Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manu Shanker Mishra


 * 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. MuZemike 20:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Manu Shanker Mishra

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

I removed the db-test tag because this article is not a test. Notability is also asserted by Mishra's publication of several books. Possibly non-notable lawyer. I have brought this article to AfD to consider whether or not Manu Shanker Mishra is notable. The article lists three worldcat.org links as sources; however, none of them are accessible. A Google News Archive search returns no reliable sources. If sources can be found to establish notability or if it is shown that the subject passes WP:PROF, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Cunard (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Cunard (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete : This looks like an elaborate astroturfing / self promotion campaign. the worldcat references, had me fooled for a moment. There are a lot of commentators pushing mishra's name in unrelated web forums like here, here and here. The claims about him are bizarre. The lawyer himself seems to exist - here is a website with a photograph of mishra. The modus operandi seems to be post a large number of comments in different names in unrelated blog posts, article comment threads all referring to Mishra and his books. The common names they use are trish borgese, Prof. R N Yadav, Gerdt Corpeleijn, navneet kumar, mrigendra ranjan, Shilpa Modi, anoop singh patwal, Turrel Matisoff, Ashutosh Rai, allen foster, lance bensch, Samuel Ignacio Aguil and laura grimblay (same user name who is pushing mishra in wikipedia). User_talk:Laura.grimblay tried to add stuff into the New Age article as well and has been since reverted. Speedy deletion (hoax article) if possible--Sodabottle (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete< sources are CornellUniversity Library catalogue,Call Numbe PR9495.25M57 2007 (Chogyal),Yale University Library Catalogue, Call Number BL1237.34 M36 2005 (Chogyal), University of Cambridge Classmark C203.c.7806, (Chogyal, SOAS Classmark JA821.3/599664 (Chogyal, Rutgers University Library catalogue call no PR9495.2SM57 2005, Columbia University Library Catalogue Call Number PR9495.23.M57 2005g, LL.B Washington College of Law Library Call K230.M35 2006Oxford University Call Number Jurisp 510 m294a.LSE Classmark K460 M29,Harvard University catalogue Hollis Number o11740461, Peace Palace Library Request Number 392 E 49,Google Book Search, Abe Books, Alibris, Amazon for Methodological Frame of the Field,Princeton University Library Call No. Q A8.4.M365 2005, Cambridge University Rayleigh Library Classmark 99M LMS Barcode 2807952085.59.88.176.114 (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC) — 59.88.176.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Google Scholar and News returns nothing; Google Books returns 1 hit (His book of Indic poetry Cho-gyal)
 * A search using the transliteration मनु शंकर मिश्र (findsources added above) returned nothing for Google Scholar and Google News. Google Books returns nothing for the entire phrase. If I got the transliteration wrong (I used Google Translate), please provide the correct one and I will do another search. However, unless anything else crops up, I do not see that Mishra is notable. No one is disputing the fact that he has published books - but that in itself does not make him notable (and the books themselves do not appear themselves to be notable - see Notability (books)). Mishra appears to fail WP:BIO and specifically WP:AUTHOR. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Entire objections are from the State of Kerala,India. Sodabottle,Cunard, Mathew Yeager are able to do research in a couple of seconds. It all stems from a news in Lima bean exposing one Manu Joseph, a journalist with Outlook magazine from Kerala. The sources are verifiable and Newspaper reports and book reviews in newspapers can be provided>59.88.176.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC). — 59.88.176.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. OK ,have it your way, the entire objections are arising within seconds from a coterie of journalists who run a blackmailing racket.Manu Joseph was impersonating as an expert on super string, The Times of India, Tuesday July 4 ,2006, Each and every objector is afraid that they are exposed. This matter requires serious consideration as these pressure to delete is coming within seconds. If you would care to check out thes objectors they are all false e mail ID'S. More details Russian Academy of Sciences, Sobolyev's Mathematics Institute 53 M 26,for Methodological Frame of The FieldIndian Institute of Technology, Kanpur Call No. 510.1 M319M, Indian Institute Of Technology, Bombay, 213386 167 Mis.59.88.176.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC). — 59.88.176.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Comment: Sodabottle on check is from Kerala, including Cunardand Mathew Yegar. This coterie is reacting because of Manu Joseph who impersonated Manu (Shanker Mishra) as he writes the books with the name Manu only.Check the impersonation by Manu Joseph in The Times of India, Tuesday, July 4, 2006.Google book search very well shows these books and their influence as well worldcat.org numbers are correct.Oh, the citation of Lund University ,Sweden for LL.B is Libris ID 11211460,Manu Joseph and this coterie raising the plea for fast deletion run a scam where they publish lists of Expected notabe Prize Winners from India.For these objectors seeking fast deletion the world maybe falling apart but wikipedia is not cited or treated as authentic in law courts.59.88.176.141 (talk)59.88.176.141 (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment to 59.88.176.114: You are sounding a bit paranoid. Where is there any indication that Cunard or Sodabottle did research in "a couple of seconds"? I have no idea how long they researched for, but Sodabottle's !vote was added almost 2 hours after Cunard put the article to AfD - plenty of time to research. I assume "Mathre Yeager" is meant to be me? I spent about 20 minutes looking for sources (if you look at my contributions, you'll see the gap!). Rather than claiming that we are not researching this person, or that there is a conspiracy, may I suggest that you find reliable, independent sources that show that Mishra is notable? --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 14:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I have done a few searches myself (Manu Shanker Mishra), (Manu Mishra) (Shanker Misra) (M.S. Mishra)(मनु शंकर मिश्र) to try to see if I can find sources for this article, and I have not come up with any substantial sources on the subject. What I do find interesting is that what does often come up are comments made on articles about the Nobel Prize and "Most Influential People" articles suggesting that the subject be listed. It almost appears if there is a coordinated effort by a group of people to have "Manu Shanker Mishra" mentioned in comments on major articles. That aside, I see no articles at present that can verify this subject's claim to notability. If a series of articles in any language can be produced to show notability, I am willing to change my vote, but at present, there is nothing in the article that meets verifiability standards. Mrathel (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment to 59.88.176.114: a) I am not a journalist and am not from Kerala b)I hadnt heard of Mishra before today and have no involvement whatsoever c)Stop being paranoid. There is no one out to get you. Please note i found Mishra's firm's website and a TOI article proving existence (why would i do that if i am out to get you?) d) It takes hardly 15 minutes to run google searches with various permutations of Mishra's name. e)It is not my doing that all the search hits to Mishra seem like the result of a badly run SEO effort.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment : :-)) Dude seriously, i am not from Kerala. (In case people are wondering, The 59.88.**.** IP block belongs to the State run ISP BSNL. It provides a dynamic IP service and IPs can be changed by switching the modem off and on )--Sodabottle (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Let the world know that a women is a dude in cybercafe language.Kindly note that we do know about these editors. This coterie of journalists with their awesome research does not impress me.Manu Josepph impersonated. The research of so called news articles and newsmagazines may cut ice with Wikipedia but not with us.Neither Wikipedia nor newspaper reports are authentic and verfiable information in law.Laura.grimblay (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Do Not Delete: Xxanthippe,is from the same IP address as Cunard,sodawater,Phantom Server,Mathew Yegar are all hoax and false e-mail ID's.It is the same scamsters from Kerala using a BSNL as 59.88.**.** IP blog. It provides a dynamic IP service and IP's can be changed by switching the modem on and off. Mr. Manu Joseph of Outlook magazine runs a racket in India publishing lists of expected noble prize winners and so on.Manu Joseph impersonated Manu ( Shanker Mishra)in the Times of India,July 4, 2006.The back pages of Chogyal,Methodological Frame of the Field and Legum Baccalaureus gives the dates as well as publication of reviews in journals,and newspapers.http://worldcat.org/oclc/69984201 http://worldcat.org/oclc/6259898 http://worldcat.org/oclc/478432047 http://worldcat.org/oclc/297203511 have been verified all over again and also the book sellers on Amazon, Alibris,Abebooks which are global.Laura.grimblay (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is hard to find. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC).
 * I am certainly not from the same IP address as the above. Do a sock search if you insist. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC).
 * I concur with Xxanthippe: if you believe that we are all the same person, then take this to WP:SPI. Can I also point out that no one has said that the books haven't been published - merely that there is no indication that either they or the author meet the notability criteria that Wikipedia has for inclusion. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How can you delete what was added. I am also a user of Wikipedia.All these are employees of the same company in South India of computer hackers.They have hacked worldcat.org numbers which are http://worldcat.org/oclc/69984201,http://worldcat.org/oclc 4744832047,http://worldcat.org/oclc/297203511.The Information Technology Act has criminal punishment for such hackers and bloggers who deface sites They are from the same site 59.88** **.Laura.grimblay (talk) —Preceding undated Any feel free to ask us the name of this South India based company where this site is and whose employees you all are.We doubt your academic qualifications.Your MD is going to be briefed.comment added 10:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC). 115.184.212.247 (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Spartacus. Also because most of the article is an unintelligible jumble of call codes and the rest of it is an unintelligible jumble of string-theoretic new age buzzword mumbo-jumbo, there are no reliable sources, and the article presents no reason to believe that the author subject is notable. Borderline WP:CSD speedy deletion as patent nonsense. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, probably hoax. - TB (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of notability at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing verifiable to indicate notability. Nsk92 (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Do not Delete, The South Indian Company for which these bloggers are employees is being sued.Each objection is a spam arising from 59.88** ** a state owned BSNL dynamic IP address, probably Infosys.These employees are using fake names and on being exposed are trying to coverup by flooding with fast deletion messages.115.184.136.197 (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Do not Delete. We have the exact name of the employees of this South India based Company, the spam objections in fictitious names like Cunard to Xxanthippe should be deleted.The US Hq. be warned not to issue any outsourced business to this South India based company and as this company is not in favour of freedom of the internet it be condemned as a fraud company which uses spam and hacking to get business.Laura.grimblay (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Laura.grimblay (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To Laura.grimblay (and anyone else who this applies to): I'm getting a bit fed up with your accusations that the people recommending deleting this article are spammers, etc. If you truly believe this, go to Sockpuppet investigations and put in a request to check if any of us are the same person. I don't know why you are so desperate to keep this article (I can only assume you have some connection to the subject) - but making such accusations will not keep the article. The only thing that will keep the article will be if reliable, independent sources are provided showing that Manu Shanker Mishra (not his books) are notable as a person. All your wild accusations (about sock puppetry, about those who are !voting "delete" being in the same place - and being bloggers from a South Indian Company, etc, etc) do not detract from the fact that there is insufficient evidence of Mishra's notability either in the article itself, or in any sources that the editors who have already commented here (whether you believe that we are who we say so or not) could find. This is my last comment on this issue, unless some reliable sources can be found showing independent evaluation of Mishra's notability --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration, but I would not let it get to me. The accusations of this single-purposed account are not justified and there is nothing to worry about. That this editor has titled his or her last edit postmodern leads me to question whether or not the accusations of the "coterie of journalists" are even a serious objection to the deletion discussion or of they are somehow an allusion to Crying of Lot 49-style paranoia. In any case, if you feel it is disruptive, there are actions to be taken that won't feed those lurking under the proverbial bridge. Mrathel (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: We understand your frustrations also.These fake names being used by you and other employees of the South India based company, Infosys, you work for.It is your desperation to get this article deleted.Manu Josephs link to your company is based on the scam already exposed here as Mr. Narayan Murthy's brother based in USA is included for the last 5 years in Expected Noble Prize winners.Do not act beyond reasonable prerogatives by using fake names, the timing, IP Server address, Area of origin everything is showing up in computer printout. Kindly retain these electronic records for production in coutrs when demanded. You can continue your spam flooding if you feel like.This is "Whomsoever it may concern".Notice.Kindly consult your legal department.Laura.grimblay (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Comment : Seems you are always connected to this page.It further appears only you have the right to ridicule others. Are you a notable person yourself that you pretended to be editor'o of Wikipedia. You will have enough oppertunity to meet these allegations once the jurisdictional issue is settled.Kindly continue your spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.218.22 (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC) It was left unsigned as this company personnel at the othe end disrupted creating editorial conflict.Laura.grimblay (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Laura.grimblay (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is time for this time-wasting and ridiculous discussion to be closed. Can this be done within the rules? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Yes, I agree. I have posted a note at WP:ANI. Nsk92 (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop your wild and unfounded accusations; it is not going to help your cause in any way. Salih  ( talk ) 04:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, and per several good-faith efforts by other editors above to find reliable sources in other languages. Since this person does not appear to themselves be the subject of substantial reliable sources, it seems likely that they are not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Jayron  32  03:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and comments by User:Sodabottle and others. Didn't find any independent sources on the subject, or any reviews for his books or fringe theories. Worldcat results indicate that the books exist but are virtually unknown. Abecedare (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I will move all those signed comments from the article to its talkpage. This is a mess. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Comments: Your spam is not intimidating. Please continue your notability debate.No-one is interested in your sok-puppet or South Indian Company. Nor are the allegations wild.You have been deleting explanations and other posts. Feel free to delete AfD or whatever.Do not threaten or try to bulldoze.Just keep the present electronic record ready to be shown at relevany places when the time comes.You have very conveniently made alterations to websites you were not authorized by the govt.to.Laura.grimblay (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing found to verify notability. Feel free to file a sockpuppet report on me as well if it will settle your fears.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 05:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Laura needs to knock it off and take it elsewhere. Seriously. feel free to file a sockpuppet investigation; right now, you don't even have checkuser-rights, so your accusations against everybody else are fbaseless. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, for the reasons very ably given above by a number of lucid editors; and I note that I appear to be within a snowstorm being fought by a quixotic gnat, if I may mix my metaphors. -- Hoary (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note Laura.grimblay is now blocked due to their disruptive editing. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It might have been disruptive, it was certainly funny. -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete With this snow, it's looking like a white Christmas.... Priyanath talk 05:09, 16 December 2009 (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.