User talk:4letheia/Palam Kalyanasundaram-2

This is a record of the discussion at the talk page of the article Palam Kalyanasundaram, which was created in July 2014, and speedy-deleted a few days later as a recreation of an article which had been deleted at an AfD discussion. I'm preserving the discussion here for historical and evidence purposes. --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... The references given in the article are validated reports of national news paper known as 'The Hindu'.Kindly let me know any other reasons for deletion. I would like to contest those reasons --Drpjkurian (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the detailed discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalyanasundaram_(2nd_nomination) and User_talk:4letheia/Palam_Kalyanasundaram which is a copy of the talkpage from the previously deleted article. --_nonsense ferret 23:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you for saving the talk page! I knew we had a ton of research there and I was wishing I could see it again. Well done. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, Drpjkurian. I'd like to explain. The information about this man was discussed at great length here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalyanasundaram (2nd nomination). You should read that. Basically, when people tried to confirm what is said about him, we couldn't. There is that one article in The Hindu, which is normally a Reliable Source, but in this case they seemed to be repeating a lot of unverified myths. Many of the things in that article are provably untrue, and so it casts doubt on the whole article. Mr. Kalyanasundaram appears to be someone that everyone reveres, and so a lot of stories have grown up around him that get repeated over and over, and yet they do not appear to be true. They are myths that spread by word of mouth, such as the supposed "Man of the Millennium" award from an unspecified American organization, a nonexistent award from the UN, etc. Today when I tried to confirm the story linking him to Rajanikanth, I instead found this item [1] from Bollywood Life, in which they say they have tried to verify the story without success. "We wonder if this news is true or just a fascinating post on a networking site." That is pretty much true of everything said about him. We can confirm that he exists, that he founded a charity, that he got an award from a Rotary organization - that's about it. Not enough to meet our criteria for notability and verifiability.

I'm sorry, I know you wrote this article in good faith. The argument for "speedy" deletion - deletion without discussion - is that an article about him was deleted earlier after a public discussion, and this article is pretty much the same as the one that got deleted after that discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melanie I agree with your arguments Drpjkurian (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking another look at this, Drpjkurian. I'm sorry about this and I hope you will continue to edit at Wikipedia. I will say so on your talk page since this page will be gone when the article is deleted.

To the administrator, it appears that the author of the article has withdrawn his objection and now agrees with deleting the article. --MelanieN (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]