Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srivatsa Ramaswami (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. TigerShark (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Srivatsa Ramaswami
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a procedural re-nomination of Articles for deletion/Srivatsa Ramaswami - said nomination was found to be created (and the article's deletion supported by) a network of sock puppets. With that in mind, I'm recreating the nomination and semi-protecting it to prevent the same behaviour. Please let it be understood that I am acting in a purely administrative role - I am not expressing any personal opinion at this time to remain neutral.

The stated concern about this article in the original nomination was that it lacked any sort of primary or secondary sourcing. m.o.p 05:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I checked SL93's links from the past nom and he seems to just be "a yoga teacher". I agree with Dominus Vobisdu's argument. Shii (tock) 06:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not seeing evidence of notability in the article or in the obvious google searches. There is a non-trivial chance that there are references under another name (probably in a different script / language); if those references emerge, ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Sources provided by SL93 in the aborted AfD 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) 09:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. OK, I am just reconfirming my previous delete vote on the basis of insufficient notability of three not-terribly-significant books. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The subject is certainly a yoga teacher and author of three books, but I am unable to find significant reliable independent coverage of any of them (despite my experience in sourcing Indian subjects), or of the subject himself, so must conclude he is Not Notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable,lack of references. That's me!  Have doubt?   Track me!  12:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. Gsingh (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 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.