Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. N. Srinivasan

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. Clearly, no agreement in this discussion on whether serving as the non-executive mayor of a large and notable city like Madras/Chennai is an indicator of notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K. N. Srinivasan[edit]

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

He was mayor of an Indian city for 1-2 years (not entirely specified in the article) and in the Indian National Congress. This is barely WP:NOTABLE, and I found absolutely nothing online, other than a few sites having this same article directly from Wikipedia. The only reference is a 1958 newspaper, and while that's not a bad source in its own right (although I didn't cross-check this), I don't think we'll ever get more references. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was mayor of a city with a current population of over 6 million people. Here is a source. Here is an article from The Hindu when he was elected. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the sources, but as per @Sitush: below, do they really establish notability? The second one's definitely a good source about his mayorship (if that's the right word), but that and the mention of him in the book really only support that he's mayor. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a member of Indian National Congress before 1980s, always relates with Indian History. Most of the Indian personalities which relates with Indian history lacks online sources. No doubt the person is WP:NOTABLE. Although it may lacks references but that does not always mean the person is not notable. Atleast one of the sources are reliable. Jim Cartar (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that any member or former member of a country's national legislature (such as the Indian National Congress) is automatically assumed to be notable, per WP:POLITICIAN. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Indian National Congress is a political party so mere membership of it does not indicate notability, not without some specific status such as founder et.c. which does not seem to apply to him. But I agree that mayorship of Madras is notable. Imc (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Thanks for the correction. I agree that a mayor of Madras should be notable, again per WP:POLITICIAN. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN:, have you read that guideline? Madras (Chennai) is a big place but the office of mayor is not a "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". I feel sure that there are numerous newspaper reports in the archives but such reports exist for every mayor of every place in the UK (for example), regardless of the population. In this situation, it seems to me that it might be argued that notability is being inherited from the office. If we don;t have sources that discuss the guy himself in much detail then he's not notable. And if I'm wrong then that's another 250,000 crappy perma-stubs just from the UK alone. - Sitush (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the guideline I was quoting was WP:POLOUTCOMES. Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". I don't think anyone would deny that Madras is a city of "at least regional prominence". It's true it can be hard to find sources for people in the pre-internet age, but the general opinion at AfD discussion has been to assume that such sources almost certainly must exist for mayors of prominent cities - even if the sources are hard to find online. --MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we want concrete sources, not just what we could find in the future. Yes, it's a large city, but all the sources are saying is "Jane Doe is mayor of Cityville" (to put it in easier-to-compare terms), so without anything to back up the rest, I think that this should be deleted unless we can actually find more sources. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English-speaking world. I would fight against deletion of any biography of a mayor of San Francisco, the dominant world city of the region where I've lived for 42 years, and where the Wikimedia Foundation is headquartered. I would be a hypocrite if I didn't advocate for keeping a biography of a mayor of a world city with a far greater population. To argue otherwise without a comprehensive search for articles in other languages would be a perfect example of systemic bias. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I only know English and a bit of Spanish, nothing that'll help with the language bias, but it'd be great if we could get someone here who knows something that could help here! As for the mayoral issue, I think that's just a difference of opinion; I'd argue against a San Francisco mayor who was in about the same situation as Mr. Srinivasan here. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 06:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN, I've no idea why you referred to one policy when you say that you meant another thing but, hey, the OUTCOMES thing just list common outcomes, not policy or guidelines. And the internet age issue affects everything, not just people in South Asia. Red herrings, both.

@Cullen, yes, it may indicate systemic bias. Tough: such articles can always be recreated when suitable sources are found. We shouldn't keep articles ad infinitum on the off-chance that something might turn up. A (sourced) List of mayors of Madras article might be the best solution in this situation, at least for now. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There already is one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I searched for Chennai in connection with sourcing but didn't do on-WP! Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you're putting your American perspective on what a mayor is. See below for an explanation of what it is in this case. The Mayor of San Francisco is the chief executive of the city. The Mayor of Madras was not. Merely an honorary position who dresses up in traditional robes and a funny hat and acts as the figurehead of his city for a year until someone else replaces him. That's not to say that such mayors can't be notable (a fair few were knighted or created baronets for their good works, for instance, and thus meet criterion #1 of WP:ANYBIO), but they're certainly not inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per User:Cullen328.Shyamsunder (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's my understanding that Indian mayors are like British mayors - merely figureheads who are elected for a year by and from the city council. They are not the chief executive of the city as they are in other countries and have no real power. If this is the case, then he is not notable by virtue of his position, as all long-serving councillors will become mayor at some time. We have already established that (non-executive) mayors of British cities are not inherently notable, so I don't think the situation is different for India. It appears that since 2002, Madras/Chennai has had an executive mayor, but this was not the case when Srinivasan was mayor, as the article shows, with the mayoralty changing every year. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding anything of note here. There is an element of WP:OSE in what Necrothesp says but, on the other hand, the arguments in favour of keeping here seem to be thin. Unless sources turn do up, the "keep" argument looks to be based entirely on inherent notability and I don't think that applies. Perhaps it should apply but that is a different discussion. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really see how WP:OSE applies to my comments at all. If Indian mayors are essentially the same as British mayors and we have established by precedent and consensus over a number of AfDs that British mayors are not inherently notable then why would Indian mayors be inherently notable? It's only the inherent notability of being a mayor that's in question here. If it can be proved that he's notable for something else then that's fine, but I don't see how a bloke who's been elected mayor because he's been a councillor for a while and it's buggins' turn (which is how traditional Commonwealth mayoral elections basically work) can possibly be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is the inversion of OSE, ie: that something doesn't exist somewhere doesn't mean that this cannot exist. If consensus has been reached about British mayors then that's fine but this was guy not a mayor in Britain. I think adopting that argument would require some sort of meta-discussion as (presumably) happened wrt primary versus secondary schools. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I fully understand OSE, thank you, but he was a mayor on the British model in a system invented and promulgated by the British in a country that had until ten years before been ruled by the British and continued to use the same systems! I think you can fairly assume, therefore, that the same arguments apply and that holders of an office not considered inherently notable in Britain cannot logically be considered to be inherently notable in India. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I should also point out that we have long held that in general local councillors are not inherently notable anywhere in the world. A mayor under the British system (which applied in India) is no more than a local councillor. He does not lead the council. He has no executive power. He does not really even stand for election. It is merely an honorary role held usually for no more than a year in recognition of a councillor's long service. He represents his city on formal occasions and usually chairs the council, but he is only first among equals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His position isn't quite enough to ensure an automatic pass of WP:POLITICIAN point 1, and the coverage presented isn't enough to show that he passes points two or three of that guideline either. My search for sources was also unsuccessful, so I am forced to conclude that he isn't notable. There doesn't seem to be a good merge or redirect target, so deletion seems to be the only choice left. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mayors of such large and important cities are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But since the only thing he did was be mayor (at least as far as we can find), that doesn't really make him notable. "But he was a real mayor!" isn't good enough unless reliable sources can say that he did something else. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 21:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, a misunderstanding of what a mayor under the British system actually is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being a mayor of the 4th largest city in the 2nd-most populous country in the world is definitely notable. And for the record, mayors are definitely important actors in Indian politics, hardly symbolic figure-heads. Having been a member of the TN Pradesh Congress Committee is also a clear indication of notability, anyone with a minimum knowledge of Indian contemporary history would know that the PCCs completely dominated state politics in the 1950s. --Soman (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2014 (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.