Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Ramdhanie


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 05:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sandra Ramdhanie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Couldn't find a single source about her, either in print or online, that corroborates her apparent notability. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  02:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So what are all of those references on the bottom of the article? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment while I'm personally against paranormal ghost woo stuff, there are sources and she's written up in a lot of books. Try doing a google book search. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC) Keep because, though she is a fraud she manages to get coverage in RS. Legacypac (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Could both of you provide reliable sources? I couldn't find any. How does she pass WP:AUTHOR? She clearly fails general notability. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  17:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate on why the numerous sources at the bottom of the article don't qualify in your eyes? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Well the burden of proof falls to those arguing keep to produce enough WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. I conducted a WP:BEFORE search on this individual and Facebook, IMDB, Twitter, and blogspot were the first things to come up which was not a promising sign. I did a search through Google Books and aside from her own published material, she's mentioned in passing a few times but nothing to warrant WP:SIGCOV. In almost every case she was not the subject of the publication or even the chapter. The Irish News source was the most promising one but it's only one source. The rest may very well be good sources but I can't WP:V them. Mkdw talk 06:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When I wrote this article, I did so using my University-provided LexisNexis account. This doesn't allow me to provide a link to the articles as I was reading digitised versions of print media on a private database. It was my understanding that we didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater because not every reference is accessible in an online format.
 * I am very confused about what's going on. The references at the bottom of the article are quite clearly enough to pass WP:GNG. These are secondary sources from reputable newspapers with in-depth coverage of the subject's work. Given the person's profession isn't primarily as an author ('psychic', 'con-artist', whichever), I don't understand why her BLP is suddenly being judged under these criteria. I had no answer when I initially queried this and without one I can't assist/improve/vote. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Could do with a little more discussion — UY Scuti Talk  16:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  16:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * we relist discussions to seek more consensus but at WP:RELIST it states that generally discussions should not be relisted for a third time. Mkdw talk 21:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, generally. I relisted this for the third time 'cause there isn't a consensus here, number of commenters are not substantial and your comment was made yesterday. Having taken the discussion is live, I relisted this for the third time with a comment per, Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient. Did I do something wrong? If yes, sorry. Regards— UY Scuti  Talk  01:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Relisting is usually done to seek further consensus so when it's stated, " in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice" then the reason for doing so a third time should be due to something beyond simply seeking more consensus. We have no consensus closures to prevent AFD's from going on perpetually. Furthermore, I would argue that we have a policy based consensus here. Albeit one not with a lot of policies, but as someone who closes quite a few AFDs, the burden of proof has not been met almost entirely negating the keep arguments short of WP:ILIKEIT which are WP:ATA. Mkdw talk 01:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with . This is pretty straightforward. I mean, when references such as "Sandra Ramdhanie describes herself as a psychic-psychologist and ghostbuster and is fascinated by the fast that ghosts seem to spend all their time dragging things around or eternally pacing up and down", "JFK to visit Ireland in the Springtime", or "Sandra Ramdhanie aims to stop randy ghost groping female guests" are used, there's really not much else to add - she is simply a non-notable quack. Wikipedia is not suited for such topics. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  04:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG as far as I can tell. The refs are RS; at least the first three of them seem to provide "significant coverage", don't know about the others. But the fact that user Mkdw can't verify what most of these sources say is not a reason to dismiss them as non-existent. User:Panyd added most of those sources/did the research, and I have no reason to believe that she hallucinated the whole thing and the sources aren't real. WP:V doesn't say that all sources need to be accessible to everyone on the internet. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Some extra bits from Google Books to help prove notability (in addition to refs in the article):
 * Paranormal Ireland by Dara de Faoite, Maverick House, 2015
 * Psychic Kids by Lynne Gallagher, Mercier Press, 2007
 * The Paranormal Review, Society for Psychical Research, 1997
 * When Beds Float : Exploring the Poltergeist Enigma by Michael Clarkson, Key Porter Books, 2005 (apparently just a mention but she's called a "well-known psychic")
 * — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:34, 3 February 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.