Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Kishore Shukla


 * 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   keep. Many of the delete arguments here do not relate to wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion and so have little weight, while the nominator his withdrawn support for deletion. The keep arguments demonstrate that the article meets the WP:POLITICIAN notability guideline and the copyright concerns appear to have been dealt with. Therefore there is a consensus here for keeping the article based on wikipedia's guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ram Kishore Shukla

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Messed up and obviously cannot be fixed.  J (t)  06:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn this article's deletion ONLY IF the user chooses to move the article to userspace, so they can fix it. -- J (t)  06:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This was a perfectly good article which one or two editors are for some reason determined to have deleted. Various methods have been tried, including repeatedly tagging for speedy deletion under speedy deletion criterion G7 (one author who has requested deletion) despite the fact that there have been contributions from many different editors, not just one, and putting a whole string of PROD templates on the article. All the references were removed, and the article was then proposed for deletion on the grounds of lacking references. The article was then "messed up", as the nominator says, leaving it in a state that was totally unfit for use as an article, but it is not true that it "obviously cannot be fixed": it can simply be reverted to an earlier version before it was messed up, and I have done that. The article was removed and put in user space, but that was a mistake, as there is a potentially usable article there, containing contributions by many editors. While the move to userspace was no doubt done in good faith, it effectively bypassed the deletion process by removing an article without discussion. It should not have been removed from article space without a chance for editors to discuss it, so I have returned it to main space. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * At two points in the above comment I referred to contributions from "many" editors. That was a slip on my part: I meant to write "several", not "many". JamesBWatson (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral (I'm still not convinced he's notable) &mdash; but the content is entirely the work of, with tags by me, and vandalism and vandalism removal.  He should be able to userfy it.  However, I'm beginning to suspect that (at least) , , , and Ballisticizer, should be blocked for WP:COMPETENCE, which would make article improvement unlikely.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is, if they are different people.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep. The official sources provided adequate evidence of notability.  The problem that the major contributors do not write standard English of any variety, and are all the subject's family, may make article improvement unlikely, but the factual sections about his political career, trimmed to actual facts, and rewritten in English, would make a reasonable core of an article.  (As per WP:NPA, there's no shame in not speaking English.  I'm sure the contributors all speak English much better than I speak their native langauge.  This is, however, en.Wikipedia.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I am relative of the family of him, but when the real members of the family, like his sons and grand sons came to know about it, they immediately started criticizing me asking who are you to do it? this is the primary reason, secondary one is some unregistered users continuously tried to blank it thus created a lot of nuisance for us primarily by Arthur Rubin, he just kept arguing and filled up all the talk page, if the talk page entries are deleted then i will ask my co-creators not to vote for delete, However we are interested to write it from the beginning we people have the source file. Please Consider, Nothing offensive is going on. Thank You Very Much --Alcides86 (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) Members of his family not liking the article is not a reason for deletion under Wikipedia policy. (2) Blanking by unregistered users can be dealt with by blocking the IPs (as has been done) and by page protection if necessary: it is certainly not a reason for deletion, which just gives the vandals what they want. (3) Arthur Rubin has made constructive comments on the talk page. On the other hand, one or more other editors, using both IP addresses and accounts such as Alcides86, Ballisticizer, and Imbot, have repeatedly removed Arthur Rubin's comments without explanation, have refactored those comments to make Arthur Rubin appear to say things that he never said, and Ballisticizer has used the talk page to make personal attacks on him. I am sure that you must be aware of all that. None of this, however, is a reason for deleting the article, by any stretch of the imagination. (4) I can't begin to think why removing the talk page comments that you don't like might be considered to remove reasons for deletion of the article. (4) If you wish to improve the article then why don't you go ahead and do so? That is not a reason for deleting the existing version first. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Prime creator Alcides86 (talk) is absolutely correct i concur with his views. thanks--Ballisticizer (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As per JamesWatson the subject was a member of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Beohari (Vidhan Sabha constituency), a Former Speaker ,Minister in the Madhya Pradesh Government . Former members of a national, state or provincial legislature are clearly notable as per WP:Politician .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Respected administrators and users, even i want it be kept but my request is just to start a new talk page for the article, otherwise 'I' specially will quit to the article Although, as per JamesBWatson (talk) the article has Good article standards but when any of us nominated it for Good Article User Arthur Rubin just Canceled it at first. we people are not so fluent in using Wikipedia like you people. The request here is just only to clear the talk page once or Article itself once deleted. I will create it with in ten minutes as i am having the source file complete. please consider the GA nomination, Talk page factor or we will loose our trust a lot. Thank You Very Much --Alcides86 (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not near to GA standards; I removed 12 Google document "sources" written by a single person which appeared unpublished, and it's not entirely (in my opinion, even mostly) written in standard English. (WP:ENGVAR doesn't include pidgin.)  That's not even counting the WP:PEACOCK words.  (I tagged a few of them while removing the "sources", but there are still dozens more.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I still saying please consider our request of talk page or tell us the way to move merge so that it has a fresh talk page, for gods sake its our right here we contributed a lot thanks --Ballisticizer (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Tell us the way to clear the talk page or, how to merge to article with the same title THANK YOU --RKS4444 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree to administrators but at the same time we have also a great share in contribution, if the article is not deleted to be rewritten to a new page or talk page is cleared, i will suggest to create a new article with similar title and then will PRAY to you people to merge this on that, ultimately to have a fresh talk page, i beg your considerations Thanking you --Dr.pragmatist (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see that either of those two posts gives a reason for deletion. As I said above, if you can improve the article then you can do so by editing it, without first deleting. "I can write a better article on the subject" is a reason for improving the article, not a reason for deleting it. Unfortunately, the comments in those two posts about the talk page, together with Alcides86's remark "if the talk page entries are deleted then i will ask my co-creators not to vote for delete", are making me wonder if the primary reason for asking for deletion is a wish for the talk page to disappear from view, to hide the shenanigans that have gone on there, that I mentioned above. I sincerely hope that is not the purpose of seeking deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn deletion nomination - I think the article is fine now. :) -- J (t)  15:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that is no longer grounds for a speedy keep, as others have !voted DELETE, for reasons that I have been unable to translate into reasons consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep . I don't really understand what the problem was with this article in the first place. Although there is not that much available about him free, online, and in English, what I can find clearly indicates that the subject was a state-level legislator in India and thus notable under WP:POLITICIAN -- and anyway, sources are not required to be available free, online, or in English to be used. There are certainly some problems with the writing in this article but they can be dealt with through normal editing. I also do not understand some editors' problems with the talk page of this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing my "keep" recommendation because much of this article was copied word for word from one of its sources, . The article resembled the source even more closely yesterday, but I had rewritten some of the sentences for grammatical reasons before I realized the possible copyright violation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed copyright violation and it is a stub but still notable as per WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please elaborate how to resolve this copyright problem in brief. Thanks --Alcides86 (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, in spite i have edited it several times before i knew its copyright issue i suggest it to be deleted, as violated copyrights, not having sufficient resources beyond his representation of his constituency therefore cannot be expanded beyond a stub. --Dr.pragmatist (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, you have already given a "delete" message: it is unhelpful to duplicate that, as it may give the misleading impression of another user saying "delete". Secondly, the fact that the article is now much shorter is not a reason for deleting it. If you, or anyone else, can expand it, then fine: if not, then we can keep the present short article. I really don't see what problem you have with that. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously, per WP:POLITICIAN. There's clearly an agenda among those who are calling for deletion, and the best way to get any of their concerns taken into account would be for them to tell us exactly what their problem is. If there's anything in the talk page or its history that violates our policy on avoiding harm to living people then that can be addressed without deleting the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Respected, Phil Bridger (talk) however i have already requested to above present administrators here to solve the issue of talk page, that is to restore it to the beginning for one time for Christ's sake, as this article was understood as a homage to him, but its talk page turned into some thing day by day made us to abandon ourselves from Wikipedia since we were never as fluent as you people, please consider my request for one time on moral grounds. Please consider my helpless requests, i apologize on my side, Thanks a lot --Alcides86 (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, writing a page as a "homage" is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Every time you edit Wikipedia, just under the "save" button, there is a message (admittedly a small one) which says "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Once you post content to Wikipedia you voluntarily give up control of it, and you cannot decide to have an article deleted because you want to hide what other editors have subsequently done to the page you started. It is also not at all clear what it is about the talk page that you wish to hide from public view. Is it the fact that other editors have criticised aspects of the article? Or the methods that you and your collaborators have attempted to use? Or what? Whatever it is, the fact remains that, when you write anything in Wikipedia, you cannot then have it deleted because you don't like what subsequently happens to what you have started. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Userfy Article will be once again grown under official sources arriving very soon from Govt. archives. Thank you very much --Alcides86 (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject is notable under WP:POLITICIAN - we should therefore have an article on him, even if it's only a stub. The main motivation behind most of the above delete !votes seems to be deletion of the talkpage - that isn't, nor has it ever been, a reason to delete an article. Given the severe COI and COMPETENCE issues, I am giving serious consideration to proposing article bans for Alcides86, Dr.pragmatist, RKS4444 and Ballisticizer at AN, to allow the article to be developed by uninvolved editors. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 07:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral Since some sources have been given recently seems to be found reliable and copyright issue is not there. Thanks --Dr.pragmatist (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Clearly meets notability as a politician. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 4 July 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.