Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Software Movement of India


 * 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   no consensus. No prejudice to a speedy renomination. Insufficient participation from established editors to determine consensus, and I'm not inclined to relist this trainwreck. Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Free Software Movement of India

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not sure if this org will pass WP:N. No WP:RS available except for the report by Hindu which basically covered a conference conducted by the organisation.Looks like propoganda material written with WP:COI.  Srikanth (Logic)  17:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the article is based authentic data, please suggest methods of improvement ie., how to ensure that it is not "propoganda material". Vikram Vincent 04:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentvikram (talk • contribs)


 * Contributer connected with the subject !?


 * I have absolutely no connection whatsoever with the subject or the Movement described in the article.
 * I have absolutely no connection whatsoever with any of the personalities described in the article. I had not even heard of the names mentioned in the article. I could understand who they are only after getting to know of their profiles.
 * My only interest in the subject was my fascination for the concept of Free Software.
 * Many people, including myself, consider The Hindu as a respected, reliable national newspaper reporting authentic news. I could not get any other third party references regarding the subject.
 * I believe that, despite the controversies surrounding the formation of the FSMI, which has been faithfully recorded in the article by somebody (not me), the Free Software Movement of India is a new significant addition to the growing number of organisations and movements trying to spread the idea of free software.
 * Further, the sheer fact that the subject of the article attracted so much of controversy and discussion in the public sphere within a few days of its formation is itself reason and justification for the notability of the subject and its inclusion in Wikipedia. The article is obviously and clearly written with a neutral point of view. If anybody feels otherwise, he/she is free to edit and modify the article appropriately. Deletion of the article is not the answer to the problem.
 * I strongly urge that the article be not deleted. If it is eventually deleted it will be a huge paradox on the basic tenets of Wikipedia, one of the staunchest supporters of free knowledge and free society. This is like a self-proclaimed champion of freedom blocking somebody the freedom to talk about an organisation formed with the declared objective of spreading the concept of freedom.

Thanks.Krishnachandranvn (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  — Srikanth (Logic)  17:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — Srikanth (Logic)  17:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That the author has close connection with the organisation is not a rightful reason to delete the article. Wikipedia is a forum to gather all the world's information. The existence of "Free Software Movement of India" is a fact. It should be documented. If it isn't presented in a neutral point of view or not in an encyclopaedic style, feel free to change it, for that exactly is the spirit of Wikipedia. But facts can't be deleted.

--n@vneet 15:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_Wikipedia,_X_is_an_Article,_not_Evil clearly states that anyone is free to edit and there are no iffs. The objection is invalid. Vincent (talk) 05:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Notability

I guess the following are reliable and neutral secondary sources of information. Whats the motivation for deletion. I find the entry in accordance to these newspaper reports. I request the tag author to point of specific anomalies what he/she thinks is not in accordance with neutral sources of information.

Deccan Herald : A independent newspaper of repute in Bangalore

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/59304/making-sense-unjust-world.html

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/58966/free-software-movement-gaining-ground.html

The Hindu : Is also reputed newspaper

http://www.thehindu.com/2010/03/17/stories/2010031751130200.htm

http://www.thehindu.com/2010/03/19/stories/2010031961140300.htm

http://www.thehindu.com/2010/03/20/stories/2010032064330300.htm

http://www.thehindu.com/2010/03/21/stories/2010032154350500.htm

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/cities/Bangalore/article245413.ece

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/article261275.ece

web paper:

http://bangalore.citizenmatters.in/events/show/2260-a-run

http://bangalore.citizenmatters.in/events/show/2210-national-conference

http://bangalore.citizenmatters.in/articles/view/689-richard-stallman-btm-layout

this is of course a blog : http://ideasareimmortal.blogspot.com/2010/03/national-conference-on-free-software.html

http://ideasareimmortal.blogspot.com/2010/03/nc2010-day-2-and-free-software-movement.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.163.216.217 (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"In the past, Richard Stallman has approved of the creation of organisations parallel to FSFI[17]. FSFI and organizations part of FSMI such as FSMK have worked together on many aspects together.[18] Dr. Nagarjuna, Chairman of FSFI Board of Directors[19], was unable to participate in the conference due to certain commitments[20]."

Though the above are facts and are correlated with secondary sources. This can be considered reporting mailing list reference in wiki articles. Hence can be dropped otherwise I find the article to be in accordance to secondary source of information

some more search in kannada space. Prajavani is a newspaper of repute and smapada has beeb around as well

http://avadhi.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/%E0%B2%95%E0%B2%A8%E0%B3%8D%E0%B2%A8%E0%B2%A1-%E0%B2%B2%E0%B2%BF%E0%B2%A8%E0%B2%95%E0%B3%8D%E0%B2%B8%E0%B3%8D-%E0%B2%A4%E0%B2%82%E0%B2%A4%E0%B3%8D%E0%B2%B0%E0%B2%BE%E0%B2%82%E0%B2%B6-%E0%B2%AC/

http://www.prajavani.net/Content/Mar252010/netmail20100324176349.ಅಸ್ಪ್

http://sampada.net/article/೨೪೩೯೪

http://mandyamultimedia.com/news040310.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.36.94 (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - IP has shown enough coverage in Reliable secondary sources to warrant an article (interesting to note that same journalist from The Hindu who covers the wikipedia bangalore meetups has covered the event. So they have sent the tech correspondent and given note to it). Also there is bound to be more coverage in Malayalam vernacular media, as the Government of Kerala supports and sponsors the FSM (no windows in Govt PCs in Kerala. They run on linux). If the tone of the article sounds promotional it is a content issue. Can be discussed and changed in the article talk page.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: SodaBottle, On another note, with all due respect to journalist folks, tech correspondents in India have got a lot to catch up and i have been very sad with the level of awareness they have and sometimes/more often the entire article come up through written piece given to them for editing.(atleast few articles about WP:MBL i can vouch for). So it can equally be considered as promotional material. After attending quite a few tech / open culture events, I find 95% of reports(barring few instances) come up with atleast one errata / misinformation and actually makes me wonder how credible are Indian newspapers in general if this is the quality of reporting. By the way, GoK supporting Free Software is a different thing altogether and they do not have link with the subject AFAIK.And all my observations above are for English media,needless to say about vernacular media i guess.(I may be wrong on this one)  Srikanth (Logic)  18:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't find any genuine reason to delete the article. Even supposing that the contributor is closely attached to the article (which apparently is not the case), that is not ground enough to delete the article. That would only warrant a neutral point of view. It seems that original champion of freedom, Mr.Srikanth is associated with some FOSS movements. Does the deletion have something to do with it? -- praveen chandandrahas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandrahas9 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't indulge in personal attacks. keep the discussion to the article's merits.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry for crossing the line. But I thought the the tag about the contributor being closely connected with the subject warranted some supporting evidence, without which, I am afraid, the tag itself may be treated as a personal attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandrahas9 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * While the tag itself constitutes ad hominem, it is still advised not to indulge in personal attacks. The OP who tagged the article as Articles_for_deletion may be taken to task if this is the case. Vikram Vincent 16:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Vincentvikram


 * I still do not understand why the tag on the author being closely related to the subject has not been removed. The claim has not been substantiated. If there is a valid reason why it is still tagged, please post it in the discussion.--Praveen Chandrahas (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

some more neutral sources which have picked up the story. they

http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2010032202035NWCY

http://southasia.oneworld.net/ictsfordevelopment/national-free-software-coalition-formed-in-india

http://cacm.acm.org/news/80552-national-free-software-coalition-formed-in-india/fulltext

http://www.erodov.com/forums/national-free-software-coalition-formed/31580.html

http://www.in.com/news/business/national-free-software-coalition-formed-13242829-89a0cb5126f49af766fb9cfdf256f6ee4481df93-rhp.html

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/03/19/Free_software_movement_gaining_ground

participating organizations in fsmi also referred to be following sources

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Freeing_the_Mind:_Free_Software_and_the_end_of_proprietary_culture

http://www.thehindu.com/edu/2009/08/03/stories/2009080351320300.htm

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/26913/free-software-suited-ui-card.html

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=swecha

http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20100307/1459701.html

http://osindia.blogspot.com/2008/01/science-commons-open-source-drug.html

http://osindia.blogspot.com/2009/04/computer-programme-per-se-conundrum.html

http://www.fossmeet.in/node/36

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/india-to-submit-ipr-report-to-us-trade-representative/387786/

http://www.itforchange.net/component/content/232.html?task=view

requesting admin who posted proposed deletion to give specifics on "WP:N. No WP:RS available except for the report by Hindu". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.191.231 (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As per WP:N, the article satisfies "significant coverage", "reliable" and "sources". Also it is not "self-publicity, etc..", though there is scope for improvement. Thus, the deletion of a genuine article is unwarranted. Vikram Vincent 05:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentvikram (talk • contribs)

As per WP:RS, high quality, mainstream news organisations are acceptable and considered reliable. News papers such as 'The Hindu', 'Deccan Herald' 'Prajavani' satisfy this clause. Organisations such as ACM and other independent organisations have also reported about FSMI formation. I request that the deletion request be dismissed.--Vikram Vincent 05:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Vincentvikram


 * Comment I still doubt the WP:N though it has been covered by Sources. But most of the links above cover the 2 day Conference / "Formation of alliance" and few about the sister organisations but not the main subject about which very little is present in the article.IMHO Even the controversy is not notable beyond the mailboxes of mailing list. I had tagged WP:COI when i saw the controversy section was almost written to present a POV even though its partially WP:NPOV. I came across the article initially when i saw the article listed on Template:FOSS and hence felt it used for promotional purpose. I would be glad if people commented on my basis of observation instead of making personal remarks. I wish to mention that i have nothing against any organisation or no Ad hominem aginst anyone (I dont know anyone mentioned in the group but for sharing a frame with User:Vincentvikram on one of the WP:MBL ) . PS: Please maintain readability while commenting. Thanks.  Srikanth (Logic)  18:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One article in one newspaper doesn't make a case for an article on a newfangled "movement". I can't see why so much links are dished out here although they don't speak of this organisation. The Hindu is a pro-CPI(M) newspaper which has a tendency of giving undue importance to CPI(M) and its interests. Why I mention CPI(M)is that there was a story in the Malayalam local press that the party caused a split in the Free Software movement in India with the formation of this splinter group. I have read some Malayalam blog posts made by the office bearers of this organisation which acknowledges CPI(M's active participation in the programme while no other political party is mentioned. If this newborn (if not stillborn) thing craves for a WP article on them, they can wait until they make some news. As of now they are just a storm in the teacup. 117.204.88.101 (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The controversy section sprang up due to false reporting in the Mathrubhumi newspaper. You may read the rejoinder here http://www.nc2010.fsmk.org/content/rejoinder-mathrubumis-fabricated-report Also do go through the conference website. There is no reference to any political party. We do not endorse any political party although FSMI members are free to support any. Please don't misguide people by giving a wrong count of the number of newspapers reporting about the conference and FSMI's formation. Vikram Vincent 15:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)User:Vincentvikram
 * I have removed the controversy section as that seems to be a bone of contention. That section arose due to the report that was published in the particular newspaper. Please look at the ACM link above which has specifically quoted the formation of FSMI from The Hindu. The article on FSMI was created as soon as FSMI was formed. I think that the sources quoted in this context are reasonable. Wishes. Vikram Vincent 09:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Vincentvikram


 * Comment

"I still doubt the WP:N though it has been covered by Sources. But most of the links above cover the 2 day Conference / "Formation of alliance" and few about the sister organisations but not the main subject about which very little is present in the article."

An organization with the above name has been formed in the conference. Many of the organizations which formed it are registered organizations as per their website. Fact is sacred in reporting. Hence why not record it.

"IMHO Even the controversy is not notable beyond the mailboxes of mailing list."

Mathrubumi news item is a prominent one [ 5 column ]. How can we say its only mailing list? yes its a newly formed organization. But do we have norms in WP to say that newly formed organizations cant be recorded. Admins can alter content if need be. But I dont know if its a case for deletion, as many of the sister organization which have formed this network have been in existence and are real. There also has been multiple news items in Hindu, Madhyamam and Mathrubumi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.163.191.93 (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"Multiple news items in Hindu, Madhyamam and Mathrubumi" Really? Give me the link please. 117.204.83.177 (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please go through the links already provided above. They provide links to the "multiple" news items in The Hindu, which includes the coverage of run-up events to the national conference. The above request for links sounds satirical. Please avoid using histrionics like "Really?".--Praveen Chandrahas (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

---

http://www.mathrubhumi.com/online/malayalam/news/story/221531/2010-03-22/kerala

.but if such a organisation doesnt exist..why controversy over it and a rejoinder

Maadhyamam,leading malayalam daily;having a Bangalore edition too reported on ncfs 2010

Madhyamam report

so its defintiely not mailing list - storm in tea cup and has been reported, so dont know if its a valid case for deletion.

Hindu reports formation of organization ; madhyamam and mathrubumi raises a controversy. the conference website published rejoinder. fsf-i etc have not published a statement on this. google search on organization involved shows them to be registered organization and real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.163.185.117 (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This page is a mess, unreadable and incomprehensible. And some people think they can back their claims with lies in the muddied water. One article in Madhyamam (only one link in this whole page to Madhyamam website) which says a conference ended and lists office bearers, another in Mathrubhumi which the votaries of the new org say is "farbricated" news. Neither prove enough notability to pass Wikipedia norms on the notability of an organisation. 117.204.83.175 (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Use civil language and stick to the scope of this discussion. Vikram Vincent 07:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Vincentvikram
 * The very first link goes to the org's own forum! That clinches the notability question indeed. 117.204.83.175 (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In your opinion, how many news reports are required to prove that a new organisation was created? In our opinion 1 or 2 is sufficient. We have provided much more than that. Also feel free to create a login and make the presented arguments more readable and comprehensible. Vikram Vincent 07:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Vincentvikram
 * Use civil language and stick to the point.
 * The above commentator is harbouring some strange notion of civility, apparently. However, his use of 'we' spills the beans that he is a part of a tag team who edits tendentiously. With such a tag team out there and hardly anybody else there is no scope for any meaningful discussion. The org can certainly wait to have a WP article. --117.207.145.30 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Post-relist Discussion

No edit to the article in the last few days. The contributors vociferous for its keep seem to be smugly done with it. No concerns answered. Use of circular logic and fictitious civility issues dominated the discussion. The topic fails to interest regular editors. Most importantly nobody still knows if the organisation was a stillbirth or nonstarter. Let the organisation be known first and let the article come when it is due. -117.204.84.130 (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Hi, The points have already been clearly stated. The notability is established by the following:

1. http://fsmi.in/

2. http://southasia.oneworld.net/ictsfordevelopment/national-free-software-coalition-formed-in-india

3. http://www.in.com/news/business/national-free-software-coalition-formed-13242829-89a0cb5126f49af766fb9cfdf256f6ee4481df93-rhp.html

4. http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2010032202035NWCY

5. http://www.nc2010.fsmk.org/content/free-software-movement-has-arrived-national-scene

6. http://cacm.acm.org/news/80552-national-free-software-coalition-formed-in-india/fulltext

7. http://www.erodov.com/forums/national-free-software-coalition-formed/31580.html

8. http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/22/stories/2010032263622000.htm

9. http://ideasareimmortal.blogspot.com/2010/03/national-conference-on-free-software.html

10.http://ideasareimmortal.blogspot.com/2010/03/nc2010-day-2-and-free-software-movement.html

Vikram Vincent 08:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Vincentvikram

One prominent contention raised in the previous discussion is that the post is promotional. It appears that the person who raised the contention is confused with what is promotional and what is informational. For instance, take a look at Free Software Foundation page in wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation. It is an informational post. Going by the flawed logic, FSF page will also come in the category of promotional post and hence will be fit for deletion. So it will be good if the person who raised the allegation present crisp-clear arguments as to how he differentiates FSMI post as promotional and FSF post as non-promotional.

Another allegation is that the "news of formation of FSMI was not notable". This is a clear case of misinterpreting Wikipedia policy with malicious intent. Notability comes into picture when a bogus organisation tries to appear as an authentic one. Is "the formation of FSMI" a bogus news? Formation of FSMI as an umbrella organisation with active organisations such as DAKF, FSMK, Swetcha, knowledge Commons, FSFTN, FSMWB etc. is a fact, which can be easily verified from media reports as well as from the well known persons and organisations involved. (references of people, organisations involved are cited, and are verifiable). The formation of FSMI was subject of significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. Media houses such as The Hindu, Deshabhimani, Madhyamam, Mathrubhumi etc. are reliable, and independent of the subject. Is he telling that the formation of FSMI as cited in the above newspapers as bogus? If he has a single evidence that the formation of FSMI is bogus, then kindly present it. Is not these many newspaper reports enough for notability? Scope of FSMI is national in scale, and the post is based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - which suffices notability criteria.

I have a contention with the comment that "Let the organisation be known first and let the article come when it is due". For example, Baba Ramdev recently formed Bharat Swabhiman Campaign and political party, and the wiki post on Baba Ramdev should have that information and it does have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Ramdev). Formation of political party by Baba Ramdev is an information to share with, one cannot say that the information should come in wiki only after Ramdev's party wins elections or something like that.

The peculiarity of this whole discussion is that the person who had raised the contentions has not substantiated any of his allegations with concrete-reliable-evidences to prove his theory of "bogus news of FSMI formation". Look at the changing colour of allegations. When one allegation does not hold water, another one manufactured, instead of providing verifiable proofs to the former.

Hence please accept the coverage the formation of FSMI got in mainstream news sources as the evidence and reject all fake allegations contrary to it. There has not been a single report in any media which refutes the report of FSMI formation as carried out by The Hindu, Deshabhimani etc. Hence the allegations are malicious and is just a figment of imagination of the person who raised it.

Roopeshpraj —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC).

notability

some of it is repeat information - but recording indian language newspapers which have written about formation of fsmi, the english sources have been given already These are direct references to the formation of the organisation

1) Prajavani

http://www.prajavani.net/Content/Mar252010/netmail20100324176349.asp

2) Madhyamam_Daily

http://www.madhyamamonline.com/story/%E0%B4%A6%E0%B5%87%E0%B4%B6%E0%B5%80%E0%B4%AF-%E0%B4%B8%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B5%E0%B4%A4%E0%B4%A8%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%A4%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B0-%E0%B4%B8%E0%B5%8B%E0%B4%AB%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B1%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B1%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B5%E0%B5%86%E0%B4%AF%E0%B4%B0%E0%B5%8D%E2%80%8D-%E0%B4%B8%E0%B4%AE%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%AE%E0%B5%87%E0%B4%B3%E0%B4%A8%E0%B4%82-%E0%B4%B8%E0%B4%AE%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%AA%E0%B4%BF%E0%B4%9A%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%9A%E0%B5%81

3) Mathrubhumi

The rejoinder of the President of fsmi.in has been published as well [ these are both 4 column and 5 column news ]

http://www.mathrubhumi.com/online/malayalam/news/story/221531/2010-03-22/kerala

Events

http://www.nc2010.fsmk.org/LDW/ - " Prof. Gopinath, IISc, Vice President, FSMI" giving a talk in an event organised by FSMK a member organisation of FSMI

Contributer connected with the subject !?

Krishnachandranvn (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Post has clearly shown that he as the originator has no connection.

Neutral opinion in the above discussion

Keep - IP has shown enough coverage in Reliable secondary sources to warrant an article (interesting to note that same journalist from The Hindu who covers the wikipedia bangalore meetups has covered the event. So they have sent the tech correspondent and given note to it). Also there is bound to be more coverage in Malayalam vernacular media, as the Government of Kerala supports and sponsors the FSM (no windows in Govt PCs in Kerala. They run on linux). If the tone of the article sounds promotional it is a content issue. Can be discussed and changed in the article talk page.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep :

1) In summary my point is that its definitely not case for deletion.

2) Will look very biased if deleted.

3) Content can be edited to say  'newly formed coalition / organisation ' with year of formation and details

4) Also contributors have shown that there are many statelevel organisation which have cometogether to form this coalition and there have been valid secondary references for the same. This is notable as well

5) I also request that contributors to this discussion avoid contributions like 'still born/non starter/oh its cluttered/really - can you show me/' [ it shows that X is straining to come up with an argument, X doesn't like Y has nothing to do with wikipedia ].

6) The contention is that whether newly formed organizations can be reported or is somebody reporting this in a biased manner. It depends on the importance and interest. I see Krishnachandranvn adding content spontaneously and hence it shows that there is interest in this topic and hence valid.

7) The older organisations have not attempted wikipedia entries, shows they are not self-promoting.

8) However Krishnachandranvn  spontaneosly added an entry spontaneously for fsmi and hence it seems valid to keep.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Goli-soda (talk • contribs) 10:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Before anything, a check on the various SPAs might be in order. -117.204.82.26 (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Krishnachandranvn - not SPA - is the originator of article.

Sodabottle - not SPA and gave the following comment

"IP has shown enough coverage in Reliable secondary sources to warrant an article (interesting to note that same journalist from The Hindu who covers the wikipedia bangalore meetups has covered the event. So they have sent the tech correspondent and given note to it). Also there is bound to be more coverage in Malayalam vernacular media, as the Government of Kerala supports and sponsors the FSM (no windows in Govt PCs in Kerala. They run on linux). If the tone of the article sounds promotional it is a content issue. Can be discussed and changed in the article talk page" - Sodabottle   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goli-soda ( • contribs) 15:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep: Contacted Wikipedian who put up the AFD notice and asked for constructive feedback http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Logicwiki#Regarding_FSMI User_talk:Logicwiki yet to respond. Please remove AFD notice. Vikram Vincent 07:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Vincentvikram

There has also been no substantiation to the claim that a contributor has close connection with the subject. Please remove the tag corresponding to that issue as well. The tag looks malicious without proper substantiation. Why is the person who put the tag not responding?--Praveen Chandrahas (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2010 (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.