Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varadaraja V. Raman


 * 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. Whilst the rewriting of the page made considerable steps towards demonstrating notability, the subject's suitability for an article is still debatable. I originally closed this discussion as keep, but after re-reviewing, I feel that the consensus is not as clear cut as I thought, and have therefore reclosed as no consensus. Yunshui 雲 水 09:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Varadaraja V. Raman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NPROF as well as WP:GNG. &#x222F; WBG converse 07:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  &#x222F; WBG converse 07:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  &#x222F; WBG converse 07:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  &#x222F; WBG converse 07:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  &#x222F; WBG</b> converse 07:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Prolific author, well published and well cited. Mostly as "VV Raman." Hyperbolick (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , what?! 88, 28, 18 ..... ain't well-cited. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Realized that I made a mistake by looking only under full name. Vast majority of citations--hundreds more--are found when actually searching under just V.V. Raman (mixed in with curious references to a "VV Raman spectra"). His most cited article is actually "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", with Helen Dukas, American Journal of Physics, Volume 47, Issue 12, p. 1107 (1979). Hyperbolick (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * What policy defines that numerical standard? If I wrote something, got cited in 88 other publications (not just "cited," mind you, but cited in other scholar's work) I'd be astounded. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No policy but practice. That's why we use h-index (which is too low, over here) ..... &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. He seems more notable (if at all) for turning to woo in his retirement than for any academic work he might once have done. The citation record discussed above is not high enough to convince me of WP:PROF, and being merely a member of various academic societies (rather than, say, a Fellow of those societies) contributes nothing to notability. Most of his books appear to be self-published and unreviewed; being prolific is not enough to be notable. I did find one review each of two of his books, both in the same journal (Zygon). With more published reviews from a significantly wider set of viewpoints, I might be willing to reconsider notability under WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming by "turning to woo" you mean all of Vedic science is woo? For that purpose, here he is discussed (and his writing cited) in NPR article "Science Vs. Religion: Beyond The Western Traditions." Likewise mentioned other places., , Hyperbolick (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's mostly woo. Don't see how Tendencias 21 is a RS. Also see WP:GNG; trivial name-drops don't suffice any. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 19:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Vedas mainly 'woo'? That's a very interesting opinion.  There are many experts in the field who would disagree with you.--Brian Josephson (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you might have misread my statement. The Vedas and Vedic science are (obviously) different and as to the latter, the current mainstream opinion in the scholarly community indeed aligns with my above take. Regards, &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In my experience, if someone uses the word 'woo' it is a very bad sign, typically indicative of prejudice alone. Such people typically form cliques dedicated to spreading their prejudice, taking over WP articles being one of their preferred activities. --Brian Josephson (talk) -- as we see has indeed happened in the article concerned, which has been loaded with negative comments in the 'other activities' section, in a way that almost certainly introduces significant bias. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was a bit puzzled as to where the reference to Vedic Science came in, as it doesn't seem to be there in the article, and found that it was mysteriously slipped into the discussion on Sep 5. So it looks like the issue of the 'wooness' of Vedic science is beside the point. What is relevant is that the statement that the biographee has been 'turning to woo in his retirement' needs to be backed up by an RS.  If not, then that statement should simply be disregarded.--Brian Josephson (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal — suspend this discussion until numerous disputes over usability of sources for the article are resolved. Too much flux now for this process to go forward fairly. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to delete recent article publications in reputable journals? Your edit summary references "self-published," seems the edit should have been limited to that. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In short, yes. I intentionally deleted a long and unsourced list of self-published books, and a long and seemingly unselective list of non-book publications. These things contribute nothing towards notability, and in fact can do the opposite by making an article looked puffed up with nothingness. I don't mind having short lists of five or so selected journal publications in articles about academics, but in such cases there should be a good and clear reason for why those particular ones were selected (e.g. the articles have won significant awards, are the subject of significant coverage in published sources about the subject by other people, or are very highly cited). I don't think any of Raman's non-book publications meet those criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See if you can select five or so selected journal publications? Surely indiscriminate deletion is as bad as indiscriminate inclusion. Doesn't seem you had time to look before leaping. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Writing one thing which gets 88 citations over half a century is not a remarkable achievement in physics or the history thereof. The next most highly-cited item according to GS is actually a book review, and it looks like most if not all of the citations to that are really to the book being reviewed (The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 2). I don't see a way to WP:PROF here. As for the other relevant criteria, I agree with David Eppstein's !vote above. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Have greatly rewritten with sources showing national recognition for his role as a communicator. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Neutral after rewrite. I would encourage those who !voted on the previous version to re-read and note the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, will continue to rewrite tomorrow. Many more sources remain. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , how does he pass NAUTHOR/NPROF/GNG? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 04:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a judgement call and it looked to me like he (barely) meets GNG. Upon reconsideration, I have changed my !vote to Neutral. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * would you be agreeable to moving this to draft for further research? Don't have time to dig up all possible sources now. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note. Found additional sources. For example, Raman wrote a chapter for the highly notable Opposing Viewpoints series, and was (around the same time) one of four executive editors of the Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither of those are accomplishments which get over the bar of WP:PROF. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Won't get over the bar of WP:NFOOTY either. But does clear WP:NAUTHOR. Being one of four executive editors of Encyclopedia of Hinduism means he clearly "played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work". Hyperbolick (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , except that it's not a major work.
 * Two of his co-editors are outright fringe-idiots (read the articles about Subhash Kak, which has been written by me and Rama Rao who regrettably is not too fringe to make the cut for an article) while Kapil Kapoor has a mixed reputation in academic circles and to the best of my knowledge, T.S. Rukmani is a reliable mainstream scholar.
 * Overall, seems to be another endeavor of the Hindutva brigade which failed to even obtain a reputable academic publisher.
 * At any case, being an editor of an encyclopedia series does not make NAUTHOR pass. You are continually clutching at straws to save the article ..... &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 20:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't know if it's a "major" work, but that's not the policy. Policy is "significant or well-known". By its own article, praised by the Prime Minister of India and called "a landmark publication" by another minister. Think it's more clutching at straws to claim it isn't significant or well known. Don't care what his other co-editors are about. That's WP:OTHERSTUFF (though interesting that one has an article). Hyperbolick (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Three questions for you, then, (or anybody else here ):
 * Does WP:NAUTHOR include "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"?
 * Is the Encyclopedia of Hinduism a significant or well-known work or collective body of work?
 * Is being one of four executive editors (as well as article contributor) "a major role in co-creating" that work?
 * That is, on top of being a long-serving physics professor active in public communication of science to their community. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The answer to (2) is a neat NO, for reasons described above. Not spotting much of any coverage in academical sources, either. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 20:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] It is very standard for editorial work to count much much less than authorial work towards WP:AUTHOR. Time of service counts for nothing at all. You might also want to read Don't bludgeon the process. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so. Here, we have both editorial and authorial contribution towards the same work, and it seems the editorial was more involved than typical, involving wholesale rewriting of articles. Not intending to bludgeon, problem is, at the time this whole process started, we weren't even aware that this role was one of Raman's activities. Can't be helped if through research new things are found which should be considered. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article subject's work on the encyclopedia seems like it was both considered and then dismissed as not relevant to Wikipedia's notability standards. Repeatedly insisting it should be otherwise is bludgeoning the process. If your point is valid, then others will see it and support it on their own. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] It is very standard for editorial work to count much much less than authorial work towards WP:AUTHOR. Time of service counts for nothing at all. You might also want to read Don't bludgeon the process. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so. Here, we have both editorial and authorial contribution towards the same work, and it seems the editorial was more involved than typical, involving wholesale rewriting of articles. Not intending to bludgeon, problem is, at the time this whole process started, we weren't even aware that this role was one of Raman's activities. Can't be helped if through research new things are found which should be considered. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article subject's work on the encyclopedia seems like it was both considered and then dismissed as not relevant to Wikipedia's notability standards. Repeatedly insisting it should be otherwise is bludgeoning the process. If your point is valid, then others will see it and support it on their own. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , LOL; such stuff are not allowed ... &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 06:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion is where such disputes should be resolved. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not finding good secondary coverage, and subject's achievements not significant enough to pass notability threshold. Alexbrn (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Note to closing administrator, article was substantially rewritten after this point, see diff, with over a dozen new sources found and added.


 * If not kept please move to draft, additional possible sources still being found. Thank you. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. See User:Hyperbolick/sandbox/Varadaraja V. Raman. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Can move to draft once this is over, if it ever gets over. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is already a draft. Userspace drafts are a good choice for doing what you want to do. Now you can take the time to make the draft article as good as you are able to make it. When you think you are done, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page and I will look it over and comment on it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: Another substantial source. C. Mackenzie Brown spends a solid several pages of his book Hindu Perspectives on Evolution: Darwin, Dharma, and Design criticizing Raman's approach, noting that Raman has written that certain scientific truths "can also be apprehended through the mystical mode via meditation, prayer, or yogic exercises", and grouping Raman with Subhash Kak and Gopala Rao as "scientists [who] employ their expertise to confirm teachings of the sadhus and, not infrequently, to deplore the naturalistic theory of Darwinian evolution," concluding that for Raman, "the urge to lyricize and scientize tradition is clearly irresistible". Hyperbolick (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not "another substantial source", it's the first substantial (secondary) source. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Something, though. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is something yes, but not "several solid pages". Just over a page. With a few more sources like this, we might have a basis for notability. Alexbrn (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for guidance, I have added another source like this, from Yiftach Fehige. There are more like this. How many are needed? Hyperbolick (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As many as you can; notability is a subjective standard to an extent. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 19:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Does this count towards notability? Since 2008, Raman has been a guest on nationally televised PBS television series Closer to Truth eleven times, first appearing as a guest in the series 3 inaugural episode "Does God Make Sense?" See List of Closer to Truth episodes. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and Note It appears from https://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/varadaraja-raman/profile that he has been on CtT 33 times not just 11. I'd also suggest that instead of that long list of episodes the article simply has a link to that web page, which is more useful anyway. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Brian, thank you. Excellent catch, have implemented in part, pending clarification of one thing. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not demonstrated. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 07:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article has been well edited and new sources added. Which is what editors should expect from a good AfD nomination defense. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's nice to meet you after such a long time; Meher Baba AfDs were such fun! &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I could find no significant coverage in independent sources as required for general notability. As for academic notability, the award discussed in the Wikipedia article does not seem prestigious enough for notability, and I do not see any other academic sources or support to show a substantial or significant impact. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Based on the improvements. The sheer size of this discussion led me to fall into the rabbit hole of taking a deeper dive into the issue. This is one of those cases where the nomination for deletion has driven the improvement of the article and expanded information on the subject to the point where it can be kept and possibly developed further. This is due to: 1) extent of local newspaper coverage (including from cities other than the subject's "hometown"); 2) extent of the subject's publications, of which many have been cited or quoted and at least several were reviewed or commented upon in publications of others; 3) separate discussion of the subject and his views in publications by others; and 4) repeated appearances on the nationally televised PBS series Closer to Truth, in collaboration with numerous other notable figures. There is enough there to support WP:GNG, and likely enough to support WP:NCREATIVE. I did not look into the Hindu Encyclopedia or the awards, but they can only add to notability, not detract from it. I didn't have a problem finding coverage. Einstein's God: Conversations About Science and the Human Spirit was on the first page of Google book hits, for example. Krista Tippett is a well-respected journalist, and in the book preview on Amazon, you can see she has about 20 pages on this subject, including biographical detail, analysis, and an interview. This is also a good source for notability but I don't see that anyone has mentioned it in this discussion at all. CNMall41 (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * CNMall41, thank you, that is a great find! Hyperbolick (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is also Robert M. Geraci, in Temples of Modernity: Nationalism, Hinduism, and Transhumanism in South Indian Science, (Lexington Books, 2018), p. 82:
 * V.V. Raman, well-known in American conversations about religion and science, takes a gentle, but more ambiguous approach.
 * And page 192:
 * The leading voice in this problematic approach to Hinduism and science--who should nevertheless be commended for his work in bringing such conversations to the fore of academic inquiry--is V.V. Raman. ... Raman represents the community seeking harmony between Hinduism and science...
 * Raman is also quoted into the United States Congressional Record for the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology? You can find this in "Scientists and Engineers: Supply and Demand", Hearings Before the Task Force on Science Policy of the Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, First Session (July 1985), p. 748. In 2012, he was a lecturer at the Chautauqua Institution. It may take a little extra time, but these sources can be found. CNMall41 (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't see how those sources would establish general notability under WP:GNG. The material from the Tippett book is almost entirely an interview, and the Geraci book mentions the article subject in a single paragraph. Do you feel they represent "significant coverage"? Or are you saying the article subject is notable as an academic under one of the criteria for WP:NPROF? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you look at both pages with mentions in Geraci’s book? Should it be significant when the chairman of the religious studies department of a well-respected college describes another not only as well-known in that field, but as the leading voice on a particularly thorny issue in it? CNMall did not mention PROF but did mention GNG and CREATIVE. I think that works. As discussed above by Brian Josephson, Raman appeared on 33 episodes of a documentary series broadcast on PBS, a national network. We have articles on characters who appeared on Seinfeld or Law & Order a fraction that many times; I think we can pass one old physicist on that basis. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Would be nice to see the nominator thank the participants for the improvements and remove the nomination. The page has obviously been saved. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Adding these to the article. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Raman's accomplishments are both many and impressive, What's the problem here Jlrobertson (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)? Keep and restore!
 * Indeed so, what's going on here? Can a single editor really decide to close the discussion on his own?  It is absurd to cite 'lack of consensus', as it is pretty difficult to get consensus on anything.  A better case than that needs to be made to declare the matter closed.  And it is surely worth giving the article the benefit of the doubt unless there are really strong reasons for excluding it, and I don't believe any such have been provided here. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:23, 14 September 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.