel News Asia and the Straits Times, and several are book reviews by third parties on his many published works. Can the nominator point to the excessive primary sources? 61.13.18.130 (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pardon, I meant that the sources are not independent rather than that they are primary sources. The following are examples:, , , , , , ,.
 * There are indeed many news references, all with trivial coverage of the subject. Book reviews count towards the notability of the books, not their author. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment works by the subject of course count towards his notability such as books and if they receive reliable reviews that counts towards his notability as per criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR (only one criteria needed) Atlantic306 (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, with a slight clarification. Book reviews count towards the notability of books. Notable books count towards the notability of the author. I don’t mean to be pedantic; the difference is important because it clarifies that a book review cannot, on its own, be combined with other instances of coverage to cross GNG. They can only begin to count when the notability threshold for books is crossed, and then it is the notable books which count towards WP:AUTHOR rather than WP:GNG. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2021 (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.