Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kiruba shankar


 * Comment: I never wanted to waste my time in this frustrating exercise in futility to disprove the notability as evidenced by the cited sources in conformity to the Project's existing guidelines (and, Attribution in preparation stage) to establish notability of living persons.  However, I was forced to intervene to protect the integrity and reputation of the Project. We should be  bold while editing and perhaps while discussing too, but not over bold to transgress certain limits set forth by Wikipedia and which the Wikipedia Foundation expects us to follow and comply with while discussing certain issues. We should understand clearly that editing Wikipedia is a privilege and not a right. To my utter amazement and disappointment, I find that this discussion relating to biography of a living person has de-generated into a style which perhaps contravenes general guidelines of WP:BLP and may be construed to be  contravening the limits and bordering to become libelous if the free-flow style of discussion is allowed to be continued in this fashion, the discussion may acquire all the attributes of libel as enshrined in the relevant guidelines, apart from developing as a classic example of WP:POINT by the editor over-discussing the issue and requesting for Super Duper Delete. I am sure that the editor concerned has faith in the community of wikipedians to decide the issue without interjecting with his comments on all “Keeps”. It looks highly funny! And, I am reminded of people having names like Karoepati (multi-millionaires) and being beggars.  --Bhadani 05:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And, it stood so decided. --Bhadani 05:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Classic example of WP:POINT ?? -


 * I took a look at the WP:Point page and this is what I found regarding the issue.


 * ''If someone creates an article on what you believe to be a silly topic, and the community disagrees with your assessment on Articles for deletion...
 * ''do make your case clearly on AfD, pointing to examples of articles that would be allowable under the rules the community is applying.
 * don't create an article on an entirely silly topic just to get it listed on AfD. 


 * I am sure I did not create any article about anybody whom even I considered a 'non notable' person to prove a point.
 * I apologise for my ignorance, but as an admin can you please enlighten me about which clause of WP:POINT I may have broken so that I can be more careful in future and help realise the dreams of Jimbo Wales and the Wikipedia foundation more effectively. Sarvagnya 18:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * p.s: Just for the record, I didnt say 'Super duper delete' as User:Bhadani has spiced up above, I said 'Super speedy delete'. Sarvagnya 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The collective wisdom of the community of wikipedians have kept the article - the taste of pudding is in eating! --Bhadani 19:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The truth does not depend on collective 'wisdom' of few wikipedians. And in any case, I am still waiting to hear from you about your WP:POINT and other accusations. Sarvagnya 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And, there is no point in becoming sarcastic in your comments about the dream of Jimbo Wales. --Bhadani 19:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I reserve as much, if not more admiration for Jimbo Wales' dream as you do. There is no question of me being sarcastic or harming the integrity and reputation of the project.  Please do not be under any illusions that you are the only protector of the integrity and reputation of the project.  Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Super speedy delete
Super speedy delete means exactly what it says. In any case, I dont think it was necessary for you to comment on what you perceived as 'acrobatic' nature of my words especially when I had taken the pains to explain my logic at length on the same page and more so because, you didnt even vote and your only comment was useless to the discussion there. Sarvagnya 20:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)