Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumaran Mahalingam


 * 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 Speedy delete. (non-admin closure) M assiveYR   ♠  16:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Kumaran Mahalingam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject to an unconfessed paid job and now CU-banned accounts (Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji), therefore this violates our WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:NPOV, WP:Five pillars, WP:Terms of Use and WP:Paid, all fundamental laws in terms of what content can and cannot be used. If we examine that alone, it's enough for any deletion, but especially when the sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 (this one especially known for taking in "donated" stories), 8 (a labeled "local heroes"), 9, 10 - local indiscriminate story, 5 - personal website, 6 - a hosted story, 11 is another listing and 12 is yet the same as before. If we consider that in weight alone, it shows this is meant as a locally hosted article in addition to what he's used, and that is immediately what an encyclopedia is not. SwisterTwister  talk  20:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  20:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Selective Merge to Standup paddleboarding § History . From source searches, this appears to be a WP:BLP1E situation at this time. However, it is verified that the subject has been listed in the Limca Book of Records (source), which is certainly noteworthy, and the main article has no mention of this. Regarding "subject to an unconfessed paid job and now CU-banned accounts..." in the nomination, I could be missing something, but the article creator has not been blocked or banned (block log). More context about this aspect of the rationale in the nomination would be appreciated. Is there an SPI report available about the matter? North America1000 21:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What policy basis is there for bypassing our Terms of Use which says These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation and the now CU-banned user had not (despite several times asked), but actually then subsequently continued sockpuppetry. Our WP:Five pillars is clear this behavior is not tolerated and by keeping is, is treading on our fundamentals. SwisterTwister   talk  21:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, could you link to a SPI report? The article creator, has not been blocked (block log). Are you referring to a different user, rather than the article creator? If so, who? North America1000 21:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I blocked them; see Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji. G5 is now feasible. No comment regarding the suitability of the article, though. GABgab 02:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * N.b. Struck my !vote above. Thanks for the update, . North America1000 15:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Regardless of the provenance of the article and its contributors, the subject is not notable. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as a non-notable TOU violation by a CU confirmed sock that was created after the initial block. This isn't even a moral certainty of G5 case: the initial master was blocked on 19 July. The article was created on 1 August. Clear cut case. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete I agree with . It should be speedy deleted per WP:G5: "pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block". --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2017 (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.