Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam

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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rajkumar Kanagasingam

Rajkumar Kanagasingam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

the article is an advertisement, majority of it is written by the subject or one of his socks which violate WP:COI and the article doesn't meet WP:BIO requirements of notability ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 14:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This article was once nominated for deletion, the result of that discussion can be accessed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam/Archive ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 14:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE

  • One of the reasons for the previous AFD failure was immense canvassing conducted by the Rajkumar Kanagasingam himself..And he has not disappointed us again this time.He has made messages at Ccsott, Freedom_skies,Seraphimblade,SiobhanHansa, Wackymacs, Tarinth, Bakasuprman, and many other talk pages,pleading them to help him..He didn't even spare Jimbo Wales from his spamming campaign.And I have already seen one of them cast his vote in favour of him, just like the last time.I have never seen such disgraceful canvassing by anyone in Wikipedia, especially to save his own article..This alone should disqualify him from having his BIO at our beautiful Wikipedia.Iwazaki 会話。討論 08:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That is your own understanding what am doing is disgraceful of your group's another AFD Scam. But read this about what an editor said on this canvassing here.[1][2].Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Glad that you have learned something from that..Now I know, why you have decided to increase spamming to 10+ talk pages. Makes perfect sense. ThanksIwazaki 会話。討論 11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You should have learnt something from that.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 11:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • delete almost all the references are self authored or self published, or the results of the subjects own PR work. including the main one "Kanagasingam is writing a book titled German Memories in Asia. The book is due to be released by the US print-on-demand publisher AuthorHouse.[1]" By all author bio standards this is non-notable. The prev. Afd was noted for its lack of critical thinking. DGG 04:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A heavy aroma of CoI hangs over this article, and its claims are either minor or not independently verified. -- Hoary 05:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per DGG. Article just reads as an advertisement. - KNM Talk 05:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears notable. He is the founder of a notable organisation, Princess Diana Institute of Peace. Independent sources on him include mentions in: an article [3] in Sri Lanka Daily News, an article [4] in the Colombo Daily Mirror, an article [5] on Daily News Online, A Sri Lankan website. For what its worth, his name gets 4,640 ghits [6]. I am also concerned about a potential WP:POINT violation in bringing this debate, as the nominator is presently in dispute with the subject on an unrelated matter. WjBscribe 05:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The nominator might have brought this article to deletion because of a dispute, but that doesn't make Rajkumar notable. All the links given by you are trivial, and mention him just once. The large number of Google hits is thanks to Wikipedia mirrors and his articles on PR sites where anybody can submit an article by registering an account[7][8][9][10]. utcursch | talk 09:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The Ezines and on-line PR firms where I have published my articles and PR releases also having editorial policy. If you refer their policy you will come to know. Most of the other Blogs and Ezines only picked those articles from those Ezines.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The Nominator :o) do not have anything against Rajkumar Kanagasingam, I have not even for a second assumed bad faith on him without proper reasoning. Princess Diana Institute of Peace is another scam of this editor, if you do a google search for this only hits you get is the wikipedia article, I come from Sri Lanka and I have never heard of it here. If one examines the image included in the wikipedia article, it clearly says its a limited liability company thats allowed to use the name "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" without the word Limited. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 08:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete For very simple reason, He is absolutely not notable and unheard in My country.Most of the sources are in fact written by himself and contain false information, such as calling himself a columnist when he has only 4 article for a certain newspaper!!!. Does anyone know how many Sri Lankans write articles or columns to local news papers ?? I guess it could be thousands, and do we need articles for every single person who write something to news papers ? And there are several hundreds of NGO in Sri Lanka and anyone, even I ,can start a new one..So I am not sure how that would make someone notable. And for the google hits, both rajkumar and Kanagasingam are extremely popular names among Tamils and I am rather surprised that there were ONLY 4000+ hits. Please do tell us how many of those hits are actually belong to the author himself..finally, this person has nothing to do with India hence this debate should not be included in the india-related deletions..ThanksIwazaki 会話。討論 06:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: For your comments in the last AFD a few Editors have already answered here.[11][12][13][14][15]Rajkumar Kanagasingam 08:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
reply: I am sorry ,none of them have answered.Means, your notability is not yet confirmed or established !!.In fact most of them came to vote as a result of your pathetic vote canvassing, and glad to see that you are doing the same this time .Iwazaki 会話。討論 09:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Their reply stands forever, they should not repeat once again for you pre-planned AFD. See the details here.[16][17][18][19]Rajkumar Kanagasingam 09:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Where ?? Could you please stop accusing me with fairytale stories in which my name doesn't even appear.Iwazaki 会話。討論 09:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I mean based this, you are working as a group of wikipedians against me.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you please make your self more clear ? Are we debating about Rajkumar Kanagasingam or Rajkumar Kanagasingam ? If it is the latter, don't you think you are in the wrong place ? Iwazaki 会話。討論 11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You can take the revenge something for other, don't you?Rajkumar Kanagasingam 11:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: As a Tamil and a Hindu, I am related to India Tag. Mere political jurisdiction can't single out a person from his cultural and language boundaries. Rajkumar Kanagasingam 07:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
We know you are a tamil, but how that would make you an indian ?? Are you a tamil of indian origin ?Can you prove that here ? From what I gather from your BIO,You are a Sri Lankan and have nothing to do with india..Please refrain from adding unnecessary Tags.Iwazaki 会話。討論 08:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That is only a India - related Tag, that doesn't require someone to qualify that he should be a Indian-origin nationality or an Indian. The same culture, religion and language also qualifies one for that tag. Why you are so interested to delete that tag?Rajkumar Kanagasingam 09:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate it, if you read Wikipedia policies instead of wasting our time hereIwazaki 会話。討論 09:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Which wikipedia policy are you talking about? It is good enough if you could furnish that before you delete the Tag. Your interest to delete the Tag only shows - I am more related to that Tag than unrelated. All are originated from Africa some 2000 generation ago, but the close ethnic, religious and cultural identification qualifys for the Tag.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom, as nn --Ragib 07:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As decided by the community less than three months ago, this subject is notable as he is discussed in multiple, non-trivial and independent published references (see here and here) thus meeting the primary notability criteron of WP:N. I do not understand what has changed to necessitate another AfD so soon after the last one resulted in a Keep consensus. Ccscott 08:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Question/comment: I see a small number of short, competent but unremarkable newspaper articles by him. I don't see him discussed in multiple, non-trivial and independent published references. Which are they? Incidentally, I'm surprised that anybody worth an article in WP would be so involved in the effort to retain that article: wouldn't he or she be too busy to be interested in, and above, such humdrum recognition? -- Hoary 08:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
If the deletion process is highly biased and had some ulterior motive, I don't feel anything wrong a subject is taking interst for his article or image(you can interprete as you want). If you take some interest you will come to know the real motive of the nominator rather than accussing the subject.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 08:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Reply: These references were already discussed before at the previous Article for deletion debate that resulted in a Keep decision. I suggest that all editors review the Afd guidlines, in particlular Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Renominations and recurring candidates. I am concerned this re-nomination was brought forth for non-policy reasons as the nominator has recently been in a dispute with the subject of this article. Ccscott 10:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that any of the references were actually discussed at the previous AfD, which featured sockpuppet votes by Rajsingam. The references are multiple, but not non-trivial. utcursch | talk 10:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Whether the references are non-trivial or not is an editorial decision, but in my opinion (and that of the majority of editors commenting in the first AfD) it is clear that this article and this article both have the subject as the main focus of the article and are non-trivial. This is enough to satisfy WP:N. Remember, notability is not subjective. The article still needs much work, and Mr. Kanagasingam's behaviour has not helped things, but the article should not be deleted on the basis of non-notability. Ccscott 14:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Peace medals ??!! Hundreds of them were given to students during 1994-1996 period by then Government..As a Sri Lankan I find it amusing that someone consider him to be notable just because he was given a medal, just like hundreds of other Students..Sorry, he won't become notable, just by getting an odd medal.Iwazaki 会話。討論 01:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
He is not notable because he has won a peace medal. He is notable because there are multiple, independent media reports on the subject in reliable sources (see here) and therefore this article satisfies the primary notability criterion of WP:N. Aside from the argument of utcursch who believes that the many newspaper articles discussing the subject are not non-trivial (I disagree), there have been no policy-based reasons put forth to delete this article by any of the editors commenting. All the pro-deletion agruments I see are based on "I haven't heard of him" or "I don't like him", cite the apparent COI issues that surround this article or are just the lazy "per nom" (please see: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). None of these are valid reasons for deleteing an article according to Wikipedia deletion policy. Ccscott 11:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Ccscott says: He is notable because there are multiple, independent media reports on the subject in reliable sources (see here). Pardon me for repeating myself, but: I went there and saw a small number of short, competent but unremarkable newspaper articles by him. I don't see him discussed in multiple, non-trivial and independent published references. Which are they? I still haven't seen an answer to that. Ccscott says: All the pro-deletion agruments I see are based on "I haven't heard of him" or "I don't like him", cite the apparent COI issues that surround this article or are just the lazy "per nom". Yes, I cited the apparent COI issues. But that wasn't all I wrote. True, I hadn't heard of him, but I'm very willing to concede that I haven't heard of most noteworthy people. (Example: I haven't heard of a single skateboarder, but I'm reliably informed that they can be noteworthy for skateboarding alone, let alone for their other achievements.) And I don't know why I should have to make such a banal declaration, but I neither like nor dislike Rajkumar Kanagasingam. Reason, I think, for deletion (from the very page Ccscott cites): Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth), of which the important member is WP:BIO. But perhaps I'm wrong and he does meet WP:BIO. If so, how? -- Hoary 09:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for not addressing this directly but I have provided the link several time to the off-line articles, written independent of him, that discuss the subject directly. Again, the list can be found on the talk page for this article. Specifically: [20], [21], [22] are published newspaper articles completely independent of the subject which are primarily focused on the subject (and are therefore non-trivial). There are also numerous more marginal published articles (a few are: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] and more here ) which discuss the subject in a more trivial fashion. This amount of news coverage is sufficient to pass WP:BIO and WP:N easily in my opinion and that of the editors participating in the first AfD. Ccscott 12:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Neither the peace medal nor handing out an unknown report make this person notable..I don't see anything but pure propaganda in those pictures..In case you don't know, It is not a big deal to have your photo on a newspaper..Some people when they get married put an add on the papers, some when they passed an exam do the same, some others prefer to notify the whole Sri Lanka when they win a medal or competition(in most cases just to boast) by having their picture on the papers..So, just because one has some photos on a newspaper he/she won't automatically become notable , kinda common sense. And, no one here saying things like i don't like him and bla bla..People have come up with very good points and I would kindly ask you to read them instead of dragging this into a different direction.Oh,,You can always shed some light on this by showing us anything written of him in media BY others..So far i have failed to see a single article or anything reported in local media OF him, quite strange for such a notable person, isn't it? Iwazaki 会話。討論 01:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
My sockpuuppet vote is only one, not several. But read these comments by another editor on AFD.[28][29].Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Rajkumar, The number of votes that you stacked doesn't matter here. If it's 1 or 1000, still you have violated the policy. You directly or indirectly violated number of policies. You know you are lucky to be here until this moment. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 16:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Though he has had his name in the news, none of his accomplishments seem noteworth enough for an article. Also the comment above highlights the glaring conflict of interest concerns. —Ocatecir Talk 08:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The conflict of interest is based on some unrelated issues as a wikipedian developed from the Sri Lanka Conflict and the details are here.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 08:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Umm, no the conflict of interest stems from the fact that you are writing your own articles and citing yourself. A bit circular, no? —Ocatecir Talk 09:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That starts from here. Rajkumar Kanagasingam 09:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, and the shenanigans surrounding it make me even more willing to see it disappear. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedily Delete This article is written predominantly by Rajkumar Kanagasingam himself or sock puppets and as such fails WP:BLP completely and should be speedily deleted. Its sources are exlcusively articles written by [[User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam|] himself and as such their genuiness and reliability can be questioned. Rajkumar's claim to be notable is based on articles written by himself. Wikipedia is for notable individuals only.Kerr avon 12:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article is on my watchlist, and most of it was actually written by myself and RaveenS (talk · contribs). Lahiru k, Netmonger, etc has been found guilty of sockpuppetry (Iwazaki is clean though) as well, so those in glass houses should not throw stones at others. He's been noted and wrote for many prominent Sri Lankan newspapers.Bakaman 16:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
commentFirst, please refrain from bringing irrelevant things to this debate.And remember you too in the glass house and should not throw any thing(even a dust) at others. Second, please tell us what are those, many newspapers, all we know is, he wrote 4 articles(1 or 2 kowtowing of a political leader) for Daily news and 1 article for some other..Mainly to promote his NGO work and him self!! Could you please bring us one or two articles written of him(by others) in the main stream news papers ? Since he is notable even in India , hope this won't be a big problem for you. Iwazaki 会話。討論 01:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
Reply - I have only edited sporadically in Sri Lankan/Tamil articles, a little bit in Anton Balasingham, and a few random historical Hindu figures in Sri Lanka. Just because I am Tamil does not automatically mean I am from India or that I support a ragtag bunch of terrorists. Noting this, I fail to see the glass houses you talk about. I noted above that I know you have not engaged in peculiar behavior unlike lahiru k and netmonger. As for notability, the sources on the talk page (kanagasingam's ) seem to assert notability.Bakaman 02:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
reply to bakaPlease stick to the point, this is not about those ragtag LTTe terrorist(even though Mr Rajkumar is an adamant supporter of them). This is about a unheard,not-notable person using wikipedia to boast himself..So, all we do is asking you to shed some light on this issue by giving us reliable sources about his achievements. Not blogs, Not School character certificates, Not self boasting articles, Not some clueless photos..If he is so notable, why can't you provide us anything written OF him?? ?

I didn't even know you were tamil ,and sorry if I have made a mistake about your nationality.All i know is that you are a trustworthy friend of this person and even shared wiki-passwords with him ,and came to vote here immediately after his SOS. And about the glass house, I was speaking of the same glass house which you mentioned earlier.So if you don't see it now, neither do I Iwazaki 会話。討論 03:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - I say this as an outsider (I'm an American who's never been within ten thousand miles of Sri Lanka): Will everybody involved in this argument please calm down. The vicious fights surrounding articles on Sri Lanka and the Indian subcontinent are really starting to get out of hand. We are making an encyclopedia here, we are not creating a place where people can continue their real-world fights in cyberspace. And, before anyone uses this comment as a club against anyone else: I am talking to both sides, here. Please stop. --LastChanceToBe 18:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Bakasuprman's allegations of sockpuppetry is mere speculation, I dont quite understand how he arrived at this theory of sockpuppeting by me and Lahiru_k and Iwazaki is clean!!!.. This only amounts to a personal attack and a failure to assume good faith on fellow editors. And these things are not something to be discussed here. This discussion is about whether to keep an article or not, so please adhere to the topic. As LastChanceToBe says lets not bring our real world fights to cyberspace. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 06:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Although Rajkumar Kanagasingam is alleged to have written for many prominent news papers in Sri Lanka, he is not notable, nobody seems to know him at all in my home country of Sri Lanka. He is not a notable media personality, nor a prominent journalist so i fail to see what his claim to be notable is about.Kerr avon 13:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. Sarvagnya 02:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per nomination. I also believe this fails WP:BLP and that there are startling WP:COIissues. Xdenizen 11:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nomination. Dutugemunu 13:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom, the fact that contradictory to what someone said above he has just 170 unique google hits[30] (my username incidentally has 103 Ghits [31] :) and the fact that his book is been published by a print-on-demand publisher (ie they print a copy only when one is requested and don't pay the author anything - in fact the author initially has to pay the publisher a certain amount) --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 14:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete COI issues aside (I personally don't feel COI should lead to deletion unless the article is in such a poor form it's best to start over), it's not clear if this article establishes notability. I thought the peace medal might be something but [32] suggests it's nothing that special. Nothing else clearly established notability to me. Also there appears to be bad behaviour own both side. It is inappropriate to spam people about an AFD, especially if it's an article about you & those people are ones who have previously supported you. However it does appear the nominator is involved in a dispute with the editor with some controversy. Editors involve in disputes should not nominate articles for deletion about the person they're involved in the dispute with. Even if the editor genuinely feel it should be delete, this raises COI issues and just looks bad. Rather, you should bring the matter to the attention of other people, e.g. via the village pump or perhaps COI notice board and mention you are involved in an unrelated dispute and don't want to cloud the issue by nominating it. Nil Einne 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. --vi5in[talk] 16:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Almost all the references to newspaper articles are those written by him. I fail to see how this is notable in the least. Seems to be more of a vanity article than anything else. --vi5in[talk] 16:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • delete doesn't seem notable enough and per nomShindo9Hikaru 00:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems notable. Everyking 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 09:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable RaveenS 13:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep seems notable; plenty of sources are given--Sefringle 04:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable, weak sources (all from daily news articles or posts on internet forums written by the subject), article written by the subject and his socks (See WP:COI), he is unheard of in his country of birth (I am from Sri Lanka), he has written ONLY 4 ARTICLES TO THE DAILY NEWS if this is noteworthy and deserves a wikipedia article we would be disgracing the journalist community. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 07:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment As nominator, you're automatically taken to be advocating deletion. Thus, I've struck out the "Delete" part of your post there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • CommentI know that as the nominator I am automatically advocating the deletion, and any admin would be wise not to count me twice, I just wanted to further emphasize the facts. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 15:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • And you're welcome to make a comment further emphasising those facts. It's just that in an AfD like this one, with people talking over each other every which way and accusations flying, it probably makes sense for those who've already expressed an opinion about keeping or deleting the article to be a bit more careful about writing either word in bold. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I have written articles for local newspapers and given lectures and talks. By this standard pretty much everyone who has held any lectureship at even a university would be able to put up bios. Even teachers. I'm afraid the encyclopaedic noteworthyness of this article is 0 at best.Pubuman 18:14, 22 March 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.