Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr sreehari hypnotist


 * 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 speedy delete. Speedied per G4 by Bbb23 Favonian (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr sreehari hypnotist

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Astounding claims with shaky sources. I cannot independently verify, from reputable sources, that this person created a world record for the largest number of people hypnotized. The article speaks of him as worthy of a Nobel Prize without even beginning to suggest the required background. The putative nominating body, "Global Medical Association", was the subject of an article which was speedily deleted as a hoax in 2014. Much of the article is an essay about how hard it is to be an anesthetist; remove that, and what's left is simply not credible. ubiquity (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Sreehari is by no means the first doctor ever to use hypnosis in place of conventional anesthesia. Claims that he is entered in the Guinness Book of Records are neither verifiable nor are they relevant: it has long been established that inclusion in the GBoR is not, per se, an indication of notability. Claims that Sreehari has been nominated for a Nobel Prize may or may not be true. Presumably any individual or organization can write to the Nobel committee and nominate any person they choose. The fact that this nomination comes from an organization as sketchy as the "Global Medical Association" (an organization of such limited scope that the only news on their website is this nominating letter!) gives reason to believe that the Nobel committee will give this nomination little consideration. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: could this then be speedied since there is no credible claim of significance? ubiquity (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2016 (UT


 * Keep  His name was entered in to Indias book of world records,also Hindu news paper and other news papers says his name entered in to guinness book of world records.Global medical association nominated his name for Nobel prize,It is an association from United states of America. ,which was nominated an indian doctor means we have to consider the greatness.At a time he was hypnotized 250 members,i think it is very great. the article is eligible for Wikipedia. (Varalakshmi100 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)) — Varalakshmi100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There is no evidence that an American professional organization called Global Medical Association exists beyond that web page. Anyone can create a web page, and post what they want on it. It's not very good evidence of notability. ubiquity (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

(Qazsxde (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)) — Qazsxde (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I opened the "Indias world records web page" ,i can say with confirmation that it is a world record.He is a physician and also hypnotist. Hypno anesthesia is a good topic.Primary and secondary sources were covered, Even if Nobel prize source may not be considered, he is a notable person ,he was creatred a world record in medicine ---subject Hypno anesthesia
 * Comment As entry in the Guinness Book of Records is not, per se, a sign of notability, even less so is entry in the Indian book of records (presumably, this refers to the Limca Book of Records) because that book's criteria are even looser than Guinness'. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as per G5, see the open SPI and the Nsmutte SPI. GABHello! 20:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per CSD G5 as pointed out above. It's a recreation of a recreation of a recreation of a (and so on ad nauseam) self-promoting article, made by a sock of indefinitely blocked user Nsmutte. Thomas.W talk 21:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * or Speedy delete per WP:G4, based on Articles for deletion/Y. Srihari or Articles for deletion/Hypnotist srihari. Sorry I didn't spot these earlier. ubiquity (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Any article mentioning Dr Sreehari/Srihari and hypnotism is eligible for CSD G5 and should be zapped ASAP, since the only one who creates such articles is he himself, and he's both indefinitely blocked and community banned. Thomas.W talk 21:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good to know for next time (Global Medical too). Too bad there will probably be a next time. ubiquity (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete (G4/5) and SALT the earth. The only way this guy will stop is if every tangentially-plausible title is salted or blacklisted. Since pre-emptively doing this is impractical and the title blacklist carries the risk of collateral damage, it's best to salt the title of every article made by Nsmutte as he uses them. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 21:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, time to pass the salt-shaker. GABHello! 21:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * and others have already blanked the page and tagged it for speedy deletion, so that shouldn't take too long. I don't know how we can salt it when Srihari is such a common name and there are so many possible variations, just for example: [Dr|Doctor] [Y[ellapu]] Sr[i|ee]har[i|ee] [(][hypnotist|[hypno]an[a]esthetist][)] &mdash; 360 combinations right there, not even considering case. ubiquity (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is a legitimate need to have an article salted by Nsmutte's antics unsalted for an unrelated article, then they can create a draft about said person and, if accepted, an admin can move the draft to the salted title. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 21:57, 9 March 2016 (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.