Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam (2nd 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. Mkdw talk 19:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Rajkumar Kanagasingam
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This author's only claim to notability rests on two awards, covered only by a newspaper affiliated with the author (and nowhere else, as far as I can tell). Neither award appears to be notable; one is from a non-notable NGO, and the other is a "Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition" which seem to be handed out like candy by individual American congresscritters. Psychonaut (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please don't remove the references which are independent of the subject. They may establish notability for his other works, other than the awards.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have reinstated the removed references by the nominator which may support establishing the subject's notability based on independent, global and multiple coverage.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Some of the articles which were removed by the nominator are, where the subject is quoted and not written by him.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Of the six references I removed, four were written by Kanagasingam himself, and one is from his employer; these cannot be used to establish notability, and are overkill for establishing that the man is a writer. The remaining one refers to Kanagasingam only in passing.  Here is the entirety of what it says about him:  "Four years back, Sri Lankan Rajkumar Kanagasingam wrote about TAK's Sri Lanka connection in his book German Memories in Asia but couldn't meet the man. 'I got information and details through friends and sources he says.' [sic]" —Psychonaut (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Who is that employer? What is your rationale for that? Even in Concordia University, his article is published referencing him; that is not a local newspaper you to remove it; that add weight to the criteria of Wikipedia multiple sources.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be Daily News, the same paper many of his other articles appear in. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are totally wrong, a contributing writer never considered to be an employee of a news media.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The legal nature of the arrangement is irrelevant. The newspaper employs (or "pays" or "engages", if you prefer) Kanagasingam to write articles; that creates a conflict of interest in their reporting on him.  Articles from Daily News and its sister publications are not reliable sources for Kanagasingam. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are wrong again. They don't employ them, they are free lance writers. There is no sister newspaper of Daily News sourced here. Daily Mirror and Daily FT are sister newspapers, still they may have different editorial control.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's the article before it was stripped of what was termed "refspam". I've looked at it, and "refspam" seems a fair enough description. Delete per nom; and, since an article on this person keeps reappearing, salt. -- Hoary (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you explain what you termed by "reappearing"; you are an administrator you should be more responsible when you respond something. After the article was created it was nominated for deletion, an the result was Keep and then it was renominated for deletion and the result was Delete. There after it is recreated nearly 8 and 1/2 years later that is now only.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please explain what your rationale for your finding,".......and, since an article on this person keeps reappearing....". If it is a mistake, then it is OK, otherwise I will take this issue for RfC.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You voted "Delete" nearly 8 and 1/2 years ago on this subject's deletion discussion, and now too you voted "Delete"; what I could guess is your vote and your involvement in this deletion discussion process is more malicious than good faith.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article seems to have only once reappeared after deletion. &para; You are very welcome to make guesses about the motives of other editors, for example, me. I frequently make such guesses myself. However, I rarely express them, for several reasons, one of which is that I doubt that anybody else would be interested. (There's also WP:AGF.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the rectification. Your story on Guessing is interesting.(BTW: A while ago only I have seen my school days love interest's photos on a social media with whom I have reconnected a few months back; we lost each other by wrong guessing and apologized after 3 decades. Your story well related............, thanks). — Preceding unsigned comment added by UmakanthJaffna (talk • contribs) 09:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Trivial awards, inadequate truly RSs for notability DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: DGG also voted "Delete" nearly 8 and 1/2 years ago  on this subject's deletion discussion. I am wondering when there are more than 10, 000 editors on English Wikipedia, what made those who have cast "Delete" votes already, so far turned up.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * One might just as well ask what led to the sudden reappearance of this puffery-laden article on a largely unknown writer. Would you care to disclose whether you are or have any connection with Rajkumar Kanagasingam or those operating the confirmed and suspected sockpuppet accounts listed at Suspected sock puppets/Archive/May 2008, Requests for checkuser/Case/Rajsingam, Suspected sock puppets/JCC Friends, Suspected sock puppets/Borseter, and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2009? —Psychonaut (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't mislead people Spam Blacklist is on Idea Marketers and it belongs to Marnie Pehrson.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should try reading the entire spam report instead of just the title. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I read but your title is misleading. Don't mislead by the cover of the book.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Can you disclose that you are not canvassing votes or no affiliation with the geopolitics of this region directly or indirectly?UmakanthJaffna (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that "No" a "No, I am not Rajkumar Kanagasingam nor anyone connected with him," or a "No, I don't want to disclose whether or not I am"? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am not Rajkumar Kanagasingam. But I know him. Answer to my under mentioned questions first, I want to know what on earth you are so furious with the subject given the fact your unethical canvassing by spamming on others talk pages rather than listing the discussion appropriately.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Now only I checked your contribution, you try to canvass votes spamming those who have involved in the last deletion discussion, that is unethical since that discussion has ended as Delete and your expectation is biased. You should have listed the deletion discussion under Sri Lanka or other relevant lists.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I refer you to WP:APPNOTE. If you believe that notifying all extant editors from the previous discussion is unethical, you are welcome to attempt to change the guideline by consensus at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But the previous deletion discussion was nearly 8 and 1/2 years ago. What made you think still those editors' comments have value over the discussion?If so, why you haven't notified the editors who have participated another discussion just couple of months ago of that where the result was "Keep". Why you missed the discussion being listed appropriately? Please respond the following questions as well.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you disclose you have no affiliation with the geopolitics of this region directly or indirectly?UmakanthJaffna (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you disclose whether you have any affiliation with the organizations, individuals or incidents directly or directly where the subject's articles or the book content might have adverse effect? Or have you edited any of the Wikipedia articles where the subject's articles or the book content might have adverse effect? if so can you disclose those.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * How can anyone have any affiliation (direct or indirect) with the geopolitics of any region? On which organization, individual or incident might the subject's articles or the book content have an adverse effect? -- Hoary (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * What I asked from the nominator is whether he has any connection with organizations or individuals which have been affected by the articles written or the book authored by Rajkumar Kanagasingam?Also whether the nominator involved with any of the Wikipedia articles where the newspaper articles written by Rajkumar Kanagasingam are sourced and critical of those Wikipedia articles?UmakanthJaffna (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Which organizations or individuals have been affected by articles or a book written by Rajkumar Kanagasingam? As for the use in en:Wikipedia of articles written by him, it's not obvious that there is any such use: the list of articles with links to the article on Rajkumar Kanagasingam had zero items when I looked at it less than five minutes ago. -- Hoary (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be not there now, but it might have been there and being removed. But this question is to the nominator, not to you. Sorry.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, there's TripAdvisor, into which a small contingent of IPs and accounts have doggedly been attempting to insert references to Kanagasingam's articles since at least March of this year . I suppose that UmakanthJaffna has known this all along, and was preparing to use my passing involvement in that article to attack my good faith in nominating this one for deletion. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. Hoary has well responded on Guessing.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please respond the following since you haven't responded above;


 * The previous deletion discussion was nearly 8 and 1/2 years ago. What made you to think still those editors' comments have value over the discussion?If so, why you haven't notified the editors who have participated another discussion just couple of months ago of that where the result was "Keep". Why you missed the discussion being listed appropriately?UmakanthJaffna (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, clearly not notable. Searches did not turn up anything to show they pass the notability criteria.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:10, 31 October 2015 (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.