Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nirinsanity (talk | contribs) at 12:19, 22 March 2024 (→‎K. Annamalai: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 2024 March 20
2024 March 22 >

21 March 2024

K. Annamalai

K. Annamalai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was reading up on the 2024 Indian general election and going through the Wikipedia maze of articles when I discovered that Annamalai does not have an article on Wikipedia. What was even more puzzling to me was that some other unknown Annamalai had a page, but the known Annamalai didn't have one. So I decided to investigate and tried to go through the entire history of the K. Annamalai page and all the disputes and discussions about the notability of the guy who is currently detailed, versus the guy who is not. I completely understand how the arguments brought forth by other Wikipedia editors could seem misleading to pretty much anyone who isn't from Tamil Nadu. As someone with a hopeful half-decent understanding of Wikipedia and its guidelines, and as someone from Tamil Nadu, I will attempt to put down my arguments to why the page K. Annamalai is not deserved by the subject of it, but instead is deserved by the other guy.

In the context of Tamil Nadu politics, there are two people known by the same name, K. Annamalai. The obvious differentiating factor betweem the two is the party that each Annamalai belongs to. One belongs to the AIADMK party while the other belongs to the BJP. So let me use acronyms to refer to each Annamalai; AKA - AIADMK K. Annamalai and BKA - BJP K. Annamalai. Currently, the page K. Annamalai is being used to represent AKA, but I believe it should be used to represent BKA. I will first attempt to debunk the notability of AKA and then attempt to prove the notability of BKA.

Taking a look at WP:POLITICIAN, it does says that "Politicians and judges who have held state/province–wide office" are notable. However it also says that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". As someone from Tamil Nadu, it is very obvious to me that AKA falls under the latter criterion. But if I have to attempt to prove this to someone on the web who isn't from Tamil Nadu, the argument I have is that I cannot find a single news article written on AKA on the entire web. I'm not even sure if it's possible to find news articles on AKA because even searching for "AIADMK K. Annamalai" on the web only yields results about BKA. AKA is someone who held office more than 20 years back, but is completely irrelevant now because not only has no one heard of him in a long time, but even if anyone wants to read and find out about him, there is absolutely no way to. I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong if anyone can bring up the link to even a single news article written about AKA.

Now onto BKA. Before I attempt to prove BKA's notability, I need to state that I've gone through the history of the numerous attempts by a lot of editors to create the article on BKA. And after going through them, I will unequivocally acknowledge that all of the articles written previously were in almost complete violation of Wikipedia's basic guidelines. It appears there are 3 times that articles on BKA have been deleted on consensus after discussion

  • 1 - September 2020 - Reason - Not notable
  • 2 - May 2021 - Reason - Not notable
  • 3 - April 2023 - Reason - Not notable and Promotional

I agree with the consensus reached for all 3 deletions for those times. But BKA did start becoming notable at a certain point. But it's not easy for me to clearly define when exactly he became notable. However I certainly believe that BKA now falls under the criterion of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" under WP:POLITICIAN as of today, and certainly deserves the page K. Annamalai more than AKA.

At the very least, the current page on AKA as it stands right now must be deleted to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia, so that people who're visiting the page expecting to read about BKA do not get confused, and assume that Wikipedia has incorrect information. Nirinsanity (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: thank you for the thorough and clear exposition, Nirinsanity. I can make a few observations here:
    1. You being from Tamil Nadu is irrelevant to our case, and comes across as an argument from authority. If the information is only available to people in Tamil Nadu, then it is not independently verifiable, and we can not use it here.
    2. We don't have to delete an article on one K. Annamalai to make room for an article about another K. Annamalai. We have over one hundred articles about different people named David Smith. If both K. Annamalai people are notable, we'll have an article about each one, under separate titles; see next point.
    3. If someone reaches the page about K. Annamalai (AIADMK politician) expecting to find an article about K. Annamalai (BJP politician), the first sentence in the article will clear their confusion. This will not break the "integrity of Wikipedia". We do not delete articles about notable topics just to avoid the possibility of such confusion. However, if we decide that both people are notable, we will add a "hatnote" that will read something like, "This article is about the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam politician. For the one about the Bharatiya Janata Party member of the same name, see K. Annamalai (BJP politician)." We do this type of thing here all the time. Even when it comes to Tamil Nadu politics, I'm sure there can be more than one K. Annamalai.
    4. I find it unlikely that after years of non-notability lasting until at least April 2023, BKA has suddenly attained notability, but it is certainly possible. If that's the case, I suggest we take another look at Draft:K. Annamalai (BJP politician), and see if the rejection was due to a confusion between the two people. Do all the sources there relate to BKA and not to AKA? Pinging @DoubleGrazing: to go over this with you. Again, the sources you add to that draft can be in Tamil, English, or any other language, but they must be accessible to users outside Tamil Nadu. If accepted, the article will be moved from Draft to main space, and the hatnote I described above will be added to both articles to prevent confusion.

Hope this helps! Owen× ☎ 21:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse keeping AKA (the nominator does not provide any argument for why the deletion outcome for BKA should be overturned, so I assume that will come in a future DRV). As a member of an Indian state legislature, AKA passes WP:NPOL#1, full-stop (Politicians [...] who have held [...] state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels). Curbon7 (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Curbon7 It doesn't matter to me whether BKA has an article or not, so let us even ignore BKA. If I have to prove my argument that AKA is not notable as per "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability'" under WP:NPOL, please tell me, how can I go about it? Because that is the argument I'm trying to make here. AKA is not notable. I can't even find sufficient proof of his existence except for the two non-news references that are currently there on K. Annamalai. Nirinsanity (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still open at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 13#K. Annamalai (I.P.S). I opposed listing at WP:DEEPER in last November's DRV, but enough already. —Cryptic 22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse We don't delete pages on notable individuals because of confusion, we edit the page to clear up the confusion. SportingFlyer T·C 23:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SportingFlyer As I enquired in another reply, if I want to prove my argument that AKA is not notable as per "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability'" under WP:NPOL, please tell me, how could I go about it? Because that is the argument I'm trying to make here. AKA is not notable. I can't even find sufficient proof of his existence except for the two non-news references that are currently there on K. Annamalai. Nirinsanity (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nirinsanity: If you held state office for five years, there will have been something written about you. If you're an unelected candidate, you have to be "otherwise notable." I do not know Tamil, I had to use Google Translate, but perhaps [1] is one of the articles you're looking for? SportingFlyer T·C 10:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the content from that source, as well as another I found (the assembly's Who's Who for that session [2]), which buff the article out to be more than just election stats, now definitely surpassing WP:NOPAGE. Curbon7 (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Curbon7 @SportingFlyer Alright frankly I'm amazed at how you two found these sources, because I couldn't find anything on him. I'd be really grateful if you can enlighten me on what is the method you generally follow to find references on a subject, especially considering that these citations are in a language that you don't even know. I now stand conflicted on one of my original arguments, that AKA is not notable.
    However, my second argument that BKA is notable per WP:NPOL#2 - "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." - is still valid, and I will attempt to bring into existence the article on him. The Draft:K. Annamalai (BJP politician) is quite visibly in a tragic state right now. I will see if I can give it some NPOV treatment and make it read like an actual Wikipedia article. Nirinsanity (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, speedy close, and list at WP:DEEPER. Enough now. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and topic-ban appellant under WP:NOTHERE. I originally assumed good faith in my attempt to help the appellant, but their last comment here clearly shows they are here for political reasons, not encyclopedic ones. Listing at WP:DEEPER may also be a good idea. Owen× ☎ 11:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse & speedy close I'm assuming it's this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Annamalai we're discussing here? That closed as unanimous keep, entirely appropriately as the subject passes WP:NPOL unequivocally. This review motion seems to be based on the incorrect interpretation of NPOL, mistakenly equating state-level legislators as 'local politicians', and on the equally incorrect notion that there can only be one K. Annamalai article in Wikipedia. I see no reason to overturn the close. (And to add on a personal note, I really wish this seemingly never-ending Annamalai malarkey would end. I've already had to pursue the matter at ANI, SPI, and possibly elsewhere, and now can add DRV to the list. Starting to lose the will to live here...) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX Thank you for your points. I originally disagreed with a few of your points, but after discussing with the other editors in this thread, I now completely agree with all of your points. I will see if I can attempt to make the current Draft:K. Annamalai (BJP politician) more neutral and read like an actual Wikipedia article. Nirinsanity (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Kate?

Where is Kate? (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Insufficient weight given to WP:BLP concerns compared to a !vote up / down count. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to clarify I'm seeking to relist the deletion discussion so that we can give proper weight to the BLP concerns that permeate this article. Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m a bit confused about all of this. Firstly, I have only read that there are general BLP concerns on the article, what specifically are the BLP concerns? And secondly, why do the BLP concerns need to be under a deletion review, and not the articles talk page? TheSpacebook (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're treading very dangerous ground with WP:BLP by creating a content fork to list what amounts to a bunch of unsubstantiated celebrity gossip. WP:NOTGOSSIP is relevant. I think the closure focused too much on the number of !votes and the presence of sources that might be reliable and that, in this case, these BLP concerns should have been weighed more in the closure. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Moon landing conspiracy theories are a bunch of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, but they are notable, which makes the topic encyclopedic. The Where is Kate? article isn't about the location of the Princess. It is about those unsubstantiated celebrity rumours flying around during the past few weeks. This gossip has received enough significant coverage to make the topic notable. WP:NOTGOSSIP tells us that Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography (emphasis mine). This one, however, warrants inclusion. Even gossip, if significantly covered, can achieve notability. Owen× ☎ 17:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, what specifically is the concern? Which parts of the article are treading into dangerous BLP grounds? TheSpacebook (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per previous comments. Skyshiftertalk 17:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse per above. (I was a merge !voter) The supposed grounds for the review are very strange - i don't see any "up/down count". The vague hand-waving around BLP and NOTGOSSIP is equally strange, particularly given the very good description of how NOTNEWS was treated. I thought it was actually a careful and thoughtful closing (and I would have preferred a different outcome). DeCausa (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Excellent closing statement, no evidence that a relist would move the needle. BLP concerns are not a bigger concern than recentism, because we're dealing with a very public figure and the entire brouhaha is about her trying to be less public and the public, through their designated journalistic lackeys, not having any of it. Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article has been picked up by news sources saying “The princess' absence from public events since Christmas last year has, as you might have expected, spawned all kinds of conspiracy theories. It even gave rise to a whole Wikipedia article entitled "Where is Kate?"“ (https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/getty-flags-another-british-royal-family-photo-for-being-digitally-altered-121856385.html#:~:text=It%20even%20gave%20rise%20to,she%27d%20undergone%20abdominal%20surgery.) TheSpacebook (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either endorse or overturn to no consensus (noting both have the same end result for practical purposes). Strong policy-based arguments were made to keep the article, and I agree with OwenX that any BLP concerns were unfounded. Delete/merge voters made a valid claim regarding whether this has/will have a lasting impact but there clearly was not consensus to not keep the article. Due to the high attendance at the AFD, I do not think a relist would impact the discussion. Therefore I oppose relisting. Frank Anchor 19:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close as no consensus, relist, or resend to AfD: I created the article, nominated it for AfD, and eventually !voted Keep:
  1. As the closing comment to the AfD article suggests, a thorny issue here is that there isn't really disagreement (on the whole) about the article's coverage in reliable sources, though there has been some disagreement about whether those sources are secondary. Moreover, the disagreement concerns whether this article should be on Wikipedia at all – that is, the scope of the project, and WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTGOSSIP.
  2. Tellingly, this deletion review results from a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kate Middleton, in which responding editors with particular interest in BLP policy feel overwhelmingly that the article doesn't conform with said policy, and that this was overlooked or not clearly articulated in the AfD discussion, in which there were no !votes or comments that directly cited WP:BLP outside my nomination statement, except the rather memorable Delete !vote that this [is a] grotesque BLP-violating festival of WP:NOTNEWS tabloid indulgence. In hindsight, I would have liked to inform the noticeboard of the article and topic from the outset, and I also don't know whether I would have voted differently had the BLP argument (separate from NOTNEWS) been better articulated.
  3. While I thought the nomination statement was graciously well-worded and clearly the product of much reflection, I was also somewhat surprised that the AfD closed as Keep rather than No Consensus, and the closing sentences, in particular, seemed off to me: the keep editors, collectively acknowledged NOTNEWS, but differed in their view of whether the amount and duration of coverage warranted an exception. I felt that the position that reached consensus in this discussion is that it did.
  4. Finally, and importantly, I think the AfD did have a thread of evolving discussion, so a relist might have helped to achieve consensus. The other thing is that this is an evolving news story, and editors contributing at the start of the discussion would have had a different perspective than those towards the end. The discussion at the BLP noticeboard, and a bold bid from the DRV nominator to redirect the article two days after the AfD close, finally show that even if the AfD did reach consensus, this isn't a consensus that is being respected. We have comments on the noticeboard like:
  1. It's one of those articles that makes you think Wikipedia might not be a good idea after all
  2. the standalone article is a mockery of WP' BLP concerns, which pretty much override everything
  3. This entire side article seems like a major BLP violation ... The worst kind of gossip. The people arguing to keep it seem like gossip mongers themselves, and
  4. that is one of the worst articles I've ever seen and should have been nuked without prejudice. The AfD is a disgrace.
With all this in mind, I recommend overturning the closure and closing as no consensus, relisting, or resending to AfD. I appreciate there isn't much in WP:DRVPURPOSE to support this perspective, but given the dissatisfaction that has resulted from the closure and the response of the noticeboard, coupled with the uniqueness of the topic and the fact that the discussion has centred so much around Wikipedia's purpose rather than the individual topic, I wave my hands with the magic dust that is WP:IAR. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also partially concerned that the BLP noticeboard prompted an editor to amend WP:NOTNEWS to tamp down on this sort of embarrassment in future (source). Though the amendment is minor and I don't think it would have changed anyone's !votes, it's not in a collaborative spirit for a group of editors to feel that their concerns were not articulated in an AfD on a topic receiving considerable news coverage, then amend the policy that formed the basis of the discussion so that future AfDs might come closer to their desired result. It seems like the best possible result out of this situation is to allow said group of editors to express their concerns at an AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skimming that discussion and not seeing a whole lot of sound policy reasoning articulated there. I'm seeing a whole lot of emotional reasoning attempting to use policy to achieve a desired result, combined with some really bad takes: newspapers aren't secondary sources? Seriously? Regardless, I wouldn't let other peoples' overreactions either goad or guilt you into doing anything; the community spoke pretty cogently in the AfD actually. Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The epitome of that is one of the (currently) latter posts which says "I don't think there's a point in the Deletion Review, since clearly the close with that AfD was really no other way to go with how the discussion itself played out. No consensus at worst. But the problem is that all the editors who voted Keep in said discussion, especially with their extremely poor reasoning, should be ashamed of themselves."[3] DeCausa (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
newspapers aren't secondary sources? Seriously? - Take a look at WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Also per WP:PRIMARY (the policy): For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. See also note d of WP:PRIMARY. Or see: Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources.[1]: 69 . Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's literally about breaking news or, at least, immediate news reporting. Actually, most news media is a mixture of primary and secondary even within the same article. For the type of sourcing that's in this article it's almost all secondary. DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This. Beat me to it. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is about news reporting, yes. And the distinction between primary and secondary sources is usually far muddier than people might wish. But I was merely responding to the blanket "newspapers aren't secondary sources?". No, very often they are not. Or rather the articles aren't. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, however, cut short my quote from Donnelly & Norton. It should be: Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources. They are considered to be inferior to documents of record because they are held to contain various degrees of interpretation, subjectivity and bias. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Very often" is the problem. I think editors making broad statements about newspapers being primary sources is what's inappropriate. It's actually a narrow circumstance when that's the case. DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Narrow" is rather debatable. But this is DRV, and I'm sidetracking. I'll happily discuss how narrow reporting of current events is in a newspaper on my talk page or yours. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Donnelly, Mark P.; Norton, Claire (2021). Doing history (2nd ed.). London New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9781138301559.
  • Endorse I thought that was a very well-reasoned close, and would have come to a similar conclusion myself. I'm actually surprised those advocating deletion didn't make stronger arguments, considering I recognised a few of those names - and let me be clear, I'm not saying those arguments were invalid, just that they did not really counteract the keep !arguments in the way I might have expected that would have been needed in order to close this against consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and close as no consensus The opposing arguments were based on WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:BLP, all of which are policies. An article with running commentary on every move a living person makes is a violation of WP:BLP. That alone was enough to override most of the arguments put forward by the group who was in favor of keeping the page. I don't see any point in deleting the article at this juncture, since I'm pretty sure some of the users involved would then start adding all that questionable content to the main page; additionally, I do not see a new AfD going anywhere as long as there's hysteria in the media about her whereabouts. However, closing that discussion as 'no consensus' would be an acknowledgment of the fact that the "delete" votes were based on our policies. Keivan.fTalk 01:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comment I just wanted to drop by to acknowledge I am aware of the discussion here, and continue to stand by my close. Thanks. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_March_21&oldid=1214982910"