Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parikipandla Narahari (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The policy based comments are weak or non-existent at best (including one admin who should know better that restoring an deleted article by request has never been a valid reason to keep/delete it in AFD). Yogesh Khandke comment about the sourcing is rebutted successfully. But no prejudice to recreation if the subject ever meets our guidelines in the future. Secret account 21:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parikipandla Narahari[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Parikipandla Narahari (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)

Earlier the same article was deleted after a long discussion. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/P._Narahari. The article is again created with full name. A broad discussion is required so that the acceptance/deletion of the page can be determined . Jussychoulex (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No article is not made again with another name. The article was restored again by King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ and it was redirected from P. Narahari to Parikipandla Narahari. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are telling us that one person, who has not commented here, has indicated that he thinks the article is acceptable. That is not a reason for keeping the article. If you believe there are good reasons for keeping it, you need to tell us what those reasons are, not merely that there is someone else who thinks there are good reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have made clearer that I wrote keep rather than comment because I have read the references and agree with KoH that this and this lift this above being a standard bio of a mid-rank civil servant, and are enough for notability. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In last discussion, all the people strongly recommend to delete the page. Then how a single person, who did not take part in the discussion, can restore the page. What was the basis of restoration? I still did not find any notability of this person. He is just a normal civil servant.Jussychoulex (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thereafter, the creator of the article contacted User:King of Hearts - see 25 on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts&oldid=552252566#Articles_for_deletion.2FP._Narahari and he reinstated the page under its present title. No discussion ever took place about this, the other participants in the first AfD discussion were not given the chance to have their say and nothing of substance appears to have been added to the original article. User:King of Hearts has also not made an appearance on this AfD page so far. The subject of the article is a mid-ranking local officer who seems to have decided to use social media sites to help him do his work. He may have achieved some success in doing his job better, but I don't think that makes him notable. This article seems to rely on his activities via social media sites to do what other officers of his rank also do - as a matter of course - to establish his notability. I think he does not meet WP:GNG.--Zananiri (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As JohnCD said and I would also like to tell you that http://tehelka.com/gwaliors-game-changer/ and http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/MadhyaPradesh/Got-a-complaint-Poke-Gwalior-collector-on-Facebook/Article1-945195.aspx makes him notable. In no ways it seems to be a self promotion and neither I have seen District Magistrates getting so familiar with people on social media. King of Hearts also regenerated the page due to those notable links.Shobhit Gosain (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not sure what King of Hearts was doing - it is all a bit vague - but this is basically a recreation of an article previously deleted via AfD and upon reviewing the rationales given in the original AfD I tend to agree that the subject is not notable. He is not the only person in India who uses social media but it needs to be borne in mind that access to the internet in that country is extremely limited and thus his efforts will have a pretty minimal impact. His main achievement appears to be self-promotion. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you help hundred people and those hundred people talk about you then you won't call it a self-promotion because your main motive was to help, promotion will come unknowingly. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* To date, this is the only contribution to Wikipedia by this person.--Zananiri (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* Great search and your good in locating IP addresses, that's what I can say about that thing. Call the owner of that IP and ask why is he/she doing such things. I have nothing to do with it.Shobhit Gosain (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly page of an non-notable civil servant was recently deleted.. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Upendra_Tripathy_%282nd_nomination%29. Jussychoulex (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KeepAs a person who has made pages on civil servants and also nominated many a pages on civil servants for deletion,i think this page deserves to stay for the simple reason because he has a credible contribution,he has won a famous award for his work!As pointed out by an another editor his contributions are of a higher grade,I think that makes him a bit notable,but i also agree to the fact that he is of a bureaucrat of low ranking and we as editors must actually set some standards of notability on the basis of rank and contributions maybe a WP:Civil Servant ?Uncletomwood (ta lk) 06:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In India, a "major award" would be Film Fare, Padma Bhushan etc, not a tacky something from a promotional spiel by a newspaper group (the Pride of India thing). I can't even verify the Crisil award, which comes from a risk management agency that it shames me to say I've never heard of: despite being recently recreated, the links are dead where I am. - Sitush (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just deleted probably the most significant paragraph in terms of notability. It needs rewriting but I am very tired and need my sleep. The thing was a blatant copyright violation of the Tehelka source, even after I'd tweaked the odd word here and there. - Sitush (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted that whole notability factor? What do you exactly want? I guess you just need the deletion nothing else. You can make a template about rewriting, rather than deleting the whole stuff man or you can notify me about the copyright violation. You really seems to have some serious issues with this article and as you had with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priyadarshini_Raje_Scindia too. What can I do if you haven't heard of Crisil award, that doesn't mean you start deleting everything what comes across. You nearly deleted the whole article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parikipandla_Narahari&action=history and you did the similar thing with Priyadarshini Raje http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Priyadarshini_Raje_Scindia&action=history. After deleting whole factors and sources your saying this article needs to be deleted now. Man, I think you really need sleep after that.Shobhit Gosain (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At its current stage the article needs to be deleted.Uncletomwood (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shobhit, I had said "delete" prior to spotting the copyvio. I deleted the content because it was a copyrigh violation. That's what we do because there are legal implications when people such as you violate copyright. As I said, the thing needed to be rewritten but I didn't have the time to do so then. I have been very open about this and I note that your rewrite since my deletion is still a copyright violation, although less so than it was. Having slept, I'll try to fix it but let me tell you now: the fact that I have problems with some articles that you have created is a reflection of my opinion regarding the quality and subject notability of those articles and nothing more. You should also be aware that in the light of the copyvio just found, I'm probably going to check every contribution you have made to mainspace: it is simply not acceptable to do what you did. You seem likely to be involved with a magazine - SoulSteer - and should surely know what copyright is? Oh, and Soulsteer is based in Gwalior, which is the same location as the IPs I refer to above. Sitush (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
talk No offence brother as your an Indian too, but I would really like to let you know that your one of those people who not do anything good to the society and don't let anyone else do the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jai_Vilas_Mahal&action=history, and the above mentioned history links, your now deleting everything what I have contributed here, stop being so NEGATIVE about me, you can find another articles in Wikipedia to satisfy your disruptive nature. And no, I have no relation with that magazine, your a genius, you can check my IP and you will find it to be a different one. As of the P. Narahari article, its nowhere near to the copyright acts leaving behind the statistics and perfectly notable.Shobhit Gosain (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Indian, nor do I have any idea why that should be relevant. You took the photo of Narahari that we use and it was published by SouLSteer. You created the now-deleted SouLSteer article, at the AfD of which it was suggested that you were connected. You have been socking from Gwalior, which is where SouLSteer is based. Go figure why my assumption of good faith is on the wane. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I made the initial nomination for deletion of the article here based on an objective assessment of the content. I did not know it had been phoenixed but there is nothing in the new page to warrant it being retained. Sesamevoila (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A comment has been made above regarding Indian Internet user statistics: For the benefit of everyone I share them here; India has the world's third largest Internet user base at 13.7 crore .[2] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking sufficient in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:05, 20 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Parikipandla_Narahari_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1071197328"