Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiruba shankar


 * 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. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiruba Shankar


Ummm... Someone placed the link here, but didn't finish creating this page. So I've lsited it here for them. I have no status on whether the article should stay or go, but someone obviously wanted it to be deleted. Anyway, it was probably for NN or conflict of interest or something... Spawn Man 01:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: That "someone" was a single-purpose account Ed.del.bs. utcursch | talk 06:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Looks like a personal profile page. This biography article is unsubstantiated. Ed.del.bs 17:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Closing admin should note, this account has has 13 edits, all of them votes for the deletions. -- Ganeshk  ( talk ) 20:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Kiruba Shankar's information checks out, and I think he's reasonably notable. This looks a lot like Articles for deletion/Rajeev Srinivasan, even though I can't tell what the connection is between them, other than the (original) nominator. Darkspots 23:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   -- Darkspots 16:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Glad this got here. I was having to explain his notability on article's talk page. This will get the community view. He is a notable blogger in India. The article has plenty of references to support it. -- Ganeshk  ( talk )
 * Strong Keep Notable personality and a blogger who was ranked as Number 1 Blogger by various criteria. The fact that the AFD has been initiated by a single purpose (or perhaps three purpose) account makes me doubt sock puppetry  Doctor Bruno  23:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Ed.del.bs is a single-purpose account. utcursch | talk 06:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - bad faith nom, possible sockpuppetry. Bakaman  Bakatalk 00:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't make a bad faith nomination, I just finished the job that someone less experienced forgot to finish. As I said, I have no opinion on wheter the article should stay or go. Thanks, Spawn Man 00:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm quite sure Bakaman's talking about Ed.del.bs, a single-purpose account, and not you. If you have any interest, click that link to see his other deletion nominations. Darkspots 02:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Response to all - Sorry Spawn Man, I was under the impression ed.xx created the Afd and you relisted it. Bakaman  Bakatalk 04:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   Bakaman   Bakatalk 00:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Super Speedy Delete : There are hundreds of bloggers like this guy not just in English but in other languages also. Blogging everyday for 'n' number of years is not enough claim to notability.   Sarvagnya 02:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Never saw a guideline regarding Super Speedy Delete! Kindly enlighten me and others. I think it is not your biased opinion on the issue to use this phrase. However, a simple Delete or Strong Delete would serve the purpose instead of using acrobatic words to drive and drill the point inside the heads of fellow-editors. Please be considerate of others in you zeal to present your side of the story. Thank you. --Bhadani 04:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - There are millions cited by The Hindu and DNA India, who are the associates of Sulekha? Definitely not. Bakaman  Bakatalk 05:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also have a look at Category:Bloggers and Category:Podcasters. utcursch | talk 11:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the categories. Just the Indian bloggers.  I dont have anything against the category itself per se.  But just because a 'nobody' blogs day in and day out for 'x' number of years doesnt bless him with enought notability to merit an article on Wikipedia.
 * If a 'notable' person(like say, M J Akbar) blogs, then it makes sense to make a 'note' of it. Rajeev Srinivasan also just about makes the grade because he is a regular journalist/columnist at one of the biggest portals/websites in India and perhaps the world.  That certainly is 'notable'.
 * Kiruba who(??) is on the other hand, a 'nobody'. Blogging alone seems to be his claim to dubious claim of notability.  It is not like he is the only blogger from his country or that he is the only one in the world who blogs about a certain topic or something like that.  It is not like he's running something on the lines of slashdot or something notable like that(dont jump at me, I know slashdot isnt a blog).  Basically, forget the person, even his blog is nothing special.  For example, there was some blog during the recent Iraq war which was the only blog in the world that was reporting from ground zero and major news agencies were feeding off that blog.  Kiruba and his blog have no such achievements to their credit.  It is just another one of the zillion blogs on the net.
 * And just because The Hindu mentions his blog in an article about the 'non-notable' blogging scene in India(not even India, just Madras) is no claim to fame. The Hindu and other Indian newspapers(even English ones) routinely cover such 'non-notable' events like some fancy dress competition for kids in some school for Krishna Janmashtami, some high school's annual day celebrations etc.,.
 * Using these to establish notability is ridiculous and going on to write articles about such people and events is an abuse of technology and wikipedia. Gigabytes and terabytes may come cheap these days, but that is no reason to dump all nonsensical stuff reeking of vanity on wikipedia.  Basically, as a thumb rule, I'd ask myself the question, "Will this article make it to the Encyclopedia Britannica?(even assuming the book ran into millions of pages and thousands of volumes)".  The answer is an emphatic NO!  Kiruba and his blog(considering their 'achievements' to date) will not make it into E.Britannica today or in the next 50 years or ever!!
 * Also, I havent taken a look at the entries under the Bloggers category for other countries. But even if there are entries like Kiruba's from other countries, I hold that even they should be deleted.  This is just plain and utter nonsense!!  Come to think of it, I myself have represented a state of India in baseball.  How many people in India have done that?  So let me just trash the fact that 'Baseball in India' itself is 'non-notable' and nonsense, and let me go ahead and create a wikipedia article for myself!!  Kiruba's name at best belongs in some article about say, 'Blogging scene in Madras' or some such article.  Writing a whole article about this 'nobody' is simply an abuse of technology and resources. Super speedy delete. Sarvagnya 17:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Anyone who was involved in the Tsunami rescue operations knows of Kiruba and his contributions and crisis management. He is more than "just a blogger" and is notable in many ways. The article, however, is badly structured and written and needs serious cleanup to bring out the facts about him. Achitnis 17:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone who was involved in the Tsunami rescue operations knows of Kiruba and his contributions and crisis management. - A blatant lie!! I was involved in Tsunami rescue operations and I havent even heard of this 'nobody's' name - forget his 'crisis management' skills!!  He is no more than 'just a blogger' with a very very ordinary blog.  Sarvagnya 17:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You certainly weren't involved in the same efforts all of us were - I hadn't heard about you either, and you hadn't heard about me. But that doesn't invalidate your efforts, and it doesn't invalidate Kiruba's either. As for his "ordinary blog" - strange that every indiblogger rating system I know rates him in the top 5 - and for very good reasons.
 * As I have said before - a subject doesn't turn "non-notable" just because *you* haven't heard about it/him/her. It turns non-notable if *no one* has heard of it before. And that is very obviously not the case here or in the case of the other AfD nominations by the same editor, who seems to be showing the same "haven't heard of, can't be notable" problem. Achitnis 18:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard of you, you haven't heard of me; it doesn't invalidate our efforts - Alright. Nor does it make us 'notable' enough to merit articles on wikipedia.  And in any case, why are we discussing his tsunami works??  I was under the impression that the article existed because he was a 'notable' blogger.  The article describes that 'blogging' is his greatest(and only) claim to 'notability' on WP.  His tsunami work and rowing for sify team wouldn't fetch him an article even on wikipedia even from whoever wrote this dubious article.  Sarvagnya 18:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And indiblogger rating system. What indiblogger rating system? Systems that require bloggers to register their blogs on their 'system' to even get rated!  These so called 'systems' themselves are of dubious nature and the less said the better about the 'systems' they use to establish their useless top 10 or top 100 lists.  Its not like some fortune 500 or forbes 50 list.  These so called 'indiblogger systems' -  what are they?  are they slashdot? Also let me quote the Category:Bloggers description -
 * ''"The existence of this category does not imply that any and every blogger should have an entry in Wikipedia. This category exists for bloggers that have widespread influence, controversy and/or media presence, and also for people otherwise famous, notable or significant that happen to be bloggers. See also criteria for biographies and vanity page guideline.
 * One measly article here and there in The Hindu or in dna tucked away somewhere in the backpages is not proof of widespread influence! Sarvagnya 18:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, the article can do with editing. Notability is not something either of us can be a judge of. And Kiruba wields huge influence in the blogger world in India and has used that influence to make things happen for many people, including (but not limited to) Tsunami victims. We are here to edit articles, not to judge. I stand by my recommendation to keep and edit. Achitnis 21:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ...Kiruba wields huge influence in the blogger world in India... - Thats your POV and basically nonsense. I for one, wielded considerable influence in the gilli-danda and buguri(top) circuit in my area.  Kiruba is just another one of the billion bloggers who has had his 15 mins of fame, thanks to the likes of people who've voted "Keep" here.  I'd like to see someone establish the widespread influence this 'nobody' has had on anybody or anything.  Note that the emphasis is also on 'influence'.  Also while blogs as a technological innovation and a medium of communication may be 'notable', bloggers arent automatically 'notable' nor will cooked up 'ahhh-so-coooool' neologisms like "Blogging 'scene' in India", "Indibloggers", "blogger meet" etc., give them the 'notability' they dont deserve.  And also please stop talking about tsunami, row row row a boat etc.,.  Even the article doesnt describe those things as his claim to fame.  Sarvagnya 21:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me quote The Hindu, "Kiruba Shankar, India's leading blogger and Associate Director, Sulekha, who organised the Chennai BarCamp....". Hindu is a reliable source (you might feel differently). Not every blogger on the planet gets such a credit from a newspaper. Some do and so deserve a article here. Regards, Ganeshk  ( talk ) 00:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody contests the fact that Hindu is a reliable source. But you should be pragmatic enough to know where and how much weight to give to it.  Like I said, Hindu and other Indian newspapers routinely cover insignificant items like high school annual day celebrations, inter school elocution contests, a talk by some 'motivational' expert in some corner of the city etc.,.  Even the article you've linked is just one such insignificant 'city-specific' article.  Also '....India's leading blogger...' is blatantly POV for WP purposes.  I can fish out zillion articles from zillion 'reliable' sources that sing praises of Tendulkar and describe him on the lines of 'the greatest there is, the greatest there was, the greatest there'll ever be'.  How I wish I could use those sources to edit Tendulkar and claim that he is the greatest of all time!  I can produce any number of 'reliable sources' that sing praises of Rajkumar and elevate him to 'Godhood'.  How I wish Wikipedia would let me use those articles(with the POV) to edit Rajkumar.  Kiruba Shankar is not India's leading blogger, not even close.  Who is Hindu to decide such things.  It is not like they're quoting some authoritative source.  It is simply some unabashed POV of some journalist.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Sarvagnya 03:42, 21 November 2006 (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.