Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramesh Nagaraj Rao (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. The arguments for deletion have sufficiently more strength in their rationale than the arguments for keeping the article. A major topic of discussion was over whether or not the article subject has significant coverage to where GNG is met, or enough reliable sources that are independent of the subject that address the subject directly and in detail enough to where content can be written without the use of original research. Of those who argued that the article subject meets this criterion, one user listed a number of sources that they found, which was met by rebuttal showing that these sources don't provide significant or primary coverage of the article subject, but only trivial mentions that last only a few lines, or trivial mentions within page footnotes. Other users appear to agree with the notion that significant coverage isn't met, as well as the response in rebuttal.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Ramesh Nagaraj Rao
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NACADEMIC.

As to WP:ANYBIO, nearly nothing apart from Martha Nussbaum's criticism. And, I am highly doubtful of the article, felling afoul of WP:BLP, if the article is indeed sourced to the sole significant third party coverage of his works (Nussbaum). &#x222F; WBG converse 13:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  &#x222F; WBG converse 13:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: A notable pundit. This article has been nominated for deletion before and kept. The subject was notable then and is notable now. The article has evolved considerably since the last AfD from this version. Content was added by User:Kautilya3, bringing it up from 10,531 to 12,124 characters, then a large amount was removed by user:Winged Blades of Godric, bringing it down to 4,982 characters. User:Winged Blades of Godric then nominated it for deletion a second time.The subject is controversial, defending the RSS against criticism by secularists such as Sabrang Communications over the way funding for the Ekal Vidyalaya was being used. That is not a reason to trash or delete the article.  Aymatth2 (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Agree that it fails WP:NACADEMIC. (My previous expansion was merely filling in the detail that was needed. It had nothing to do with any AfD.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The subject is not notable as an academic. They are notable per WP:GNG because they have been discussed by various independent writers, as cited in the earlier version:




 * A search in Google books for "Ramesh Rao" "RSS" gives a sense of the sorts of issue the subject is involved in. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG necessitates significant coverage and it's pretty clear that you have not bothered to read a single of the afore-dumped sources. None apart from Nussbaum devotes more than a couple of lines towards him. Trivial name-drops in footnotes (first and last-but-one cites) and back-cover profiles (sixth, seventh and eighth cites) does not count towards a passage of WP:GNG. I also don't see where is Rao mentioned, in your second, third and last cite; please provide quotes. The interview (fourth cite) is from an unreliable media-unit and does not count any towards a passage of WP:N, either. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources tend to focus on what Rao has said or written, but that is sufficient to establish notability. For example,
 * In, Manu Bhagavan says "Clarifying the logic underlying such a view [protect Hindus from the "Muslim uprising" of the Khilafat movement], Ramesh Rao, one of Hindutva's most vocal  and popular contemporary advocates, states,  ..." and then gives a lengthy quote, followed by an analysis: "Finely carving out details with all the finesse of a hatchet job, Rao quickly conflates Moplahs with Khilafat and signals the danger of both by dropping the word jihad into the mix..."
 * In  Ben Arnoldy gives a paragraph to Rao's views.
 * The Coalition Against Genocide in their report says "Among the members of the Executive Council of the HAF [Hindu American Foundation] is Ramesh Rao, a professor of Communications, with an established reputation as a vocal defender of the RSS." and then goes on to discuss his views at length.
 * Antara Das in  gives an extensive interview inviting Rao to present his views.
 * A notable pundit. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO, trivial coverage in the form of a single quote and a couple of lines. Even more vitally, negative coverage. Still thanks for bringing this up; I failed to spot it.
 * More than a couple of lines, more like a page - read it. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wot?! Clarifying the logic underlying such a view, Ramesh Rao, one of Hindutva's most vocal and popular contemporary advocates, state:- [A paragraphed quote].Finely carving out details with all the finesse of a hatchet job, Rao quickly conflates Moplahs with Khilafat and signals the danger of both by dropping the word jihad into the mix. Again, the essentialized Muslim is assigned the role of bogeyman, as no effort is made to understand or to distinguish between the peasant Moplahs of the Malabar Coast rising up against local landlords or the anti-Western imperialism nature of Khilafat or, for that matter, the complexities of the word jihad. &#x222F; WBG converse 05:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Most trivial; a byte in a news-report does not contribute to WP:SIGCOV in any form or manner. I have landed on this news-piece earlier, FWIW.
 * A paragraph is significant coverage. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh. &#x222F; WBG converse 05:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Coalition Against Genocide is a highly partisan and fairly unreliable source.
 * They do not like the guy, but seem respectable enough to me. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Proving the onus of reliability lies on you. &#x222F; WBG converse 05:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you dispute the accuracy of this source, which appears to check the facts very carefully, you must demonstrate that they are unreliable through examples. Much of their extensive discussion of the subject is based on an analysis of the subject's own publications. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't deem interviews to contribute any to WP:N. Check comments over the recent RfC on the t/p of WP:INTERVIEW and over other related community-discussions. FWIW, Swarajya is a BJP/Indian-RW-mouthpiece for all practical purposes and its independence is highly questionable. &#x222F; WBG</b> converse 18:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Interviews is an essay, but makes the point that interviews show the subject has been noted and contribute to notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked you to view the t/p of the essay; esp. the sections about clarifying the section on notability and why it was not promoted to a supplementary guideline. As TonyBallioni said:- The section on notability in particular is just plain wrong: interviews can under no circumstances count towards notability as they are inherently primary sources, and counting them as towards the GNG defeats the point of our being a tertiary source. As someone has noted on the t/p, the essay used to be much clearer on the aspect of notability from interviews, before two paid editors (who have since got banned) modified a lot much of the content.  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 05:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in any guideline that says interviews cannot contribute to notability. What the interviewee says is of course primary, although it may be quoted. The interview shows media interest in the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am intrigued by your comment: "Even more vitally, negative coverage". How does this affect notability? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Rao is not a high-profile-figure even in the RW eco-system; if we choose to exploit the two RS which covers him (Nussbaum and Bhagavan), we need to write some sort of overtly critical hit-piece on him, which has a high potential to fell afoul of WP:BLP. In case of low-profile-figures, whose sole notability is borderline and comes from entirely negative coverage, we generally exercise our discretion to not have an article 'bout them. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 05:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You may be confusing sources that provide verifiable information and sources that establish notability. When you gutted the earlier version of the article you threw out a lot of content from reliable sources. I propose to restore that information, and to add more from some of the sources that discuss the subject in depth. We cannot say that because much of the discussion of the subject is negative we are forced to write an over-critical and unfair article. We can let the facts speak for themselves. The interviews are useful in giving verifiable quotes by the subject himself. As "one of Hindutva's most vocal and popular contemporary advocates" he warrants an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I restored some of the content that had been deleted by the nominator, and added some so the article gives a more complete and balanced view. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Which I have removed; usual shoddy write-up with zero clue about the domain. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC) {{hat|reason=Extended content (verging on the WP:BLUDGEON} ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)}}
 * Delete much of the current sourcing the article relies on is poor quality and unreliable (why is it still in there?). Very little—apart from passing mentions—reliable sourcing from independent, secondary sources remains, either in newsoutlets or—apart from his own works—the literature. ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per SerialNumber above. None of the current sources support notability. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 15:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * He is not notable as an academic but as a pundit. Four sources are quoted in the "Reception" section: Krishnan Ramaswamy is very favorable to the subject, while Martha Nussbaum and Manu Bhagavan are less positive and the Coalition Against Genocide is downright hostile - but known for careful fact checking. Are there any inaccuracies? Which sources are not reliable or independent, other than the subject himself? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not either of them but (as I have iterated before):-
 * (1) Manu takes one of his quote, as one of the many examples, that he uses in his careful dissection of the broader Hindutva-oriented scholarship. Manu goes on to spend precisely a couple of lines in rebutting him. Non-significant coverage.
 * (2) Ramaswamy's passage in that much-talked-about book is not reliable (esp. for counting towards WP:N) except for attributing his own views in pursuit of WP:V; the work has garnered a plethora of scholarly criticism. It may be prudential to note the sage words of a Harvard indologist, who once commented about these academics working in the intellectual backwaters of Hindutva :- ... churn out long identical passages, in book after book, sometimes paragraph by paragraph, all copied in cottage industry fashion from earlier books and papers; the whole scene has become one virtually indistinguishable hotchpotch ..... Much of these fringe academicians cross-cite each other but that does not add to notability.
 * (3) Martha Nussbaum devotes sole significant coverage, which is grossly negative . We need multiple instances of significant coverage.
 * (4) I personally like CAG but are they reliable? Any reputable scholarly volume which holds them in high esteem and/or references from it, extensively? The sole mentions that I am seeing across RS are mentions of it having successfully lobbied, to have prevented Modi from entering USA. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (3) Martha Nussbaum devotes sole significant coverage, which is grossly negative . We need multiple instances of significant coverage.
 * (4) I personally like CAG but are they reliable? Any reputable scholarly volume which holds them in high esteem and/or references from it, extensively? The sole mentions that I am seeing across RS are mentions of it having successfully lobbied, to have prevented Modi from entering USA. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (4) I personally like CAG but are they reliable? Any reputable scholarly volume which holds them in high esteem and/or references from it, extensively? The sole mentions that I am seeing across RS are mentions of it having successfully lobbied, to have prevented Modi from entering USA. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (4) I personally like CAG but are they reliable? Any reputable scholarly volume which holds them in high esteem and/or references from it, extensively? The sole mentions that I am seeing across RS are mentions of it having successfully lobbied, to have prevented Modi from entering USA. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> See discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Comment added by Aymatth2 (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is possible that the book he edited with Elst is notable, but as an academic, he isn't at this time; I cannot find evidence of him meeting GNG or NPROF. Furthermore, previous AfDs are not evidence of notability in any sense, though the comments in them may provide such. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - It does seem to have a lot of sources and coverage in reliably published sources (3rd party publishers). The article could do with expansion but the subject is fairly notable and covered extensively, so the fact that the article is no good doesn't mean that it should be deleted. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Tentative Delete: Articles balanced on tbe razor edge of notability. i dont see enoguh significant coverage to flesh out an biography of a living person with the reliability and rigor that we would normally demand for a BLP. That being said i am not dogmatically against this article and will try once again. Michepman (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.