Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamal Karna Roy
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. Keeper | 76 18:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Kamal Karna Roy
This article is about a person who has, according to the article, filed a number of lawsuits against a diverse group of entities. There are no secondary sources given in the article - all of the references are to the cases themselves. If there's nothing else out there, then there's no reason to believe that this topic meets our fundamental notability criterion - that there are multiple sources of information independent of the subject --B (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Wow - somebody arguing that primary sources are worse than secondary sources! You don't see that every day. This article is perfectly appropriate for wikipedia; this person has a notoriety in certain segments of society, which is the same for most of our biographical articles. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I made no such valuative judgment. Wikipedia's general notability guideline is that a subject is notable if it receives significant coverage in secondary sources. There are no secondary sources here. That has nothing to do with a comparison between the relative worth of primary sources vs secondary sources. --B (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't mean to sound so snide or personal; my comment was badly worded. You point to a weakness in wikipedia: the desire to avoid anything smacking of independent research means that primary sources (e.g., the article says he filed lots of lawsuits - and the references back that up with the actual lawsuits) are disregarded, but secondary sources (e.g., an article somewhere written second-hand about the lawsuits) are considered top notch. This is backward. I suspect, however, that your afd actually is based on the idea that the filing of these lawsuits does not raise KKR to being article worthy - there, I would disagree. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- The point is that if the news media doesn't care enough to have an article on this guy, Wikipedia doesn't need one either. Simply filing a lawsuit doesn't make you notable. --B (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so; wikipedia has articles about lots of things - Pokemon characters, tiny American communities, obscure sports figures, etc. etc. - that have no linkable news media articles about them. If "lack of news articles" means "end of wikipedia article", then it's time for the Night of the long knives. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Night of the long knives has a long list of references. So it would seem to meet the general criterion of substantial coverage in secondary sources. Can you find any secondary sources about Kamal Karna Roy? --B (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nope (unless you count my blog, based on an actual lawsuit I read. However, blogs don't count - and rightly so.) The point is that we have the *actual lawsuits* rather than somebody else's mumblings *about* those lawsuits - and yet that knowledge is completely discounted as a basis for deciding on the article's suitability. Doesn't that strike you as kind of odd? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, it strikes me as a good idea. If no reliable source independent of the subject feels it worth covering, it's not an encyclopedic topic - it's unmaintainable. Your userpage says that you are a newspaper reporter. Have you or has your company written about this person? Has anyone outside of message boards and blogs written about him? --B (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not that I know of. My point is that this fact shouldn't in itself be a wikipedia-killer, above and beyond the notability of the topic itself. (It's funny that I'm defending him, since he and/or supporter(s) beseiged my blog with so much glop after I wrote about him that I had to block them!) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, it strikes me as a good idea. If no reliable source independent of the subject feels it worth covering, it's not an encyclopedic topic - it's unmaintainable. Your userpage says that you are a newspaper reporter. Have you or has your company written about this person? Has anyone outside of message boards and blogs written about him? --B (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nope (unless you count my blog, based on an actual lawsuit I read. However, blogs don't count - and rightly so.) The point is that we have the *actual lawsuits* rather than somebody else's mumblings *about* those lawsuits - and yet that knowledge is completely discounted as a basis for deciding on the article's suitability. Doesn't that strike you as kind of odd? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Night of the long knives has a long list of references. So it would seem to meet the general criterion of substantial coverage in secondary sources. Can you find any secondary sources about Kamal Karna Roy? --B (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so; wikipedia has articles about lots of things - Pokemon characters, tiny American communities, obscure sports figures, etc. etc. - that have no linkable news media articles about them. If "lack of news articles" means "end of wikipedia article", then it's time for the Night of the long knives. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The point is that if the news media doesn't care enough to have an article on this guy, Wikipedia doesn't need one either. Simply filing a lawsuit doesn't make you notable. --B (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't mean to sound so snide or personal; my comment was badly worded. You point to a weakness in wikipedia: the desire to avoid anything smacking of independent research means that primary sources (e.g., the article says he filed lots of lawsuits - and the references back that up with the actual lawsuits) are disregarded, but secondary sources (e.g., an article somewhere written second-hand about the lawsuits) are considered top notch. This is backward. I suspect, however, that your afd actually is based on the idea that the filing of these lawsuits does not raise KKR to being article worthy - there, I would disagree. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I made no such valuative judgment. Wikipedia's general notability guideline is that a subject is notable if it receives significant coverage in secondary sources. There are no secondary sources here. That has nothing to do with a comparison between the relative worth of primary sources vs secondary sources. --B (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - anyone can file a lawsuit. Filing a large number of them, by itself, does not make one particularly notable. Terraxos (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - no reliable sources to support notability. The presence of a large number of lawsuits is not sufficient to indicate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Subject is not extremely notable, but there are several primary sources listed and a few secondaries. In a Google search, I found several results from Yahoo! news and some other places. Seems notable enough to me. Gromlakh (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:BIO. No reliable secondary sources have devoted substantial coverage to him. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - insignificant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- delete All sources are primary thus failling WP:N. Has serious WP:OR and WP:BLP issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
