- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
S. N. Sadasivan
- S. N. Sadasivan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an article for a non-notable personality with fringe views that are not scholarly. There are also no references. With the limited information I found about this author, according to many of the reviews on google books [1] on his book A Social History of India, he has biased and political motives. Xtremedood ( talk) 02:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Random negative user generated reviews on Google Books are useless for determining the notability of a topic. We keep articles on notable topics, and do not delete articles because a handful of anonymous Google reviewers do not like a book. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I am aware of this, however, I just pointed that due to the fact that there is not much stated about the author. Take it as a grain of salt. The primary reason to delete is due to lack of notability and academic sources. Xtremedood ( talk) 11:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Why the page creator was not notified while nominating for AFD? The Avengers 09:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete No reliable secondary coverage that I can find. I would even have PRODed this. @ Sitush: you've edited this thing, I see; thoughts? Vanamonde93 ( talk) 06:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The problem is our guideline for academics. I'm sure we can at least verify that he wrote the various books. I agree that his A Social History of India is a completely unreliable source but history wasn't his specialism and he wrote other books on matters that were. I'd like to see the article deleted but I think the sticklers for our rather silly specialist notability guidelines would have a fit. With no evidence that he held a named chair, no evidence that he is widely cited etc, and a reasonably high chance that his professorship would not have happened if he was anywhere other than in the sometimes corrupt/nepotistic etc Indian education system, perhaps I'll get my way. It has been around for a long time without decent sources. - Sitush ( talk) 07:43, 30 November 2015 (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.
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
S. N. Sadasivan
- S. N. Sadasivan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an article for a non-notable personality with fringe views that are not scholarly. There are also no references. With the limited information I found about this author, according to many of the reviews on google books [1] on his book A Social History of India, he has biased and political motives. Xtremedood ( talk) 02:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Random negative user generated reviews on Google Books are useless for determining the notability of a topic. We keep articles on notable topics, and do not delete articles because a handful of anonymous Google reviewers do not like a book. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I am aware of this, however, I just pointed that due to the fact that there is not much stated about the author. Take it as a grain of salt. The primary reason to delete is due to lack of notability and academic sources. Xtremedood ( talk) 11:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Why the page creator was not notified while nominating for AFD? The Avengers 09:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete No reliable secondary coverage that I can find. I would even have PRODed this. @ Sitush: you've edited this thing, I see; thoughts? Vanamonde93 ( talk) 06:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The problem is our guideline for academics. I'm sure we can at least verify that he wrote the various books. I agree that his A Social History of India is a completely unreliable source but history wasn't his specialism and he wrote other books on matters that were. I'd like to see the article deleted but I think the sticklers for our rather silly specialist notability guidelines would have a fit. With no evidence that he held a named chair, no evidence that he is widely cited etc, and a reasonably high chance that his professorship would not have happened if he was anywhere other than in the sometimes corrupt/nepotistic etc Indian education system, perhaps I'll get my way. It has been around for a long time without decent sources. - Sitush ( talk) 07:43, 30 November 2015 (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.