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 no consensus. Shirahadasha

Frederick Noronha[edit]

Frederick Noronha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

So far, I've counted problems with: Conflict of Interest (COI), Small business/organization (ORG), Use of self-published sources (SPS), and a general verifiability challenge (V). It might or might not be SNOW, I'll leave that to others to decide. Ronabop 05:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Gillyweed 05:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 05:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment during my "past editor notify", I saw this: [1], and I think Frederick may not be aware of how our notability, verifiability, etc., work, as it looks chock full of prod notices. Ronabop 05:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Firstly it should be noted that any COI issues arose after the creation of the article by Nichalp. Although not definitive he gets 78,600 ghits and his work can be found on Google News and Find Articles as well as numerous other sites. He is apparently one of two founders of a notable NGO- BytesForAll. The article requires cleanup and more sources about FN but I think he just meets our criteria for inclusion. Also I note that the article's creator (Nichalp) is away until May and will be unable to comment in this discussion. WjBscribe 05:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• a notable NGO- BytesForAll I'm NOT seeing any sign in that article that it IS a notable NGO, since it doesn't have much in the way of reliable sources. Speaking of which, how about a few, just as evidence? It's not up to us to do your work for you. --Calton | Talk 06:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Frankly I don't appreciate the tone of that comment. Please keep it civil. I've only just come across these articles- you expect me to magic sources out of a hat? I'll look into it... WjBscribe 06:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reality intrudes: you made the claim, you get to back it up. --Calton | Talk 07:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, someone needs to learn manners. If you check the Google News archives there are a fair few sources for BytesForAll. Besides that, it isn't BytesForAll that is being discussed here, it is Frederick Noronha and personally I think this is a case of systemic bias. I don't think it's so terribly hard to click the link WJBscribe gave and see that there are lots of potential sources. Kamryn Matika 08:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I see only 262 unique hits on Google. That's more significant than the number of raw hits.--A. B. ^(talk) 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, someone needs to learn manners. And someone needs to learn to back up claims with actual evidence instead of vague handwaving and bluster. I repeat, it's not up to us to do your work for you. --Calton | Talk 22:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What work? I understand that the default in a no-consensus AfD is to keep the article. If the default for articles is to keep, surely the burden is upon the delete-voters to prove to the community why this article should not be kept here? I don't agree with your arguments to delete and therefore I want the article to be kept. Not something that is hard to understand. The burden of proof lies with you here and I find your ridiculous aggressive attitude to be really out of place. Kamryn Matika 10:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless actually reliably sourced, both this article and the BytesForAll article propping it up. --Calton | Talk 06:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- WjBscribe 06:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep User:WJBscribe's points are valid. The reasons given for the nomonation are somewhat murky. If the subject is not the creator of the article, it cannot be considered a vanity article and there is no conflict of interest. Wikipedia does not "forbid" individuals from editing articles written about themselves. Seems to me that the subject meets notability standards. Clean it up and source it. Cleo123 06:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please state exactly why this person is notable? (Not harassing you for your !vote - a genuine question). --ElKevbo 06:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If a sock-puppet or a personal fan made an article about me, I have free reign to, oh, "fix it" by replacing all the text with things I like? WP:COI Doesn't *forbid* it, but it points out why this is a Bad Idea (tm)Ronabop 07:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep although it will need, and will get, sources. WP is a cooperative project, and all eds. have a responsibility to improve it and source articles that need it. It's a pity it wasn't sourced right in the first place. but that's easily corrected. Personally, I would not AfD an article as having unsourced N unless I had tried a little myself. DGG 07:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ... and will get, sources. That's not an argument, that's an article of faith.
• It's a pity it wasn't sourced right in the first place. but that's easily corrected. ((sofixit)), then. --Calton | Talk 07:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:WJBscribe, not sufficient evidence provided to prove that this article doesn't belong here on Wikipedia and I believe he is notable enough and has enough sources. The conflict of interest argument is invalid. Kamryn Matika 08:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It seems to me like you've got things backwards. Editors are required to establish the notability of subjects; we are not required to establish the non-notability of subjects (i.e. we don't have to "prove that this article doesn't belong here"). --ElKevbo 14:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the default is to keep an article in no consensus, and the article isn't clearly violating any policies (which it isn't) then we should keep it unless a very good argument why not has been provided (and it hasn't). Kamryn Matika 10:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. FN is a notable journalist, esp. in the cyberspace; his works have been published in many newspapers and journals[2][3] including BBC, Outlook (magazine)[4], Dawn[5] etc. He is also notable in Indian FOSS circles. I've added some refs to the article to sort out WP:SPS and WP:V issues. utcursch | talk 10:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sorry to participate in this very debate (a clear COI), but I guess that coming with a delete vote makes that okay. Just to share what I wrote earlier to the Wikipedia-L list, to put the issues in context: OPENQUOTE Needless to say, I would not bother to make a case for the retention of a page focussing on me. It would be a relief, in fact, if the page went off! Take a look at its history: The page was started on 19:07, 4 August 2005 by Nichalp. It was subsequently edited by others. When I came across it, I realised that my name had initially been spelt wrong. Besides, there were inaccuracies in my description (there is a difference, surely, in being " actively involved in the Indian Free Software Foundation" and writing about it...) I am definitely not "a known (sic) for his articles on Christianity" (admittedly am fairly curious about happenings there, though I don't subscribe to the religion I was born in) ... by that time, I had virtually stopped writing (but subsequently resumed, on another theme) for the Indo-Asian News Service in New Delhi... In addition, I'm not "founder" of BytesForAll, as mentioned, but a co-founder. A number of the websites and blogs mentioned were either outdated or non-functional, and there were new ones not noticed. After waiting awhile, I realised nobody would probably make these corrections, and did so under my own name.... which is actually not supposed to be in which the Wikipedia is meant to work. That was in late Jan-early Feb 2006 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Noronha&action=history ) CLOSEQUOTE I believe this issue came up as I have been raising the wider issue of systemic bias against non-digitised, largely oral societies (which still make for the vast majority of our planet), or even those who are not visible in cyberspace. To me, the wider and more relevant issue isn't about a page that describes me. While I retain my faith in the Wikipedia and its logic, it seems that there is an urgent call for changes that allow it to recognised lesser-digitised societies and cultures that don't have the written word going back centuries (as, say, Europe does). You will find these discussions archived on the Wikipedia-L and related lists. Please see the attempt to retain pages on a range of crucial issues here Rules are fine and needed; but a one-size-fits-all apporach simply doesn't work (and I'm not making these comments about the page in question here, but attempting to address a wider issue... even if somewhat off-topic here!) --fredericknoronha 16:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment given that the person above claims to be, well, that person, and that there is inaccurate information, this article should be reviewed for any inaccuracy and if they can't be fixed, removed. I take no stand as to whether this article should be deleted or retained. FrozenPurpleCube 17:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think there's any doubt about my identity at least. Thanks goodness for small mercies! I have been editing the Wikipedia from July 2004. What I said above is that there were inaccuracies in my page and that's the reason why I was compelled to edit it. I'm not trying to justify any action, but just explain the context. I'm not interested in retaining the page. As someone who has quite some belief in the Wikipedia model and logic, this is an opportunity to dump a page that describes me and at the same time focus on wider issues -- systemic bias (since this whole debate stems from my attempt to salvage pages that were, in my opinion, being deleted in a strange manner -- such as this page and this no longer existing page). I think it's really sad! A great model is being dented by lack of debate over how it gets implemented. --fredericknoronha 17:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't support the position that you can decide whether or not Wikipedia has an article on you, but given that it does, you do have the right to accurate information. Since I don't know you, or your work, I can't say whether or not that's a current problem, but if it is, it should be fixed. And yes, there are a lot of problems with Wikipedia, and not just in regards to living people. A pity. FrozenPurpleCube 18:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Frankly, i am not inclined to agree with the author's wish for deletion, because it seems his accomplishments are sufficient, and his motive seems to be temporary disappointment. (I think we've always accepted that subjects can correct biographical data.) The problem with people without Google-accessible sources is real, and I hope those in Indias can find some print ones to aadd. I've just cut back the article a little and tried to make the tone more objective. As for the other article just mentioned, we will deal with it separately. DGG 17:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources for this are all either "biographical statements" of the type normally provided by the subject thereof or are articles that the Fredrick has written, not of which he is the subject. Thus, this fails the primary notability criterion, requiring that the subject of an article be the subject of multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (As a side note, his point about the systemic bias against "non-digitised, largely oral societies" is well taken. I just don't think it applies to him, a published journalist who speaks before NGOs, and neither does he claim that it should.) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge as there is no established notability beyond involvement in BytesForAll. Attribution merely shows that he's been a guest speaker/judge at various events and written some articles online, none of which have any apparent notability unto themselves. It's also really easy to be cited in publications (and get the resulting ghits) if you write for the publications, but to call that notability would lend undue bias toward the media over other professions. Feeeshboy 23:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep As far as I can tell, the subject meets guidelines, even if just barely. Better sources would help. Coren 02:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets the guidelines of WP:BIO. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 00:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.