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. A good discussion was had here about the quality of the newspaper sources provided. The sources we are citing say things like "Microsoft is soon expected to publish the English version of his biography, apart from filming a documentary on his life." Common sense says that we should not repeat these claims, and therefore the reliability of any of the statements in sources is doubtful. Shii (tock) 14:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P. Kalyanasundaram[edit]

P. Kalyanasundaram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Palam Kalyanasundaram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this article seems to be a recreation of a deleted page Palam Kalyanasundaram and has been declined at AFC due to verifiability issues Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/'Palam'_Kalyanasundaram. There are a number of claims made in respected of the subject of the article which are repeated in the news stories without any evidence of fact checking.

• previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalyanasundaram (2nd nomination) -- _nonsense ferret 00:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now found in userspace a previous detailed discussion about verifiability copied from the talkpage of the deleted article User_talk:4letheia/Palam_Kalyanasundaram
• copy of previous deleted article User:4letheia/Palam_Kalyanasundaram --_nonsense ferret 00:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per speedy G4. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Delete as recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD. (Not being an administrator and unable to see the deleted file I merely assume content is similar, correct me if I'm wrong). Carrite (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this opinion per the assertion by Rayabhari below that this is not a simple recreation of a deleted article. No opinion about notability of this new content. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Before people pile on here please note that just because something was previously deleted at AfD does not mean that an article about that subject can never exist. The Hindu is by far the most reliable of daily English-language newspapers published in India and this article uses it as a source. The notability is an unusual one but is present via the sources and is a supreme example of an Indian concept of service to society. I'll take some time to read the links provided above - prior AfD, AfC etc - and !vote later. - Sitush (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an ordinary social worker there is no reasonable case for notability. However, the case for notability seems to rest on the claims made by his supporters and repeated frequently in messages shared around facebook and other social media. By way of example, it is claimed that he was awarded 'man of the millenium' by a UN organisation. These claims have also been reprinted in press in the area such as 'The Hindu' - but in fact 'man of the millenium' seems to be a paid for award from a vanity publisher. Other similar claims were highlighted in the previous article on this subject that he met the american president, and is the head of the local wing of a UN organisation. If these social media claims repeated in the press do not stand up to scrutiny, then it does not leave a significant case for notability. Perhaps people might prefer to have an article which neutrally disproves these claims though - it is worth having that discussion here I think. Also, a careful reading of some of the sources used indicates that some of the newspapers seem to be in fact reporting what the subject has said rather than providing independently fact-checked information. --_nonsense ferret 10:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This articles is not a recreation of earlier article, because the article was independently created and then only I saw the earlier article/discussion. The subject seems notable because, he was awarded with "best librarian" by Government of India. As per newspaper reports, (The Hindu, which is considered reliable in India), he donated his entire salary earnings to charity for last three and half decades and this act is also notable. The messages posted in face book were neither quoted nor used in the article, as face book comments are never considered as reliable source for Wikipedia article. (Such is the case, we can ignore what social groups discuss). Some of the high claims are moderated now, to bring more neutrality.Rayabhari (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rayabhari, I decided to do some digging without reference to previous discussions in order not to have my mind clouded by the opinions of others. I can find nothing about "Outstanding People of the 20th Century" on the UN website, nor by searching specifically with the UNICEF organisation (the most likely subset of the UN to apply here because of his emphasis on children). In fact, the award seems likely to have come from the International Biographical Centre and most results are mirrors either of us or of other unreliable websites. It doesn't look good but I'll see what else I can turn up. Perhaps you can verify the claim made in The Hindu. I might even email them - it is odd for them to get things like this wrong but, hey, we are all human. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will verify the claims made in The Hindu. Thank you. You wanted to find something in JESTOR.Rayabhari (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed them. There is nothing at JSTOR. - Sitush (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Although the article needs work — a proper lead would be nice — this subject clearly passes GNG. Articles dealing substantially with the subject in The Hindu from 2004 and 2013 are footnotes 1 and 5 respectively; a third piece from that publication has gone 404 but no reason to suspect it did not or does not exist. An honored philanthropist. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Courtesy note. The nominator of this AfD has now also raised it at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#P._Kalyanasundaram. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please read WP:CANVASSING, because there are different degrees of canvassing. The notification at WP:BLP/N was appropriate. It was worded neutrally and it was not directed at any one editor. The nominator was requesting assistance, nothing more. Any BLP at AFD is in my opinion a valid subject there. The more eyes on an AFD the less likely we will end up deleting something that merits inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's your opinion. My opinion was that it was canvassing at BLPN, although it later transpired that they'd not explained themselves very well. In any event, my courtesy note could not be any more neutral. I can do without the wikilawyering, please: hindsight is a wonderful thing. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article has a complex history as it was created using different name variants. However, even assuming that the most recent creator did so independently of the article that was deleted per consensus at AfD, I don't see anything "better" about the current article than the old. If you want to look at what was probably the version of the article when the voting took place and the consensus was delete, look at User:4letheia/Palam Kalyanasundaram. Also, if you look at the old AfD discussion, notice that there was discussion about the same Hindu reference, which the nominator and the voters accepted as unverifiable. I'm not going to take any administrative action on the article at this point, but I thought I'd share what looks like to be a recreation, even if inadvertent, of an article that was deleted only a matter of months ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely it is verifiable to The Hindu? Whether that newspaper verified it is beyond our remit unless we can find sources to the contrary? FWIW, I am hoping that my email to them will cause them to revisit the issue - nothing like a "scandal" to sell papers ;) - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What is "beyond our remit" is to revisit a consensus that was so recently established about the notability of the subject, which partly (largely?) depended on the editors' views of the Hindu article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I appreciate that is applicable if the articles are substantially similar but I don't know what other sources were used in the original article & have only just realised that this one must have been, per your comments. I also have the feeling that a fair amount of stuff has gone on that is no longer visible to us mere mortals, per your comment at BLPN. Tbh, I don't think this thing should exist but that is based on gut feeling, not logic, and if the article is significantly different then a procedural delete is not appropriate. It is now apparent that you do not consider it to be thus (massively different). - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per the fact that very little has changed since the last AFD, judging from Bbb23's comments (which make the case for what should have been a clearly valid G4). The first two pages of search results for "outstanding people UNO" are about the subject. I find it hard to believe that he is the only one to ever win that award. More likely is the possibility that this originated with him, or someone who wanted to boost his popularity. Since these basic claims to notability are not verifiable, once we take them away we are left with what looks like a fairly well-known librarian, but I don't see anything that could get him past WP:GNG. An recognition by Rotary is not exactly earth-shattering. As always with these types of bios, I have no problem reversing my !vote if new sources are found that could truly establish notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:*And perhaps the canvassing is working! Even though the nominator was of the opinion that people seeing the report at BLPN would not !vote here. Oh, well. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Strike because my logic is screwed: could have come here first and then gone to BLPN. We'll never know, will we? - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The awards are fake (UNO, perhaps B.L.) or minor (Rotary, B. L.), knowing that the giver of the "best librarian" award shows up as the "Union Government", not the government of India (see [here]). What tips it for me is that an exceptional college librarian would also show on scholarly sources, either as an author or at least in acknowledgments. But there is nothing for this individual.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't disagree but please note that "Union Government" is the "government of India": each state has its own govt. and then there is a central/national govt. that is often termed the "Union Government". - Sitush (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for clarifying, but do you think that this is the case in this source? That's what I found dubious.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Usually, if an Indian news source is referring to an Indian domestic subject then "Union Government" will mean "national government" (aka, "central government" or "the Centre"). I've no idea what else you might think it was referring to in this context - the USA? a central committee of a trade union? - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.Not notable persons. Not reliable references were provided. Jussychoulex (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've tried to find some substance over the last couple of days but, yes, it looks like The Hindu have been sold a pup here. They have not replied to my email. - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nonetheless, thank you for the effort. AFD is not about deleting stuff, but about finding reasons to keep it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just wanted to second FreeRangeFrog's comments - I really wish that everyone who contributed to discussions at AfD did so with the same level of conscientiousness, fairness, and rigour. --_nonsense ferret 21:12, 12 May 2013 (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.