Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathew Chandrankunnel

:{{la|Mathew Chandrankunnel}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mathew_Chandrankunnel Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Mathew Chandrankunnel}})

Non-notable BLP - no immediate notable pings on Google. Nordic Nightfury 10:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Keep – but revert to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathew_Chandrankunnel&oldid=706262845 this earlier version]. The present version is a promotional and largely unsourced mess, obscuring the fact that the subject is a fairly well-known academic, author of several books, and active in trying to defuse religious tensions in India. That is shown much more clearly in the earlier version, from which it is clear that the subject has been the subject of in-depth coverage by several reliable independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep –Reverted to the last good version.Article demonstrates clear notability.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment-{{ping|User:Nordic Nightfury}}The nominator shall make it a point to kindly go through the edit history of any article, he/she nominates to find if any good notable version of the article existed earlier.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. A total of 6 cites on GS indicates that, notwithstanding publishing a lot, subject has made zero impact with his work. Fails WP:Prof.Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC).

:{{ping|Xxanthippe}}. You surely know that the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline trumps project-specific rules. The subject may not be notable as an academic, but the [http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mp/2002/11/11/stories/2002111100330200.htm in-depth article] in The Hindu and the other sources very clearly establish notability as a person. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

::Multiple in-depth sources are required. This one does not even look to be independent. WP:GNG is not passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC).

:::The Hindu is generally considered independent. A quick Google search shows another in-depth at [http://mattersindia.com/2016/11/ecumenical-center-gets-scientist-philosopher-priest-as-director/ Matters India], a scatter of mini-bios like [http://www.globetranscons.com/patrons.html], [https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/7036], [http://scienceformonks.org/monastic-graduates-dialogues/dialogues/emptiness-quantum-mechanics-2015/2015-abstracts-and-presenters/], plus various reports of what he said on this or that subject, and then the books he wrote. Good enough to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

::::Just churnalism based on PR put out by the organization. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC).

:::::Journalists use what they can find. Several unrelated sources have felt it worthwhile collect, paraphrase and publish information on the subject. That makes the subject notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

::::::Journalists use what they are sent in the form of PR releases by interested parties. That is what churnalism is. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC).

:::::::A subject is generally notable if several independent sources have written about the subject. Why they did, and whether they should have, is irrelevant. The test is simple and neutral. This subject passes that test. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Doesn't appear notable in terms of WP:PROF, but this [http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mp/2002/11/11/stories/2002111100330200.htm article] establishes general notability. Considering it's a biographical sketch written up in the The Hindu, which appears to be one of the biggest nationwide newspapers, that looks to be enough for a short article on his overall career and work. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Seems there is some articles on him, and he has written some articles of note. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable philosopher and author. Passes WP:GNG...Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.