Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohit Vyasmaan


 * 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   no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Rohit Vyasmaan

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability in question. Has NO sources for nearly six months now. Last few lines in the article justify non-inclusion rather than inclusion. Some minor BLP violations as well in the article. prashanthns (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —  Salih  ( talk ) 08:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is not in question, because there is coverage in:source source source source source source.  The fact that the article has had no sources in the past 6 months is down to laziness, not inherent non-notability. In my opinion this nomination fails WP:BEFORE because the nominator has clearly not bothered to look for sources.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  08:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did do my bit of literature survey for him, but failed to find primary sources with significant coverage on him. Apart from the NYT link that you have posted above, I do not find any of the other sources to be significant coverage. Nothing to justify a biographical article for me. prashanthns (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Sure does get some google hits, but most of them are links to his profiles on various networking sites, or his own posts in various forums, or mirrors of his posts. Very few articles are actually about him, and seem to be written by people who are closely associated with him politically. The only thing he seems to have done is start a website, which is no longer runnign anyway. Hardly a criteria for notability.--Deepak D'Souza 10:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the links I cited above are profiles on networking sites, and none are posts on forums. Is it seriously your position that the New York Times is "closely associated with him politically"?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  10:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, please control your language. Using abusive terms in edit summaries, even if abbreviated ,is not civil. Second, I did not go through your links(do I have to?). I did a seach on google. And even if he is mentioned in NY Times, it doesn't mean he is necessarily notable. All he has done is start a website. You seem to be taking this rather personally, for whatever reason. --Deepak D'Souza 10:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you don't have to go through my links, though the closer will likely take account of the fact that you didn't in assessing the weight xe gives to your !vote. A mere mention in the New York Times does not establish notability, no. What establishes notability is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.  It's my position that the New York Times, and Indian national newspapers, are reliable sources and the discussions mentioned above constitute significant coverage. I find it astonishing that you would disregard my comment so completely as not even to bother looking at the sources I cited, and still have the chutzpah to admonish me for incivility; but it is true that in my surprise, I used the edit summary "Wtf?", and I apologise with all due profuseness.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  13:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no rule that you have to base your decision solely on the links provided by other voters. If that is the case then why have an AfD at all? why not simply go by the nominator's opinion and delete right away? And since when did not going agreeing with another voter at AfD and doing your own assesment become incivility? --Deepak D'Souza 04:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was irritated and annoyed yesterday, since your reply indicated that you had neither performed a thorough search for sources yourself, nor read my sources, before !voting. I find this kind of behaviour very frustrating, because searching for sources is hard work and it's everyone's job. Today, having slept on it, I realise that I should simply thank you for your contribution.  So thank you for the efforts you've shown.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  07:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. While S Marshall's links show coverage, on reading through the links, I see that all of them are coverage for the website as the subject, not the individual. Coverage of the individual is related to his role as the one running the website, as a secondary topic. I don't believe this falls under substantial coverage in reliable sources. Also, while Tehelka is a news outlet, it's more a sensational tabloid, so I'm ignoring that one, but the NYT, Outlook and Rediff are all focused on the website itself (which probably merits an article, and Vyasmaan could probably be merged there). -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a secondary topic. The GNG says: * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. This seems a perfect fit to me.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  20:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that they address the subject in detail. This is an interpretation where you and I differ. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge/ modify into an article on the website which everyone in the discussion agrees is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bajrang Dal. The person is not the primary subject of the references provided in the article, and preliminary research doesn't indicate sufficient notability for a separate article. utcursch | talk 13:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The sources S Marshall provide do not address the issue of notability. 1) NY Times - simply uses a quote from him; that's not "significant coverage." 2) Rediff - mentioned only in context of HinduUnity.org. 3) Outlook India - trivial mention. 4) Tehelka - trivial mention. 5) Muslim World - trivial mention. 6) Samaj - trivial mention. It seems that the sources may establish the notability of HinduUnity.org; I would support the creation of that page and subsequent redirect to that target. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:04, 6 July 2009 (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.