Annamalai Kuppusamy ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The article was created by somebody in 2020 and was proposed for deletion within weeks on the ground that the article fails the WP:NPOL and WP:BLP1E criteria and was deleted after discussion.

It seems not very unfair to delete the page at that point since he was just another IPS officer leaving service and joining a political party. Though it is very much evident that, he is more notable and not like every other hundreds of IPS officers as he was different and was famous. He recieves unusual media coverage atleast locally. But that doesn’t qualify enough to pass the WP:NPOL and WP:BLP1E criterias. Also the article presented then was more in a promotion tone. There was also a title conflict since there is another person with the name K.Annamalai. The nominator of the AFD himself “suggest to delete the article for now and wait till anything develops reason being wikipedia is not a soapbox and biographical host for every person” Consensus reached to delete the article ‘atleast temporarily’.

BUT, things had changed substatially over time. He was appointed as the state vice-president of the Bharatiya Janata Party and was promoted as the State President a year later. From day 1 in his office until now, he is been in the headlines of leading, reputed Tamil and English, newspapers and electronic media in Tamil Nadu 24x7x365. He even reaches national headlines frequently. It could be verified online here [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Tamil, Malayalam, hindi and Kannada Wikipedias already has artilce on him and the traffic for the page in Tamil wikipedia gets 5 to 7 times the views on an average when compared to the article on the previous president L. Murugan, even though he is a union minister.

I am elobrating all these things just to reflect upon his increased notability over time. Now the WP:NPOL criteria is met and he does not fit into the WP:BLP1E category.

Even though the name space Annamalai.K is been already created for a former ‘1-time-MLA’ who was elected in 2001 and was very little notable comparably. Yet he was argued to be an elected representative. Apart from that he was nowhere near to ‘Annamalai Kuppusamy’ (whom we are discussing about) in the notability scale. (This is another discussion)

For the argument that the tone of the then article is promotional, I have a different version which shall be uploaded (again it shall be discussed).

For the citations – There are already tens of hundreds of news articles available on him. We will be able to add fare references from reputed sources readily.

So it is very much unfair not to have a page in English Wikipedia on him now. - Vaikunda Raja :talk: 06:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• I would suggest the deleted content be restored to draft so that the new/additional information the nominator has mentioned can be added and the article transferred back to mainspace. Stifle ( talk) 09:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Based on the excellent submissions of Cryptic I now suggest keep deleted and list at WP:DEEPER. Stifle ( talk) 12:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  A DEEPER listing isn't warranted, I don't think; it hasn't been to DRV before so far as I recall. And we actually might want to unsalt someday, despite the best efforts of this person's promoters, if someone presents evidence from reliable sources that don't accept payment in exchange for coverage. — Cryptic 12:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  I have been noticing for some time that the namespace Annamalai is being created/drafted by somebody and was deleted by others. These issues was going on again and again and I wondered then that why such a personality like him does not deserves a page here. Anyway I moved on as I’ve witnessed similar arguments multiple times in the past on different spaces. I thought those things would be settled in a week or month by the people who are involved since an article on a personality like Annamalai is inevitable with every standards of Wikipedia. I am not involved with the topic any time earlier; BUT 3 years later, a page was still not available on such a notable personality! Mr.Annamalai is one among the key people around whom the politics of Tamilnadu revolves around continiously for the last couple of years. As a resident/native of Tamil Nadu I personally experience this. That’s why I am here now.

  The vigor with which the page was created again and again seems discourteous. But I assume, that was made by different people at different points of time. Most of the Ids which was attempting the creation of this particular page appears inexperienced, and was not familiar to Wikipedia. They are pretty unfamiliar with the regulations and norms of Wikipedia which literally goes into hundreds of pages. But see how rudely the issue was handled on the other side; by people Who has years of experience in Wikipedia. They keep on deleting on the other end without paying little or no attention to understand the crucz of the issue. Also, citing the behavior of some beginners does not warrant an indefinite denial of an article on a person with such notability.

  User:Cryptic opinioned that "especially on such flimsy evidence as google searches, other Wikipedias, and the Times of India."

  I repeat,once again

  He was the state vice-president of the Bharatiya Janata Party, (one among the largest political party in India) and was promoted as the State President, (of a state with a population of over 80 million) a year later.From day 1 in his office until now, he is been in the headlines of leading, reputed Tamil and English, newspapers and electronic media in Tamil Nadu 24x7x365. He even reaches national headlines frequently. It could be verified online here [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Tamil, Malayalam, hindi and Kannada Wikipedias already has artilce on him and the traffic for the page in Tamil wikipedia gets 5 to 7 times the views on an average when compared to the article on the previous president L. Murugan, even though he is a union minister.

  This is not about citing a random news from a random newspaper. They are news articles from leading reputed newspapers, The Times of India, The Hindu, Hindustan Times, The New Indian Express etc. I had ran searches focusing only on English dailies. There are a dozen regional language news articles also. Those above newspapers carries not one or two articles on Annamalai; But hundreds of articles each in the last 1 year alone. Again these are not some random newspapers. For example, 'Times of India' is the largest circulated English daily in the world. 'The Hindu' is the second most circulated English-language newspaper in India. These are all flimsy...!? Additionally, he also has more than half a million social media followers. If such a person does not qualify notability I would like to ask humbly to User:Cryptic, who has 15+ years experience in Wikipedia to " Define Notability"

  I would like to suggest experienced users here to act responsibly. - Vaikunda Raja :talk: 14:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Also afd'd independently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annamalai k, and the draft was mfd'd more recently at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Annamalai Kuppusamy. There's an existing draft at Draft:K. Annamalai (BJP politician), which I'm sorely tempted to G4 based on the mfd. Deleted at least 27 times in mainspace and 43 in draft. Do not unsalt or restore even to draft, especially on such flimsy evidence as google searches, other Wikipedias, and the Times of India.
  Note that there's a different K. Annamalai ( AfD discussion) who is notable, and whose page was hijacked for this person so frequently it had to be indefinitely ec-protected. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KM. Annamalai is also apparently about someone else. — Cryptic 12:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Times of India is the largest circulated English daily in the world. The Hindu is the second most circulated English-language newspaper in India. These news dailies has literally hundreds of articles which reports/covers Annamalai. These are all flimsy...!? If such a person does not qualify notability I would like to ask humbly to User:Cryptic, who has 15+ years experience in Wikipedia to " Define Notability" and define “Reliable resource”.

  What do you mean by "evidence from reliable sources that don't accept payment in exchange for coverage." Please act responsibly- Vaikunda Raja :talk: 14:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Cryptic does not need to define it; they are already both well-defined at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Stifle ( talk) 17:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Then you can link some of them instead of vaguely waving at google searches. Counting google hits is not research. And the Times of India is worth zero for a subject like this. You're the one who wants this restored; the onus is on you. — Cryptic 04:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I would encourage Vaikunda Raja to be as succinct as possible with their posts and consider carefully whether they need to respond to every point made. Repeatedly saying "please act responsibly" implies you are accusing people of being irresponsible, and will not go down well. Stifle ( talk) 17:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• This has been deleted several times and is currently protected against recreation. By the time an article gets to that point it's usually expected that you demonstrate that the reasons for deletion no longer apply and show a draft version which can be moved to mainspace before the title is unprotected. Here the reasons for deletion were notability, which usually means source coverage, so you'd need to produce sources which show the subject's notability. The above doesn't do this, the links given go to search results and other considerations like view counts in other Wikipedias aren't relevant for establishing notability. I suggest the OP try and write a good draft and come up with a handful of the best sources which show the subject passes the general notability guideline. A small number of high quality sources will be a lot more convincing than a large pile of low quality ones. Hut 8.5 18:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse whichever deletion is being appealed. The real issue is what to do about the tendentious submissions, but DRV is a content forum. Has the appellant been given notice of the contentious topic of India? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation subject to a new AfD. The Hindu and The Indian Express are both well-respected sources that are rated generally reliable at WP:RSNP, and while I'm not going to take a position on notability, the fact that they've each published dozens of stories about this person in just the past year is a very good sign that a 2021 AfD shouldn't be the end of the discussion. (From a "substantially identical" perspective, a number of the G4s have just been bad speedies, pure and simple.) We shouldn't let understandable frustration with other people's conduct keep us from recognizing that Vaikunda Raja has a valid point here. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  User:Extraordinary Writ, I request you to take a look into the draft version, Thanks. - Vaikunda Raja :talk: 13:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Allow Recreation and Review of Draft by downgrading protection in mainspace to ECP so that a reviewer can accept it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment - This is probably the worst case of the gaming of titles. But since the subject may be notable, the gaming of titles should be dealt with by sanctioning the editors, and not by means of WP:DEEPER. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Also created at KuppusamyAnnamalai and thence deleted at Draft:KuppsamyAnnamalai.
  I'd still want to see a reasonable draft before just declaring the afds unenforceable. Draft:K. Annamalai (BJP politician) ain't it. There's a lot of fully-justified G11 deletions here besides the G4s - this is how I first stumbled on the subject - and at least some of the bad G4s could have been G11s too. — Cryptic 04:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I am working on the text for the Article; BUT before the name of the article is another matter of concern.
  • Everybody Please go through patiently...
  • K.Annamalai (AIADMK) or K.Annamalai (BJP)
  • Right now the name of the article as in the draft is K.Annamalai (BJP Politician). The name of him as per his election affidavit is K. Annamalai. His social media accounts in Twitter and Facebook were with the same names. Majority of the newspaper reports mention his name as 'Annamalai' or 'K.Annamalai'. Here in wikipedia the name space 'K.Annamalai' is assigned to another person who was a Member of Legislative Assembly (one among the 234 members) who was elected only once in 2001 to Tamil Nadu state assembly for AIADMK.

  So if there are two people with one name the namespace should be allocated based on notability. The other person K.Annamalai of AIADMK is a former MLA. So his notability is to be weighed upon. He was elected only once as a MLA for the political party AIADMK, a party which is known for bringing in new unfamilier faces for every elections and swap them with another in the next elections. K.Annamalai of AIADMK is not only not elected more than once but also that he was not active since then. Because he was an MLA 20 years back he was not found in any newspaper reports either. If you ran a google search 90% of the hits (it be web, news or images) goes to the BJP President Annamalai. If you ran the search by the term 'K.Annamalai Tenkasi' again more than 80% will leads to BJP President Annamalai and another 20% will lead to some other Annamalais.

  • On the other hand the other one is an Ex IPS officer serving currently as the State President of a National Party. He was an outstanding IPS officer and a good Orator whose speeches goes occationally viral in millions as the one in this TED speech. He is a vibrant politician who has a combined social media followers of over a million in Facebook and twitter alone. More than from the political space as a state president of BJP he has been in the front pages of Newspapers. Not in regional language ones but in the national ones which are credible, reputable and reliable. The news reports here The Hindu Indian Express Times of India India Today Deccan Herald Hindustan Times The Statesman reports the appointment of him as the state president. I mentioned not the regional language Tamil newspapers (which are popular among the masses of over 80 million in Tamil Nadu) which ran atleast 100+ articles on him in the last 7 days alone. Here is the links for the same newspapers' recent newsstories on him The Hindu Indian Express Times of India India Today Deccan Herald Hindustan Times The Statesman. Almost all of them are within 5 days or so. Iam not going into the electronic media which has hundreds of videos which attracts millions of views.
  • Another important thing is: the current article with the name space K.Annamalai is misleading to public. Every time somebody search the google using the keyword 'Annamalai' or 'K.Annamalai', (as he was popularly known) they mean the BJP State president and reaches Wikipedia (which almost come within the first 5 hits on a google search) to know that they are in the wrong article. This shall be verified by peeping into the page views of the article. Though the page in the namespace K Annamalai is created in 2015 the page gets an average daily view of below 10. The page began to get increasing views when ever the other person, Annamalai IPS (when then as a police officer) get popular in newspapers and the page reaches an all time peak on 25-Aug-2020 with 24000+ single day page view when the former IPS officer joined politics and joined BJP. One year later on 08-July-2021 the page again gets a single day view of 6800+ and afterwards the page gets an average daily view of 700+. While, the person for whom the namespace K.Annamalai is allocated now has nothing to do with the associated dates and the relevant views. These things shall be again verified by comparing the page views for the article of the BJP President in Tamil wikipedia hereHence more than 700 people who are searching for the BJP president is has been misled to the page of the former One time AIADMK MLA of 2001 K.Annamalai. The person for whom the page was now allocated was so inactive that he was not even contesting for the last 15 years. This person is not even found in google hits or in the newspapers. So I request every body to pay little attention towards the wide ranging implications of the issue and act accordingly.
  • So the name spaces 'K.Annamalai (AIADMK)' for the former MLA and 'K.Annamalai (BJP)' for the BJP President is possible. This could be done if both personalities are more or less equally notable. But going through the page views and other things it is quiet evident that the BJP President K. Annamalai is far far notable than the former 2001 MLA. So I request everybody to assign the namespace 'K.Annamalai' for the relevant figure; and the other person be moved to 'K.Annamalai (AIADMK)' or so. Weighing between these two personalities is essential before assigning the namespace to either of them. Vaikunda Raja :talk: 17:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment - User:Vaikunda Raja - Your posts are too long. Some editors ignore overly long posts, and other editors conclude that the poster has very little to say, and therefore is using too many words to mask a lack of substance. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • User:Robert McClenon, I understand the frustration as a reader to go through long posts.I tried hard to cut-short further but failed since too many things are involved with this topic now. May be another thing is I am not proficient In English and so I need more words to express little perhaps, Sorry. - Vaikunda Raja :talk: 16:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Well you could have cut all but one of those 7 bullet points. Everything except the 5th is totally irrelevant. Uncle G ( talk) 18:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

      User:Uncle G It seems that by way of neglecting the other points you doubt his notability. The Basic criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) reads that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." If the criteria is so, Annamalai is been reported in multiple, independent reliable sources (The Hindu, Indian Express etc) more or less 50+ distinct articles in the last one month. For example The Hindu alone had published 4 different articles 1 2 3 4 on him in the last 48 hours alone! Leave aside the regional language newspapers which wrote 100s of articles.If not, I request you to make your point clear. - Vaikunda Raja :talk: 13:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Also I request you to go through the draft of the article as I had worked on it. - Vaikunda Raja :talk: 16:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  User:Vaikunda Raja - Please notice that I have requested that the title in article space be partially unsalted (protection downgraded to ECP) so that a reviewer who reviews the draft can accept it if it is ready for article space. I do not review drafts in detail if the title is protected in article space, because I will not be able to accept them. So please wait five more days until this DRV is closed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  User: Robert McClenon I value the insights and guidance you provide very much. Thank you. - Vaikunda Raja :talk: 13:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• I read this with intention to close it, but found no consensus to do anything. Having decided I wasn't going to close the discussion, I then changed mindset to 'dicussion contributor' rather than 'decider of consensus'. I agree with Cryptic that the draft is poor and not up to Mainspace standard. Considering the history of the titles and their repeated deletions, I am not of the opinion that AGF applies here (ie. allow a move to mainspace and AfD), and I also don't think allowing a single reviewer to approve and move to mainspace (by lowering the title protection) is appropriate given the long history of articles being deleted for G11 and AfD reasons. My !vote is keep deleted with prejudice given the circumstances, and the only way forward for any person trying to recreate this is to come to DRV with a fully-complete draft and ask "is this worthy of mainspace?". I know this might be a departure from norms, but quite simply, the history of this article at its various titles is extraordinary. Daniel ( talk) 23:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Three main issues with this article/namespace are 1. Alleged Illegitimate creations and repeated deletions; 2. Notability; 3 Quality of the content.

  1. Repeated creations and repeated deletions: Beginners often shall not be aware of the detailed regulations here in Wikipedia. They began writing what they consider worthy. Assuming good faith, those who are experienced in Wikipedia should/shall verify the notability and credibility of the subject and the relevant sources before deciding how to act. The article/draft should be approved if the subject is notable. If the behaviors of the concerned users are not satisfactory, consider sanctioning them after proper notifications/warnings. As noted by User:Robert McClenon and User:Extraordinary Writ it is thoroughly unfair to decide upon the fate of the article based on the behavior of some beginners as in this case. So is he notable worthy of a standalone article?
  2. Notability: Though he may not be notable when the article was first created what User:Cryptic perhaps failed to notice are the later developments; especially when the person's notability gains substantially over the last couple of years. His notability increased so much so that Indian media covered him 24x7x365. Reputed, reliable and credible sources publish news articles on him almost on a daily basis. Iam a native of Tamil Nadu and I stand testimony (personal testimonies do not matter and this detail is just for clarity) to the fact that the current politics of Tamil Nadu revolves around a few people and Annamalai is among the top 5, unquestionably and that's what reflects in the scope of the media coverage. As suggested by User:Hut 8.5 the details in the current draft fulfill the Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline as the subject has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Apart from the draft, in the last 30 days there shall be at least 100+ news articles published on him from reliable, I repeat 'credible English sources' alone!. There shall be an additional 500+ ones in atleast 5 another regional languages published during the same period. One among the most reliable English print daily ( Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) in India 'The Hindu' had published 3 different articles [11] [12] [13] on him on 3 different matters in the last 72 hours! But it may be argued that the draft is not up to the mark.
  3. Quality of the draft content: For the argument that the quality of the draft is not upto the mark, the template {Tone|date=November 2023} is already in place and the page shall be improved collaboratively. Considering the Namespace's history, future edit wars/reverts shall be prevented by keeping the page under ECP. But citing this as a reason to not promote the article to main space is unfair. For those who consider that the current draft is in a admiring tone I would suggest to get into the details of the cited sources. I just reflected the information there to my best. And, most of the sources cited including for personal details are among the highly reliable ones. Also, I am careful enough that I did not editorialize.

  Most Importantly and interestingly this shall perhaps be one among the rare cases in the history of English Wikipedia that the notability of a person is not only subdued but was also diverted to another person! With denying the general namespace 'Annamalai.K' for the notable person (Annamalai Kuppusamy) and allocating it for another one who is disproportionately less notable, hundreds of English Wikipedia readers are diverted to a wrong page every single day! This could be verified from the unusual traffic jump of the current page k.Annamalai on August 25 2021, the exact date when the former IPS officer Annamalai.K (who was still reduced to a draft page now) joined politics and also from the subsequent daily traffic of the page of 700+ daily views. Apart from the election result page no news articles are found on him either online or offline and no google hits either! I wonder how this former One-time-MLA of Tenkasi K.Annamalai's notability is weighed against the multi-disciplinarian Annamalai Kuppusamy in the notability scale! The other page should be disambiguated appropriately WP:DPT

  User: Daniel asked for "fully-complete draft"! Out of the 6 million+ articles in English Wikipedia, how many of them are fully complete?! Wikipedia is not where the contents are written by experts and are closed for another 5 years until the nex review. Is it legitimate to require "fully-complete" text on any subject in a collaborative project like Wikipedia where edits are made almost on a daily basis?

  IMHO the draft is ready to be upgraded to the main space. Additional copy-edits, rephrasing etc be made and that shall be done even after moving to main space either. - Vaikunda Raja :talk: 10:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Clearly the advice from numerous experienced editors to keep posts and responses to shorter lengths has not been taken on board by the applicant, with another near-800 words to process above. Quite frankly, I don't care enough to go through it all. I disagree with the assertion in the final paragraph that the draft is ready for articlespace, and have little faith it can be brought up to the required standard. On that basis I don't believe it should be moved to articlespace, and will only reconsider my view should a "good" draft be presented (rather than the current "poor" one, to use Cryptic's word of choice). Daniel ( talk) 10:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  (Do I really call things "poor" enough to be remembered for it? I haven't in this drv, and it's more diplomatic than a lot of the words I think before they make it through to my fingers. — Cryptic 10:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)) reply

  (The editor has now contributed 3,037 words to this DRV, which is one of the more spectacular examples of bludgeoning the process that I've seen at DRV in recent years. When you consider that submitting Arbitration evidence is limited to 1000 words, including rebuttals, this number is just unwieldy. Daniel ( talk) 10:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• If we end up with an article here, it will be despite, not because of, the filibustering and repeated attempts at recreation. See User:JzG/And the band played on.... — Cryptic 10:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Miles Routledge ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

A previous deletion review recommended allowing recreation; however, I'm requesting restoration of the original article. There is a draft pending at Draft:Miles Routledge, and I'd like to have the original article back with its old edit history so that the draft at AfC can be combined into it. Dan Leonard ( talk) 01:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Procedural Close - It appears that the draft was accepted, and it appears that that is what the appellant was requesting. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• The request is to undelete the old history, right? If so, I don't think that should be too controversial given that there's now a new version in mainspace. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply