Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajan Sankaran (2nd nom)

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 keep as major improvements made to ensure compliance of verifiability. - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Sankaran

Despite confident assertions to the contrary in the last AfD, the article still doesn't assert notability, and no evidence for his notability has ever been provided. Indeed, it's practically at speedy delete level at the moment because of this. Certainly, if there's actual evidence that fits WP:RS and so on that shows he's notable, and we can use them to improve the article, he shouldn't be deleted, but no such evidence exists in the article, and, even in the last AfD, none was ever provided.

Allow me to summarise the current article, because it might help anyone objecting to the deletion see why it needs improved:

Rajan Sankaran is educated as a homeopath, and has a business he inherited from his father. He developed a few theories about homeopathy, and self-publishes books [1] (note the company site is a subpage of his website) and has a computer program for sale [2]. He has learned an effective way to get information from patients - just like every new practitioner of any form of medicine, conventional or alternative, does after a time.

If there's more about him that makes him unambiguously notable, please, please, add it to the article. Because the current article is not showing it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE FROM NOMINATOR: Since this nomination (and after most of the votes), Abridged has improved the article significantly. The deletes and comments will need judged to see if they still apply. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable. Thanks RaveenS 13:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It had its chance to improve since the last AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's reasoning. An issue was raised on AN/I about another homeopath - can we trust pseudoscientific references when a person's notability is only demonstrated by references within that area? I'm not sure present notability guidelines address this problem. However, this is a clear delete - nearly all sources come straight from the author as self-publications. Skinwalker 15:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination --Roswell native 03:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not reliable soruces--Sefringle 04:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Weak keep To determine notability among homeopaths, we judge in comparison with other homeopaths, just like all similar fields. We are not judging his medical credentials or his scientific knowledge. If he publishes more books than the others, and they take the books seriously enough to review them, then he's N. I don't think books of the sort he seems to be writing would earn him a positive reputation among ordinary physicians, but each group is entitled to their own standards.DGG 04:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I don't suppose you have links to reviews? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)~~ Reviews are used as references now, which is what I wanted 'em for anyway. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs work. Give it a chance. (and by the way, What's up with deletion of pages on homeopaths? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas (Second nomination) [3] I find this a bit strange and unexpected in an inclusive project like Wikipedia) The bottom line, however, is that this case meets criteria for notability described in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#special cases under "creative professionals: scientists, academics, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals":

The person has received notable awards or honors--NO
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors--YES
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique--YES, new miasms and kingdoms analysis
The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work (YES, see bibiolography) which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (YES--many book reviews cited in the ext links section. All of his books have been reviewed in major homeopathic journals). Abridged 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arr, just needs massive improvement, then? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and the substantial improvements to the article by Abridged (see diff). -- Black Falcon 06:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A very notable homeopath. His books are widely distributed and influential[4]. He lectures to sold-out audiences around the world. He is frequently cited in other publications in his field. His writings have been incorporated into the main homeopathic databases. Note that he's far more notable than Anthony Campbell, a virtually unknown critic of homeopathy that Adam Cuerden, Skinwalker and others have supported in an AFD. It is especially fascinating that the points they used to support Campbell (i.e. editor of a homeopathic journal, prominent member of an association, author of a number of books) are, in Sankaran's case not given any validity. The only discernible difference between the two (other than Sankaran being obviously more well-known and respected) is that one has criticized homeopathy and one has promoted it. There has been an obvious effort to remove articles about extremely well-known and well-regarded homeopaths (the AFD for George Vithoulkas was a striking, even breathtaking example) and to promote articles of insignificant critics. --Lee Hunter 16:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DGG has a good point in that we probably should be comparing notability to the notability of others in the field. But this begs the question then: despite insistence otherwise, would this actually make notability subjective? --Dennisthe2 18:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following improvements to article. Notability needs to be assessed as against other homeopaths, not the medical profession generally. This person appears sufficiently notable in that field. WjBscribe 20:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Lee, there seems to be a systemic predilection to homeopathy.Baka man 17:20, 31 March 2007 (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.