Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.N. Sadasivan

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S.N. Sadasivan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. N. Sadasivan. Despite the appearance of sourcing here, much of it is primary and/or trivial stuff. He may have been a professor but I'm not convinced he is a notable one. Sitush (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is that makes the person not noteworthy. He has 14 publications to his credits and to add the credibility, most of which were done by the government of India. His thesis was published as a book by a famous publishing company and there are more than 25 reliable sources cited to subtantiate the credit worthiness. I would be happy if you could point out exactly what policy of Wikipedia this article is not satisfying.--Challiyan (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. Just writing books and getting passing mentions about them doesn't make him notable. You were previously advised to read the prior deletion discussion - the link is at top right of this page. For what it is worth, the article is factually dubious anyway - the sources are being misrepresented and/or the claims inflated. If it does survive this discussion it will need to be substantially overhauled. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no evidence of notability. I couldn't find a single article on the subject in any Indian newspaper. If the subject was even remotely notable some source would've covered his death in 2006. Also, though the article gives the impression that he was an civil service officer, more careful reading reveals that he was only an instructor for civil service exams. — Stringy Acid (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of his books are in notable library collections worldwide, including in Manhattan. Pinging DGG to get his opinion, no pressure. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his Social History of India better hadn't be! Except perhaps as an example of pseudo-history. - Sitush (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The books are held in US & European libraries, but not widely; only the 1977 Party and democracy in India has significant holdings (73). (The others are held only by those libraries with a special collecting interest in India, which is what one would expect in the US)) There is no systematic way of finding out how widely they are held in India, and no systematic way of finding book reviews in Indian periodicals, nor is there any systematic way of searching Indian newspapers, especially for older materials such as this, . He has been cited in at least 50 English-language academic books based on Google and Google Scholar. He is not asserted to be a civil service officer, but a professor in a college for training public service administrators, which most people would consider even more significant. The term "professor" may have been used loosely, but he would at least have been an instructor with a That he had a significant role there, is indicated by his having written textbooks used by the college. (Professor may have been used in a loose manner). It doesn't help that most of the sources don't seem to work for me. I am not sure to what degree his views are fringe; most of the citing works are mainstream, and at least some cite him for substantive facts. {(U|Sitush}}, can you explain that part to me? DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only said he was fringe for history, in which subject he is considered to be a caste warrior of sorts. His specialism was public administration and I've got doubts that he has any claim to be a political scientist. I don't think library holdings are a measure of notability even if they were widely held, or at least not under our current guidelines. With "no systematic way" to consider various criteria, as you note, and with uncertainty regarding his academic status, I'm struggling to see why you think this should be kept. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am interested in combatting WP:Cultural Bias which makes information about academics from India and other countries relatively difficult to locate, and leaves most of us relatively ignorant about related institutions and subjects. For WP:PROF and related topics, I interpret the standard broadly. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ride a coach and horses through the guidelines just on the off-chance? I am well aware of WP:SYSTEMIC, given my topic interests, but there is broad and broader. I'm sorry, DGG, but I think you're stretching the guidelines into the realms of "why bother having them" in this case. I do understand the point regarding citations but a lot of those I have seen appear to be of the old boy network variety and we're no nearer to knowing much about the man as a man. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.