Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangalore Venkata Raman


 * 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   keep. L Faraone  00:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Bangalore Venkata Raman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't find any reliable sources to establish some of the claims in this article, nor can I locate any sources giving significant coverage (which is decidedly odd considering the claims of notability). The RAS website makes no mention of Bangalore Venkata Raman (see site:ras.org.uk Bangalore @ google). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 19.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  08:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, no sources at all. Somebody should also have a look at Niranjan Babu, which has similar problems. 122.176.146.47 (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is me, the unsigned IP from up there. I have reviewed the sources linked below, as well as those for searches from BV Raman+Astrologer and I think I was wrong -- he was indeed notable. Enough so, apparently, that even Carl Jung wrote to him . I'd change to '''keep. Lazarus the Lazy (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Having someone famous write to you doesn't make you notable. Notability isn't inherited, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep after clean-up: There are a few sources online: his works, works on him, a NYT report on his death. I haven't analyzed the article or the sources in depth and there might be more. The problem is that the article is very poorly written with unreliable sources (first one is a self-published source) and all major claims are missing references. It requires a major overhaul and every unverifiable statement removed.  Samar  Talk 14:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The first is just a non-specific link to a search, and the second doesn't look reliable, the third gives a fair amount of coverage, but the article gives little critical insight and mostly just quotes a given obituary and Raman's website. I don't think the article should be based on the strength of that single obituary . IRWolfie- (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe with an in-depth search more sources can be found. There is a Britannica entry about him and the book on him Dr. B.V. Raman: the man and his mission can be used for expansion; I can't call it unreliable as the author (S.V. Jayasheela Rao) seems to have some credentials. I understand your point too, many of the claims are not sourced which may leave behind a stub but I am not in favor of delete right now, I think we should request a subject expert to look into the article. Samar  Talk 16:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm probably the only person consistently active in the astrology wikiproject, you could try WikiProject India, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: Please search with "B. V. Raman" too to find more sources.
 * As said above, Encyclopedia Britannica has an entry, see this journal article, This ref is trivial but still it mentions "legendary astrologer"! Seeing the other results from Google web the article passes basic WP:GNG barrier! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A self published blog on a "journal" isn't reliable, and trivial sources don't add up to significant coverage, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As said above, Encyclopedia Britannica has an entry, see this journal article, This ref is trivial but still it mentions "legendary astrologer"! Seeing the other results from Google web the article passes basic WP:GNG barrier! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A self published blog on a "journal" isn't reliable, and trivial sources don't add up to significant coverage, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable figure, passes WP:Scholar.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  17:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * He's not an academic, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I suggest merge the the article of son and daughter with this one. They are just continuing the work of the father, should they have their own article. Samar  Talk 09:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You can start separate AFDs! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't need AfDs for merges, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete after looking things over. Even with the few sources found, he doesn't seem to pass WP:Notability (people). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The NYT piece is a deal breaker already, but more results can be easily seen online that confirm that the subject is regarded as a prominent astrologer     , and that's the English results only. From their tone, and taking into account the years of activity, it becomes safe to assume that offline sources are also available — Frankie (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

English. I would strongly recommend keeping of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.19.2.87 (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is a prominent astrologer. His books are read and followed widely in certain circles. The dearth of reliable sources citing him and his work is because he never published a lot in
 * 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.