Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalamandalam Tirur Nambissan


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Kalamandalam Tirur Nambissan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article's unreferenced and I'm not finding any reliable sources on this person, and the article's written as a glorification. Fame is claimed but WP:Notability not established. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I just tagged the article for WP:Conflict of interest. The author has the same family name and claims to be the copyright holder of the accompanying photo, so possibly a family member. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reopening Being WP:BOLD, I've reopened this discussion because (1) the author recreated the article, with the Afd notice intact, and (2) at the time it was deleted, I was in the middle of comparing it to the page of which it was supposed to be a copyright violation, and while the derivation was obvious, the sequence and wording had been thoroughly reworked, and information was mixed in that wasn't from that page, so I'm not convinced there was a copyright problem. I also didn't see any reason to open a new deletion discussion from scratch. If reopening this is a real problem for some logistical reason, let me know, but it seemed like a reasonable way to proceed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I find "I'm not convinced there was a copyright problem" slightly surprising, coming hot on the heels of "the derivation was obvious". While it is true that the wording had been moved around it was clearly a rearrangement of the page it was copied from, and not original work. However, this is not very relevant since copyright was not the reason for this AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I was being inconsistent. He covered many of the same points, and in some places the sequencing of, say, people's names was roughly the same, but he reworded and reordered it so thoroughly that I wouldn't expect a legal copyright issue to arise. Copyright doesn't prevent someone from covering all the same information present in another person's work. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no evidence at all of notability. The article currently gives no sources. (Previously there were three "references", but none were to reliable sources. In addition one of them was not a citation for a statement in the article, but just a link to a YouTube video related to something mentioned in the article. The other two were links to Wikipedia articles in which statements about Kalamandalam Tirur Nambissan had been inserted by the author of this article: about as good an illustration of why Wikipedia is not accepted as a source as I have ever seen.) I have looked at about the first couple of dozen hits from a Google search. I found Wikipedia, Wapedia, social network and similar self-publishing sites, listings sites containing brief mention of Kalamandalam Tirur Nambissan, etc, but nothing that could remotely be considered as significant coverage in independent reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This article fails Notability (biographies) and Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:52, 17 March 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.