Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Surendran (politician) (3rd 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 keep. Even discounting the SPA's/IP's vote stacking, consensus is relatively clear that the subject meets SIGCOV.  JGHowes  talk 14:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K. Surendran (politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

K. Surendran (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One iteration of the page was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K.surendran. This one in particular was at the time a rejected draft but was moved to mainspace by the nominator. User:BD2412 suggested to me that this should go through another AfD since the last AfD did not adequately discuss the notability of the subject.

So here I am, nominating it to another AfD. With regards to notability, it fails both WP:NPOL as he is not an elected representative but a party official, as well as WP:GNG as most the references that are in the article are either polling data from places he contested but lost, non-independent websites, puff pieces or are trivial mentions which quote him in his capacity as a party official. I couldn't find any more sources on him that hasn't already been used in the article.

The present article only uses 2 sources from a time published after the February 2020 AfD and both of them are similar trivial coverage; they just quote him, are on a topic that isn't him and give no other information about him other than his position in the party's internal structure. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: What's going on here I don't understand... How can the notability of a person who sees more than a hundred different types of reliable sources be repeatedly questioned? You should clarify why he failed the WP:GNG.. According to GNG A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So Not satisfying WP:NPOL criteria does not per se indicate a lack of notability.The "WP:NPOL" standard is the only component needed to pass the WP:GNG. Are you saying that WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC can't be used because he didn't pass WP:NPOL ? Btw ,I can't proceed without mentioning your double standard ,why it isn't applicable here the same criteria you defined in the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T._Geenakumari This discussion.? Please elaborate and It amazes me that you could not find more sources about him that are not already used in the article. Padavalam🌂  ►  09:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Padavalamkuttanpilla, accusing me of "double standards" doesn't help your case. I have commented in too many AfDs to remember one in particular but from what I can see, the subject of that article was cited to in scholarly works which isn't the case here.
      I've otherwise been pretty clear in this nomination on how the subject of this article fails GNG, and I have never made any claims which suggest that failing NPOL by virtue of itself means non-notability. If it did, one wouldn't separately take GNG into consideration in the first place. No one is stopping you from presenting sources which are reliable, independent and cover him in a non-trivial capacity, if they do exist. Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tayi Arajakate, I think this AFD is due to your political animosity, Can you give me three reliable sources that in-depth description of this person T. Geenakumari to change my misconception  ? Then I will withdraw that words Padavalam🌂  ►  10:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cannot keep until a new policy is proposed and accepted, hence delete: Tayi Arajakate said the facts I also wanted to say. There is no doubt that the subject fails WP:NPOL. He also fails WP:GNG because I cannot any references in the article giving him the independent in depth coverage to pass the notability criteria. All the sources are about him being appointed as his party president, some controversies in which he was a major subject and some polling datas from the assemblies he contested. If we are about to keep this article, we should have a new policy for Indian politicians. Otherwise, keeping this article without doing as per above would definetly be against our current notability criteria on politicians. Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 10:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -I can provide 50+ reliable sources. because the nominator said that he could not find any sources. I will give you more if you need it.
Collapsing reference bomb. Seemplez {{ping}} me 13:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... Padavalam🌂  ►  10:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Too late for a WP:REFBOMB alert :-) Padavalamkuttanpilla a good approach would be to point out which of these would satisfy WP:SIGCOV and which of these make trivial references. Plus, there is the issue of whether the person or the event is being given priority. Vikram Vincent 08:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable person. Appears as title in many RS. -AppuduPappudu (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Padavalamkuttanpilla, most of these sources are covering about something else. Surendran's response to some of the events have been covered since he is the president. Please provide atleast one source giving a detailed coverage about this person in the talking about the his life and his notable works. None of sources you provided are like that other than being something like Surendran tested covid positive, Surendran's response was this.... How can it be considered as sources covering in depth coverage? . Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 11:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kashmorwiki, His Notability stemmed from the coverage provided by major national and international news agencies such as The Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Indian Express,The Hindu Padavalam🌂  ►  11:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Padavalamkuttanpilla, you don't seem to be able to distinguish between significant coverage and trivial coverage. Quoting from the footnote cited at WP:BASIC which states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

        Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not.

        In addition please refrain from making personal attacks as you did here. It's not like I'm the only one who has questioned the notability of the subject here, most of these sources were present during the 2nd nomination as well when it was deleted for the first time. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the previous nominations (1 and 2) which concluded that the subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Nothing has changed now that makes the subject particularly notable. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Malayala Sahityam, The first AFD retained this article and the news links I mentioned above that came after the second AFD and those sources clearly indicate his notability Padavalam🌂  ►  13:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per prev nom., the whole bunch of URLS seem to be only trivial coverage indeed. Padavalamkuttanpilla, please stop accusing other editors of not having WP:AGF. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The plenty of sources provided here actually gives just some trivial coverage about him, thus failing to establish notability criteria. Poppified talk 13:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable figure for many years in Kerala politics. Multiyear, in depth coverage in RS, passes the GNG. Analysis of seven sources found after spending 15 minutes trawling a Google search:
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
New Indian Express Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Detailed in-depth story, with biographical background, covering Surendran upon taking Chair of BJP in Kerala from February 2020
The Hindu 1 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Detailed story covering violent protest led by Surendran from October 2009
The Hindu 2 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Detailed story regarding conflict between state government and Surendran during election campaign from April 2019
Deccan Herald Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Detailed story covering Surendran's role and internal party politics for the upcoming 2021 state election, March 2021
Huffington Post Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Detailed story during campaign, April 2019
The Hindu 3 Detailed family profile, April 2016
India’s 2019 Elections: The Hindutva Wave and Indian Nationalism p.338 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Mentioned in Paul Wallace's SAGE published national survey of the 2019 election
Total qualifying sources 7
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should probably clarify that The New Indian Express article is what I meant when I referred to puff pieces. The way it describes him, it appears like any other non-independent promotional pieces.

    It was Surendran's aggressive leadership that helped the BJP to unite the Ayyappa devotees across the state and ensure the success of the Sabarimala protest...Known for his sharp tongue, sarcastic comments and biting criticism...However, the biggest challenge for the leader will be to end the faction feud in the party. Known as the most prominent leader of the Muraleedharan group in the party,

    Doesn't help that the paper was embroidered in a controversy over undisclosed advertorials.[1][2] Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rowlatt, Justin (28 May 2018). "The story barely reported by Indian media". BBC News.
  2. ^ Kaushik, Krishna (27 May 2018). "Cobrapost: Sting claims media houses open to 'paid Hindutva content', firms call it misleading". The Indian Express.
  • Comment Leave aside that questioning a single source on the basis of guilt by association is essentially no different than an ad hominem attack (ie play the ball, not the player), there's six other sources there, so unless there is specific evidence that a particular piece was the result of corruption, it is only casting aspersions. Also, leave aside the unsurprising notion that much of India's mainstream media (like in most parts of the world) is corporate controlled, subject to undue influence and promotes right wing politics (at this level *all* are suspect, but our job is not to right wrongs). Surendran is a notable figure with a profile in Kerala politics that has only increased in recent years; the sheer scale of material on him available in English points to this. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point was that the source is not reliable and its independence is questionable. This kind of promotional article is pretty common among a lot of Indian newspapers unfortunately and is a valid reason for not considering particular news items for notability. I wanted to leave the others for others to judge, but if you want my opinion on them most of them are just quotations. The 3rd ref (The Hindu 2) appears more substantial although this is almost the same as an ADR directory entry derived from affidavits on cases against a particular candidates. The 6th ref (The Hindu 3) is also about a different person (K. K. Surendran). Tayi Arajakate Talk 05:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess you forgot writing this: ...there are other Indian right leaning news agencies which have reliable reporting (e.g: Deccan Chronicle, New Indian Express, Aaj Tak, etc) :) ... As I noted, on the basis of the criteria being argued for here, no source could be considered reliable. Striking the third Hindu article, my mistake. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't aware of Paid news in India an year ago. I became aware of them because of AfDs on Wikipedia to begin with, in particular because of how Deccan Chronicle is treated on AfDs. Anyways, what's the point of this? If you have a problem with my conduct or something, take it to ANI if you want.
      And no, this does not mean every source is not reliable for ascertaining notability, just TNIE and the Times Group ones (The Times of India and Times Now). Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tayi Arajakate I did not intent to convey that I was concerned about your conduct here, far from it; I was only trying (poorly in hindsight) to make light of an earlier comment you had made . In matters such as these, there's strength in being a Keynesian (albeit apocryphally): when the facts change, it's best to change one's mind. --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry about that, I perceived that as an antagonistic comment at the time, which going through the thread again, probably shouldn't have been my first assumption. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Out of the 7 sources shown by Goldsztajn, I can find only the source from TOI which him atleast any significant coverage (still not sufficient)
  • 1. The first source from The Hindu is mainly about a Protest organised by Yuva Morcha.
  • 2.The second source from them is a news about the cases registered against Surendran.
  • 3.The source from Deccan Herald is about Surendran's opinion about E.Sreedharan's participation in the election.
  • 4. About the source from Huffpost; that is mainly about the BJP's chances of winning in these election by analysing their performances in the previous elections.
  • 5. The last one is just a mere mention about him.

These were the reasons I previously commented that he is only getting some trivial coverage which is not sufficient to establish notability. Regards.Kichu🐘 Discuss 07:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Same reason as with the first nomination. The subject is named in a lot of news items. None discuss him as a person in any great depth, but cumulatively they show that he is a fairly visible public figure and give enough for a substantial article. His statements and actions have been reported widely enough to show notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is indeed true that he has not won any legislative elections and hence the natural inclination would be to delete - however, WP:POLITICIAN also covers figures who have received significant press coverage - and hence keep. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That is a lot of press coverage for one person even if individually not WP:SIGCOV. I'd say the bio passes WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO and is notable. While I would generally apply WP:NPOL, I can also see that there are the exceptions and this is one of those. Vikram Vincent 21:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Clearly notable.† Encyclopædius 17:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:SIGCOV- the President of a large party is considered notable. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Party president is definitely notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by -noah- (talk • contribs)
  • Keep From the sheer depth of reliable media coverage provided, it is clear that the subject of the article passes NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep have enough coverage and independent reliable sources. Stop nominating for deletion again and again.007sak (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Let's keep the article for now and delete after he loses the election. I vote for keeping the article till May 2 when the election results will be out. Maybe a couple of people read this article and then vote for him. Let him not lose those crucial votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7C0:205F:8001:0:0:0:C (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please keep it he is a well known figure in kerala politics .its not good to delete his page only because some people don't like his political party. User:Vasucrossroads ,User talk:Vasucrossroads — Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Says Vasucrossroads who targets the well written articles related to Communist party and nominate it for deletion [1] [2] just because he dont like that party. The list even includes the article of Kerala's Chief Minister Pinarai Vijayan [3]. So its clear that who is actually trying to play Indian politics here. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 12:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Vasucrossroads No one is !voting to keep or delete based on likes but rather on policy and our understanding of it. Vikram Vincent 12:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: It is clearly evident that these IP's just came here for vote stacking. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 03:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, an abundant amount of coverage to support GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while the coverage identified by Goldsztajn is news reporting rather than biographical profiles, in my assessment it does comprise significant coverage. Glancing at the actual article, I am skeptical that so much detail could possibly be WP:DUE if this is the level of coverage that exists.signed, Rosguill talk 00:53, 30 March 2021 (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/K._Surendran_(politician)_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1177658238"