Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srivatsa Ramaswami


 * 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   default to no consensus. Upon examining this AFD in more detail, a few things jumped out at me as irregular; after further investigation, Volt7, Star108, and the AFD's creator, KeithS77, turned out to be related accounts part of what I've found to be a prolific sockpuppet farm tampering with yoga-related articles. With this in mind, I'm nulling this AFD completely and recreating it at Articles for deletion/Srivatsa Ramaswami (2nd nomination). All users who participated are welcome to weigh in again. m.o.p 05:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Srivatsa Ramaswami

 * – ( View AfD View log )

topic is lacking significant coverage and secondary sources KeithS77 (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Administrative note: this user is a confirmed sockpuppet. m.o.p  06:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: A yoga teacher that wrote a couple of books about yoga is far from notable. No sources establishing notability are provided. Earlier versions were promotional garbage, which thankfully has been cut. No indication that sufficient sources will ever be found to establish notability. Delete in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No attempt to establish notability. Shii (tock) 01:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I noticed an Amazon rank of 106000 for his 2005 book, the others are much lower. Also a few hits on google scholar, but not much else to support notability. MakeSense64 (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Objection An Amazon book rank does not make the author notable. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per, , , , and . SL93 (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 01:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Keep, conditional on the edits provided by SL93 being integrated (because I'm sure I don't understand the topic well enough to). Stuartyeates (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment The delete arguments are poor, being unsourced is an issue, we don't delete at AFD because notability hasn't been established but because notability can't be established. Usually we expect to see evidence of searches for sources rather then assertions that its unsourced and can't be sourced. On the keep side, how an admin is supposed to evaluate a bunch of links is beyond me, some explanation of what you are providing will allow the admin to evaluate the debate against policy rather then ending up supervoting by making their own opinion of whatever it is you are providing. Spartaz Humbug! 05:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. But when there is only this much to be found about the person, then what kind of explanation are we supposed to give? To have a real deletion discussion I think what we need is editor reponses to the arguments and sources that are brought. These could be inserted as Objection: (+ explanation) below the respective votes/comments. As an example I am posting an objection my own comment (I hope that's OK). An admin would then strike out either the argument or the objection depending on what stands and after three days the admin can post some kind of interim report, stating to what side he leans based on current information, and what will be needed to save the article in case he leans towards delete. Then there are three more days to conclusion of the AfD. This would make the deletion process more transparent and give the editors feedback. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Three not particularly well selling books do not a notable author make. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sources listed above are a book review and trivial mentions in articles in yoga magazines. Nothing substantial enough to be equivalent to a feature article even if taken together. A Goole search turned up nothing substantial, either: announcements for courses, promotional material and more trivial and tangential mentions on blogs and in niche magazines of low circulation, but nothing that comes close to solidly establishing notability. Mention is usually similarly worded, indicating reliance on subject's own promotional material rather than actual investigative journalism. No mentions of exceptional awards or other recognition from professional societies, which is surprising considering the man has a 50 year long career. Book rankings on Amazon indicate that the subject's books are not best sellers by any stretch of the imagination, and of interest only to a small niche market, at best. Even if the claims in the subject's promotional materials were supported by independent sources, there would still not be enough to establish notability. I found no evidence that the subject of the article is anything more than an undistinguished, run of the mill yoga teacher. Still does not meet any of the criteria for notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet WP:BIO Star108 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Administrative note: this user is a confirmed sockpuppet. m.o.p  06:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with Dominus Vobisdu|talk's comments Volt7 (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Administrative note: this user is a confirmed sockpuppet. m.o.p  06:02, 9 December 2011 (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.