Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumar Parakala (executive)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. All of the Delete views are solidly anchored in policy, while none of the Keep views are. As for AI-authored views, I don't have strong feelings either way, but it behooves you to train your Large Language Model on our policies and guidelines if you want the resulting text to be taken seriously. Owen&times; &#9742;  16:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Kumar Parakala (executive)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable businessman, fails WP:NBIO. Draftified and creator was asked not to return it to mainspace without AFC review. Previously deleted six times and salted at Kumar Parakala, now 4th time at AfD. SailingInABathTub 🛁 04:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:BASIC based on these articles: mbanews, ARN, indialink, IT News. Prior AFD's were from 2011 and 2012, that's over 11 years ago, so they are no longer relevant as he appears to have more news now. He could possibly meet WP:ANYBIO based on his awards. Royal88888 (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have added a few more citations that I found. Along with all the ones mentioned by above editor (Royal88888), the page has enough citations to meet Wikipedia Guidelines. Here are the additional citations to consider:
 * "Kumar R. Parakala, KPMG Head of IT Advisory EMA & India..."
 * "Tech innovator's global digital career started in CQ"
 * Consulting Matters
 * "Kumar R. Parakala, KPMG Head of IT Advisory EMA & India, Chief Operating Officer Advisory India"
 * "ACS Elects New President for 2008/9"
 * There also appears to be a good Computerworld article on him, but the link is dead. You can tell from the title that is all about him: "Outgoing ACS President to Head up KPMG Indian IT Advisory Business"

Perfectstrangerz (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be very helpful to display links to previous AFDs. Also useful would be an evaluation to the sources mentioned in this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I believe the four citations I supplied earlier are the most valuable. They offer substantial coverage of the subject and originate from reputable publications. Some of the additions made by @Perfectstangerz are behind a paywall, but they could contribute to establishing notability. Royal88888 (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: AN article with this long of a history needs more policy-based input please Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  15:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete – Feels like a case of WP:PROMO and WP:COI. Other than that, a lot of non-WP:SIGCOV sources. In addition, the sources listed in the discussion above feel like press releases. Maybe a rewrite could make it, eh, fine... TLA  (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Saying the sources "feel like press release" is much different than being a Press Release. If the sources do not state they are a press release and the bottom of page does not have an ABOUT section and contact info, then it is not a press release. Another way to tell is to search the article to see if you can find a duplicate on another site, if not, you should not assume it is a press release. Often press is sent out, but when journalists write their own version from the press releases, they are no longer considered a press release. Which parts of the article did you think sound promotional? I have reviewed and can't see any promo issues. Royal88888 (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per other comments above. Notable as the President of GHD Group, which has been around since 1928 (not some kind of flimsy startup). Also notable as the President of Australian Computer Society, another notable organization. Awards can be trimmed if they look a bit promotional, but overall still meets WP:NBIO criteria. Has plenty of press coverage in various mainstream Australian news outlets and thus meets SIGCOV. Batmanthe8th (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: PROMO, Gnews is all Forbes Council posts by this person, very much sponsored. Nothing to be found otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Forbes Council is irrelevant. Please check my source analysis below, There are plenty of good sources. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like a promo. None of his awards add to notability. No articles link to this except one on his surname. LibStar (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Check this page Australian Computer Society. He has a link from there. Since he has an award from a listed company on Wikipedia, it should be considered a notable award. The award "Leadership Excellence Award from the Queensland Government" also seems like a big deal. Royal88888 (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * " Since he has an award from a listed company on Wikipedia, it should be considered a notable award" No, doesn't make it a notable award. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - Here is a source analysis. Note this is not everything. I skipped the passing mentions.
 * - MBANews - Reliable Publication, Non-primary, In-Depth Article
 * - ARN - Reliable Publication,  Non-primary, In-Depth Article
 * - IPthree - Partly interview, but it has long bio on him. Reliable Publication, Can't say if this is Primary or not, content may have been provided by the subject, In-Depth Article
 * - CQ University - Reliable Publication, Non-primary, In-Depth Article
 * - Indian Link - Reliable Publication, Non-primary, In-Depth Article
 * - ITNews - Reliable Publication, Non-primary, In-Depth Article
 * - International Federation for Information Processing -Reliable Publication, Non-primary, In-Depth Article
 * - iabca - Bio and profile, can be considered primary* The Hindustan Business Line - Behind paywall, but this may just be a mention based on the title
 * - Mail - Reliable Publication, About half of the article can be considered primary and the other half is not, as it has some quotations, but also original coverage, In-Depth Article

Perfectstrangerz (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject, Kumar R. Parakala, demonstrates notability through various reliable sources, including MBANews, ARN, CQ University, Indian Link, and ITNews, providing in-depth coverage of his contributions and accomplishments. His role as President of the GHD Group, a longstanding organization since 1928, and his presidency of the Australian Computer Society contribute significantly to his notability. Awards, such as the Leadership Excellence Award from the Queensland Government, further underscore his recognition in notable spheres. While some critics have raised concerns about promotional language, the substantial press coverage and acknowledgment from reputable publications fulfill the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. The inclusion of Kumar R. Parakala in significant industry publications and leadership roles justifies retaining the article."KarKuZoNga (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This comment appears to be generated by AI. SailingInABathTub 🛁</b> 10:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Summarizing comment doesn't make it ai. Not sure about your point. If you have issue with my Keep vote and its justification please give proper argument to oppose that. KarKuZoNga (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, but the contrast in the writing style between your two comments does. All the quoted publications are either promotional (MBANews - a marketing company to promote studying an MBA in Australia, IndianLink - promoting the south asian community in Australia), niche trade publications (ARN & ITNews - both covering the IT industry in Australia) or have no editorial oversight (CQ University - the subject's university) and are unsuitable for determining notability. The subject has no credible claim to notability and the article violates both WP:PROMOTION and WP:SALT. <b style="padding:5px">SailingInABathTub</b> <b style="padding:5px;background:#3366cc;color:white">🛁</b> 12:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 100% agree, @SailingInABathTub. All of the other contributions that KarKuZoNga has made to deletion discussions all appear to be AI generated. GraziePrego (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if someone uses AI to better their grammar. Have you considered that English is not the first language for many? His arguments are valid. Let's review these sources more closely and look at the nominator's arguments which seem to be trying to validate his nomination of the page for deletion.
 * A publication about "MBA" does not make it promotional. Every publication is about a certain subject.
 * ARN is owned by Foundry, an IDG Company. Check the bottom of the site.This is a major media company, so we can assume they have editorial oversight.
 * ITNews is owned by Nextmedia, another major news company.
 * IndianLink is an Australian publication since 1994 and has won 27 awards (listed on their site and can be verified). They also have editors listed on their site, so there is oversight.
 * All these publications appear to be credible. There is absolutely no evidence any of them publish paid articles without disclosure as the nominator seem to imply. This is just the nominator's opinion, so let's let the closing admin be the judge. It seems to me the nominator is throwing any argument he can to validate his nomination. Royal88888 (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.