Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiruba Shankar 2

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 wasDELETE per concerns established below. Nick 12:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kiruba Shankar

Kiruba Shankar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  • Strong Delete - I was an editor for his article (my edits), but I have to agree with others here. It was a mistake. Unless someone can produce reliable news articles where he is the primary focus, discussing him as a subject - I vote delete. His company f5ive looks like a web design company, nothing to establish him as Internet Personality or a Tech Guru. Backers, please provide an peer verifiable/recognizable award (not online Top10 badges/banner exchanges) or some national recognition, other than 2-3 line quotes in local newspapers. - Redindian 18:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Recommend Delete - As per his Blog & Google News Archive results - he has organized some blog meets and given some soundbytes to media/newspaper about blogging in Southern India (Chennai). And so have countless others everyday (Engadget/BoeingBoeing/TechCrunch etc) all around the world. Unless I am missing something here, this is not enough to be deemed as a Noteable Person WP:N
  • Nominate for Delete - Subject not a notable person. This article falls under the category of vanity articles. Being a famous blogger doesn't constitute an entry in Wikipedia. There are 100's of thousands of them, and 1000s attend/speak at conferences, get quoted in media articles - Wikipedia cannot hold vanity articles for each of them. I cannot see the noteablity (according to WP:BIO) (like a published Author, popular entertainer or noteable scientist). He is a popular Indian blogger, just well known to fellow bloggers and colleagues.-PokhranII 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    Closing admin should note, User:PokhranII has 5 edits. -- Ganeshk (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    Ok, then the smear campaign begins again - Did you notice the others who have voted 'strong delete' have 1000+ edits (Contributions Sarvagnya 1000+ edits, Contributions Edtropolis 1000+ edits, Contributions Gnanapiti 1000+ edits). So instead, please discuss the merits of the article/individual. What has he achieved to be given an encyclopedic entry? Pioneered any new Technology, won any Internationally recognized awards (no, online popularity poll in Indibloggies doesn't count) published any bestselling book? All he is, is a blogger/podcaster. Have you visited his blog lately? All of it is self promotion; I have no problems with that. He can do all the self promotion he wants in his blog - but not in public encyclopedia.
  • Strong Delete - I can see popular singer/blogger like Chinmayi having a wikipedia entry due to her popularity. There are many in technorati 100 who don't have an entry in wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a resume or ad service. I don't see what knowledge being imparted here in kirupa's article. -- Prem Paul 01:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    Closing admin should note, this account edits as 24.17.191.101 and has 13 edits. -- Ganeshk (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    Closing admin should ALSO note, I am 24.17.191.101, who edited the article many times, because 50% of the links there are dead (404 error) - I deleted the references. This article is user Ganeshk's pet project (he seem to have started it). Anyway, I don't want to point out the obvious - but click the links in the reference section and see for yourself
    24.17.191.101, Just so you know, this is what happened. 63.251.11.202 comes around and vandalizes the external links section removing characters from the URLs, then you go next, and mark them as invalid. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - bad faith nom. The voters above 5 and 13 edits each, most of which are related to this AFD. Notability has been established in the previous AFD. -- Ganeshk (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    Ganeshk, these 13 edits were done to clean up the bad file-not-found links - click blogstreet top100 & blogstreet and see if its still valid. Also, voted in as indiblogger in 2004? It shd also be noted that there were 20 other winners of Indibloggies award in 2004, and 20 more in 2005...2006..so on.
    "Internet Personalities" as it is claimed in his article is a far reaching claim, which is backed by 2-3 of local newspaper links. He is listed along with real Internet personalities like Kevin Rose (founder of Digg) Mark Zuckerberg(founder of Facebook) just to name a few. Internet does span outside chennai,india or the Indian blogger community. On a side note, its funny to see other Indian bloggers also have listed themselves in that elite list.
    Note: this is the link which establishes the subject as India's Top Blogger Top100 Blogger. Its not only outdated, but its dead.
  • Clean Up and fully establish notablility, else delete. If it can be shown this guy is notable then the article should be kept and cleaned up with a bit more information. A quick googles search suggests there is potential for this, something which the article is, at best, vague about at the moment. If this is not shown, then I think it should be deleted - as having a blog is hardly something notable michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 14:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I voted Speedy Keep during last nom, because the nominator was a single-purpose account, and had nominated a number of articles for deletion one after another (the noms were left incomplete, and were completed by other editors). No vote this time, but news results might be of some interest to those who want to vote Keep or Delete. utcursch | talk 15:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    This news result may be of interest too. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    No these news results dont prove his notability. They only prove that the media is evincing interest in blogging etc., and that it is easy for 'encyclopedically non-notable' people also to piggy back on the high visibility that technology has in the media. Neither is Kiruba's pretty ordinary blog notable(like Churumuri) nor is Kiruba himself notable like KrishnaPrasad, former editor of Vijay Times and owner of churumuri or U. R. Ananthamurthy who has his own blog. Sarvagnya 20:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - This guy has had his 15-16 10-12 mins of fame. No doubt. But that doesnt make him encyclopedic. And what is this Indiblogger rating? Indiblogger is not Slashdot for God's sakes! And putting him in Cat:Internet personalities is a joke. Sarvagnya 16:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - I had seen this article couple of months back and was in a wonder why this person even found a place in Wikipedia! He has to wait, may be few more years, but as of now, this article is fit to be deleted.Gnanapiti 16:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for bloggers. Fails WP:BIO and WP:Notability.--Edtropolis 18:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and needs clean up. Not only does Kiruba Shankar yeild more search engine hits than some of the "notable" individuals mentioned in this discussion, his website has a reasonably high PageRank, according to Google. It scores 5/10, as can be seen here, which is not too shabby for an Indian website (The Indian portal www.sify.com scores 6/10 and the above mentioned "popular" newspaper's website http://www.vijaytimesepaper.com gets a 3/10). Of course, the article could use some clean up. Lotlil 03:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    Please check Google Test Argument - high page rank is not a measure of noteablity. Not bad for an Indian Website? - what criteria are you suggesting? Is CheckPageRank a guide by which we can add/delete articles?
    While notability is highly subjective, Google Hits adds a measure of objectivity. Yes, a website can be manipulated to generate a lot of search hits, but the high page rank adds another level of authenticity to it. It simply gives an idea of what other authentic and important websites think of his website. We are talking about this guy as an Internet personality, the data I provided simply says he is not a "nobody" at what he does. Blogging may be a trivial activity, but not every blogger has got so much attention (and hence, notability) as he has. Lotlil 04:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    Not to mention, popular newspapers such as The Hindu and Financial Express have quoted his opinions about podcasting, blogging etc. Lotlil 04:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    Lotlil - By that standard, please create a wikipedia entry for A.Vignesh, Syed Razik, Sandeep Shrivastava(Head Yahoo India), Aditya Mhatre and Abhishek Kumar whose opinions are also quoted in that publication you suggested. You see the absurdity of this?
    First of all, please get an account and comment. It makes it easier for everyone. Coming to your point, if any of those people have a regular presence in the media, feel free to create an artice and if it ever comes up for AfD, you know how I will vote. Lotlil 04:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    Getting a mention in the Chennai page or the Metroplus in Hindu is no big deal. Tintin 04:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    It's not "a" mention, he is routinely quoted by mainstream media when they talk about blogging, podcasting and the likes. Lotlil 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    Measuring notability through Page rank is a big joke. Note that most hits in Google points to his own blogs, Wikipedia article and mirror sites of Wikipedia. And yeah, as Tintin said, getting mentioned in newspaper is not a big deal. Even I have my name mentioned in TOI. Routinely? Where?Gnanapiti 04:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    Most hits point where, again ? Go check once more for yourself and tell us how many of the hits you counted were "his own" blogs and wiki mirrors. And, check the links that have been provided in this discussion and you will know he doesn't get noticed by fluke. Lotlil 04:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    Trivial mentions in newspapers and large number of Google results don't indicate much notability. Are there any news articles which discuss him as the primary subject? utcursch | talk 05:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    So, we want to ignore the many articles that quote him and his opinions ? And, being the primary subject of an article would establish notability in a way that his Internet prominence and all other articles don't ? Lotlil 17:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am not going to vote because I have a conflict of interest - Kiruba is a friend of mine, and someone whose work I have admired for years. I have been part of my country's IT industry, and I was stumbling across Kiruba's name long before I met him. Every IT company in the country worth its salt has at one time or the other had him over to speak to them, or advise them. In blogging circles, he is without doubt of the same stature in India as Robert Scoble (so much for "Wikipedia is not a place for bloggers"). His direct impact on the country's cyberspace through the event's he has been organizing is measurable and notable (both Jimmy Wales and Robert Scoble have participated in some of these events). He coerces, encourages, bullies and pleads with people to get them to particpate in blogging, wikis, podcasting and other stuff. And he is highly successful at it.
In times of emergencies, such as the Tsunami tragedy a few years ago, he used his widely read blog to gather resources and distribute them. When someone in the neighbourhood has an accident, he uses his influence to gather resources for his treatment. Local papers (who may not be online) cover him. He is quoted all over the place by national media.
From http://www.hindu.com/2005/01/01/stories/2005010114241000.htm :
Chennai's Kiruba Shankar (www.kiruba.com) has been consistently blogging about tsunami and relief since December 26. Since then, his blog has become a sort of nucleus for information pile up about the tsunami. Information, comments, seismographs, charts, animations, name it and it is there on Kiruba's blog. In addition to putting the contact information of people who write to him with requests for details about where they can contribute, Kiruba also browsed other blogs to provide the latest information.
And this is a man who is not notable?
Just because there isn't an article *about* him as a primary subject available online?
The problem I am seeing here (over and over again) is that editors aren't editing - they are using AfD as a proxy for editing. And the people standing at the roadside cheering them on are people who really know nothing about the subject, and are using that fact as a reason to support deletion. This is not the first such instance I have seen, and I am sure that it won't be the last. Maybe we should listen to User:Bhadani when he says "Indian editors shouldn't edit Indian articles". :)
In this particular case, rather than do some research, "motivated editors" have been quietly snipping away pieces of information saying "not verifiable", instead of tagging them with {{fact}} and giving people a chance to provide references. Finally, when the article has been gutted enough, someone pops in a AfD nom. Don't take my word for it, check the history. Frankly, I am not seeing people playing by the rules that they keep referring to.
To people here in India, Kiruba *is* notable. But I guess that doesn't count, right? Because for some people, "notability" means "*I* must like him" or "*I* must have heard of him".
Achitnis 10:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Now, back to his claims:
On Kiruba's magnanimous Humanitarian Assistance:
Here is another example - [A Glass of Water to a Worker]
"When they (a worker carrying a heavy cylinder) climb up to my second floor apartment, they are invariably sweating and clearly beaten by the sapping heat. The least one can do is offer a glass of water" and the punchline "that's a welcome help and they always gladly accept it"
And someone replied "I have been making this difference (giving water to people) for more than 20 years now. I never thought I could claim credit for it. Damn, I am slow."
You learn from kiruba's blog everyday - how to be self centered about even a simple basic human gesture….I bet you thot “gee - I can’t wait to blog about this good deed”, when you handed him a glass of water… has basic human decency replaced the need for advertising about it? (Link)
"you think that you are the only good samaritan in chennai? First you write abt visiting your servants function, now offering water to service men who come to ur place, maybe its your alter ego....... you dont need publicity for such trivial things kiruba, of course its ur blog....... but it getting over the limit.....maybe if you don't have any content......simply shut off this blog of yours...... " (Link)
On being India's Robert Scoble:
Have you seen Robert post a high-res picture of him clipping his toenails? If not, here is your indian equivalent (How I clip my Toenails - with pictures)
So in essence, I request Achitnis, instead of rhetoric ("I guess that doesn't count, right? Because for some people, "notability" means "*I* must like him" or "*I* must have heard of him") and tirade against Wikipedia Editors ("at the roadside cheering them on are people who really know nothing about the subject") - please go over his blog, and show us what puts him on the same podium as the founder of Digg, Founder of Facebook.
And, why he conveniently snipped other bloggers and folks who were quoted in the same article he pasted (And none of them have their own encyclopedic article). Was it because it dilutes Kiruba's importance, as he is just one of 10-15 bloggers who gets interviewed?
More reviews of his blogs from some Indian bloggers Urban Legends, Kiruba as top blogger?,Kiruba does it again, Fight for being India's Top Blogger
So as with any blog, there are people who love the author, and some who hate the author. So as neutrality demands, check the actual tangiable differences a person makes/creates/contributes, instead of going by 'you scratch my back, i scratch yours' or local media links (a person maybe the only blogger in Somerset, VT (population 5), does that mean he is encyclopedic?). If this is the low threshold of entry into wikipedia - I'll ask my friend to create my own page :) (I have been quoted many times in Times of India (Bombay edition), topped IIT national rank, wrote 2 books, featured in amazon, microsoft mvp, won 3 awards and to top it, my google page rank is 5/10) :) - PokhranII 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Added: If you are looking for true Indian tech gurus check out Anoop Gupta (president's gold medalist, and VP of Technology at Microsoft), Sanjay Parthasarathy (VP of Development at MSFT), Sridhar Vembu (co-founder of Zoho), Peeyush Ranjan (Head of Engineering at Google)...etc and there are plenty. (And guess why their names are in red). And Kiruba has not even done anything remotely this noteable, except being a very ordinary blogger (check it out yourself). So, I am guessing comparing his blog with Scoblizer (who does breaking news scoops, latest tech reviews) was a joke. PokhranII 21:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems WP:Notable per WP:RS sources such as The Hindu. Thanks Taprobanus 17:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems very notable indeed as The Hindu and other news sites (out of India) cover his story. He is not a 1 hit news. He's been on the news more than a couple of times and thus warrents a notable tag placed on him. Watchdogb 18:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - He is noted by The Hindu as "India's leading blogger" and he is related to wikipedia's growth in India as well (The Hindu). He is also a professor on blogging (Rediff). As for allegations about crooks in mission, I dont think they are remotely in cahoots. Sarvagnya is educated enough to make his own decisions as are iwazaki and utcursch.Bakaman 23:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: I do not see any reasonable reason to let these bloggers to have their own biography on Wikipedia. Just because someone wrote a blog and it was ranked by local blog rankers as a creative one, does that person become a writer notable enough to hold an article in the Wikipedia? NO! And for this guy you call a tech guru? You got to be kidding, Indians. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 08:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall anyone calling Kiruba a tech guru. It is probably the usual misconception that only techies are true bloggers that is causing your to say this. Achitnis 13:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep
Like Achitnis I do think,
The problem I am seeing here (over and over again) is that editors aren't editing - they are using AfD as a proxy for editing. And the people standing at the roadside cheering them on are people who really know nothing about the subject, and are using that fact as a reason to support deletion. This is not the first such instance I have seen, and I am sure that it won't be the last. Maybe we should listen to User:Bhadani when he says "Indian editors shouldn't edit Indian articles". :)
In this particular case, rather than do some research, "motivated editors" have been quietly snipping away pieces of information saying "not verifiable", instead of tagging them with {{fact}} and giving people a chance to provide references. Finally, when the article has been gutted enough, someone pops in a AfD nom. Don't take my word for it, check the history. Frankly, I am not seeing people playing by the rules that they keep referring to.
To people here in India, Kiruba *is* notable. But I guess that doesn't count, right? Because for some people, "notability" means "*I* must like him" or "*I* must have heard of him".
Some Users who hate Tamils are here to remove this article from wiki. See what happened on this Keep and on this Delete. Where there are AFDs for Tamils' Articles, You also can see the Crooks in Mission there.
Users who were impersonating themselves[1], are here worrying Kiruba Shankar is kidding Indians.Madrass Express 11:34, 22 June 2007 (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.