Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumar Parakala (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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Kumar Parakala
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was restored due to a mindlessly literal interpretation of G4. I'd redelete it myself if it wouldn't be interpreted as wheel-warring. None of the original concerns of the previous two AFDs have been addressed. Rewriting the same problems doesn't make the problems go away, and this person is still not discussed in independent sources. &mdash;Kww(talk) 19:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment (& delete) - apologies for the restoration. I was particularly chastised at WP:DRV by one editor's interpretation of G4 (and accused of "making up speedy deletion critieria"), so I felt pressurised into restoring the material, which I now regret, and realise was a mistake.  Now I'm accused of restoring it due to a "mindlessly liberal interpretation of G4".  Last time I deal with such a trivial article which would attract this kind of of mud-slinging.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If I wasn't clear, I think that your original interpretation of G4 was absolutely correct, and don't think you should have been requested to restore the article. It is your critics that use an excessively literal interpretation of G4, not you.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for your clarification Kww, appreciate it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment on notability. Here are some sources that may help improve/prove notability.
 * Technet.com article
 * Forbes post by Parakala
 * 2nd Forbes post by Parakala
 * The Australian/WSJ article
 * itNews.com.au
 * Times of India
 * 2nd The Australian article
 * EconomicTimes/IndiaTimes
 * Several ComputerWorld articles
 * PCWorld Australia article
 * FinancialExpress.com interview Ocaasit &#124; c 19:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ, Kww. It's not "mindlessly literal" to interpret G4 strictly.  There is a bloody purpose to doing things in the way we do.  This is about FairProcess.  It's about the fact that justice must be seen to be done.  It's about engaging with, and retaining, content contributors.  Don't act so butthurt about the fact that you've been made to follow the process and have a bloody discussion like you're supposed to: there are things beside content to consider here.— S Marshall  T/C 11:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Requiring an exact copy or its "not a recreation" is not the meaning of G4, S Marshall. The new article did not address any of the reasons that the original article was deleted. That's a recreation under any practical definition.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Of course it isn't.— S Marshall  T/C 15:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, stay civil. Secondly, the article I speedily deleted under G4 was pretty much a carbon copy of the that deleted by the 1st AFD.  I gave many examples of sentences which were nearly verbatim copies.  As Kww said, at the time of the speedy deletion, "the new article did not address any of the reasons that the original article was deleted. That's a recreation under any practical definition." I agree, the newly created article was very much the same as that which was deleted via AFD.  Your unhelpful response of "Rubbish.  Of course it isn't" doesn't progress the argument at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a long and increasingly boring argument about this on my talk page, if anyone cares. The closer of this AfD should note that I've expressed no opinion relevant to AfD; I merely have strongly-held views about where the boundaries of G4 are.— S Marshall  T/C 22:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, your misinterpretation of G4 is clear for all of us to see. I gave you three clear examples of verbatim copying from the AFD'd version to this one.  I could have given you half a dozen more.  Instead, here we are, wasting even more time sending this back to being deleted and you've achieved nothing other adding unhelpful comments and uncivil commentary above.  Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 27.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  12:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just undone that, because it was already listed at Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 26 (initially under the old name of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WP:Articles for deletion/Kumar Parakal (3rd nomination)). Hopefully that's all in order. -- Trevj (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Requesting an admin to please look into the 2nd nomination. It was a request to rename the page from Kumar parakala to Kumar Parakala because of a typo (P in Parakala was supposed to be in upper case and not lower) while moving the article. How would that count for a nomination on AFD? PriyankaLewis (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Priyanka Lewis
 * It certainly looks like he's notable given the sources. Not happy with the COI (which is allowed) or the NPOV holography (which isn't), but... Hobit (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see snippets by him in trade press, and publicity articles placed by KPMG. Which of these sources would you consider to be independent sources that directly discuss Parakala?&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I admit to not having time to look closely, but like a reasonable source and has a detailed bio.  Can't tell who sponsors it so I've no idea if it's independent.  It appears to see some use .  His being the head of the Australian computer society would seem to bare weight.  Everything feels _really_ spamy, but he seems notable. He's quoted in newspaper stories and cited in his trade press.  Were it not for the COI/spam issue I'd think the sourcing would be acceptable.  What am I missing?Hobit (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a conference promoting one of its speakers. Not independent, and, speaking from experience, probably not fact checked. Back at the peak of my career, I regularly spoke at similar conferences, and the bio that was published was usually provided by my own marketing department and published word-for-word.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:N. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)  Struck, likely banned editor.  Amalthea  18:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This IP is known for !vote stacking in AfDs . Tijfo098 (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Question Being national head of the ACS would be notability, but does the ACS actually have a Chairman, or did it in 2009? He is listed as such in the article and the relevant two references 8, & 9 -- both of which are largely based on PR by him & consist mainly of quotations from an interview with him -- , but their web site's leadership section  makes no mention of such as office?  According to the it news article he was President, but this is based entirely on a press release.  This is at best inaccuracy  & casts   some doubt on the veracity of all content from sources related to him. Normally we accept first person sources for the routine facts of someone's career, but unless this is resolved, I do not think we can do so.  DGG ( talk ) 14:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment on sourcing Most of the sources in the article are items he has written, which do not prove notability, and are probably not relevant references. Of the ones listed above: The technet.com article is based entirely on sources he has provided & thus equals PR,as proven by the identical wording to the other PR sources. The first Australian articles is a quotation by him in an article on something else,theit.news article is PR from the Society. The next 3 report his speeches, and might show notability if he is widely quoted as an expert. The Computerword articles are based on his own PR. The last 2 are based on PR or interviews with him.  DGG ( talk ) 15:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious WP:SPAM written by a PR company and probably sockpuppetry too (see IP !vote above). Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. Yes, he wrote a column here an there. I don't see the substantial independent coverage about him. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - as a spambio. ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Yes, Parakal was the National Chairman/President of ACS for 2008/9. The ACS website is so bad that they don't even have list of former presidents and google links into the site are broken too. (That suggest it's a society of little real importance.) A couple of snippets from their PR releases "After electing Kumar Parakala as 2008/09 President, the Council elected ... ACS President-elect Kumar Parakala also congratulated the Vice" and "Australian Computer Society (ACS) has hired Anthony Wong as its new national president, replacing Kumar Parakala. Wong is the CEO of ICT" It seems most of their presidents are from the business sector rather than academics. We don't have an article on that Anthony Wong either (unless he switched to acting.) Nor do we have on Richard Hogg who was president of ACS in 2002. And, amusingly, the ACS 2012/13 president is someone who shares a name with another actor--Nick Tate; no Wikipedia article about the IT Tate though. (Like I said, I can't get a full list, so this is a sampling.) This suggests little notability for people in that position. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment on notability. Here are a few sources that may prove notability of Kumar Parakala as ACS Chairman.
 * IT News article mentioning Kumar Parakala as ACS chairman
 * Kumar Parakala honoured with ACS Life membership
 * ACS' Information Age report mentions Kumar Parakala as ACS President and Chairman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.151.42.182 (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * — 180.151.42.182 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Well, from those sources it looks like the only ACS head to have generated significant outside media coverage was Kim Denham because of the benefits scandal. I'm not convinced Parakal was notable in that position. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * the first of the refs above says he has the power, as chairman, to appoint the CEO, which just adds more confusion to the question of who was in charge; the second is irrelevant, for life membership is less of a dignity than being head of the society--and it refers to him as president, not chairman. The third lists him as "President and chairman" However, a page, also from IT news,  linked in the left margin of the first ref is illuminating:  The society has 128,000 members, but is having difficulties maintaining itself & in the process of reorganizing.
 * And I do not consider the failure to list past executives a sign of non-notability--many web sites for the most major societies and companies have a similar lack. It's just the failure to realize that an organization website should somewhere contain some actual information. That we do not have articles on other holders of the office is also irrelevant--we lack hundreds of thousands of necessary articles on past officeholders even from unquestionably notable positions in government.  DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete A year ago I would have accepted the article, and merely rewritten it to shorten the list of his interviews and papers, and remove the list of awards, none of which are of any significance. I feel differently now. This was by usual position on people of borderline notability . I feel differently now.  I can not justify it by the WP rules, but the article on a person or firm of borderline notability   that is here only as a result  of a PR effort does not arouse my sympathies, and I judge it somewhat more strictly. I think many of us do. I've been aware of it for some months, and it's my reaction to the greatly increased use of Wikipedia for PR, cause by the public perception of our own significance. I don't see how we can avoid being a target, but we can alter our response.   Because I can see how it would be abused, I am reluctant to propose  a formal guideline that articles written with COI must show clear and unambiguous notability . (Because we cannot always  tell whether something is PR, it would, reasonably. apply to those jobs of PR so poorly done that we could tell.)  But I now do pay attention to the origin and motivation of the article, & I also pay attention to the quality of the PR work--when it makes this great an effort to magnify things, it increases my degree of skepticism. How we interpret our rules will always depend on common sense, otherwise known as IAR, and perhaps it's the best guide when the situation is otherwise ambiguous. Perhaps we should call it self-defense.  Our biggest danger now is promotionalism.  I've heard it  suggested we counter it by omitting BLPs, and articles about companies & organizations,  which is a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I've heard it suggested that we omit non-famous BLPs & companies & organizations. Mine is a lesser move in the same direction. The motivation for it is my increasing sense of desperation from working at AfC and NPP. When it was a trickle, we could ignore it, but not now.  DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This comment is to throw light on the fact that the person in question is infact notable.

Quoting the ACS siteACS eligibility criteria for Life Membership awards, “To be eligible for classification as an Honorary Life Member, a member must have rendered: a. exceptional and distinguished service to the Society, or b. long and valued service to the Society by playing an active and commendable part in the affairs of the Society for at least 10 years. In this respect, service to a society which later became part of the Society may be recognised, or c. both a. and b.”
 * Regarding the ACS honorary life membership award ACS honorary life membership award

Other speakers present at the event were Paul Otellini Paul Otellini wiki Stephen Elop Stephen Flop wiki and  Maximus Ongkili Maximus Ongkili Wiki All of the other speakers are notable and mostly have Wikipedia pages. Kumar Parakala is listed under the same speaker list as above mentioned.
 * The first reference of the article WCIT 2010 is of WCIT 2010, which was hosted by The European commission and is considered to be an important event in the IT sector.

Since the ACS site has been through a revamp Online development of ACS the previous links to the site are broken and even the President profile have not been included. Also, the terms President and Chairman are interchangeably used, if that is what the confusion above seems to be about.
 * ACS Management states - ACS Management Committee consists of the National Office Bearers (President, three Vice Presidents, President-Elect, Immediate Past President, National Treasurer), as well as the Chief Executive Officer and four National Congressional Representatives. This hints at President being of supreme importance.

I admit this article is under WP:COI but i would like to point out that while writing this article, all the issues from 1st nomination of AFD such as no proof of notability and the article reading like a resume etc, was tried to be taken care of. Also, i made sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party, independent published sources, and beware of unintentional bias and keep a Neutral point of view. I am not sure if i have missed out something. Also, i understand that while contributing to Wikipedia on behalf of someone i have to meet the standards for content here, and am not supposed to insert any kind of promotional material, which i have maintained in the article. In my comment above too, i have tried to state some facts and references so that the editors can get an idea of the person's notability. PriyankaLewis (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts in trying to meet Wikipedia guidelines and policies; however, even the best efforts do not always meet the attempted goals. -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Per DGG. Wikipedia articles are not CVs. The article appears to fail WP:GNG.  He wrote some articles, that doesn't give any notability to himself. - SudoGhost 13:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOTRESUME. Being name-dropped in a smattering specialized and obscure sources does not meet the notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete . DGG sums it up  well. This is obviously  a professionally written vanity  piece and a classic example of using  Wikipedia as a LinkedIn or any  other B2B personal  profile site of which  most  of the sources are (I checked every  single one). We  should not  allow ourselves to  be mesmerised by  the plethora of sources which  are mere scouring  of the Internet  for evertything  that  mentions the subject -  some of which  include only the subject's name. Others are simply  links to  his writings, or quotes from  speeches and interviews.  Wikipedia is definitely not  a CV and we must  really  take a firm  stance on  this kind of thing. The irony is that  this person  may  well be notable outside of Wikipedia, but  without reliable sources of the kind that  are required for WP:BIO, this article cannot  be kept. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. As many people have already mentioned the current article looks like a personal resume/LinkedIn profile, and I don't really see any seriously notable/interesting work that this person done so far. Rndomuser (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * DELETE - Not notable. Fails WP:RS, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. - Bharathiya (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:5P. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, ...". This is so clearly a violation of the first pillar and should be blown away. ignore all rules to stop the rot. Stop Wikipedia from being overtaken by vanity spam to preserve its integrity. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2012 (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.