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. Reasonable minds often differ on whether sources are sufficient to establish a subject's notability. It's especially the case when there are many sources that mention or quote the subject but not so many that are actually about him. Here, reasonable minds differ quite evenly and there is no consensus either way. Mkativerata (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R Viswanathan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Clear COI as the article was created by the subject's own son. All references are from personal website. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 01:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —— Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 01:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per above.Jethwarp (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added independent references. Shyamsunder (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your reference does not improve the notability of the article or the person. At most, it indicates that the person is an Indian diplomat who has been appointed as an ambassador to Argentina. Of course if verifiability was the issue, this would suffice, but the nomination is not for that. It also fails WP:DIPLOMAT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.77.239 (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@202.3.77.239, please remember to sign your posts with 4 tildes: ~~~~. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@202.3.77.239, I don't see any explanation as to why the reference from [Oneindia.in] about R Viswanathan "does not improve the notability" of the topic. Your personal opinion that this reference does not improve the notability, especially from an IP address with no apparent experience in Wikipedia notability, and the explanation that follows about what the reference is, gives IMO zero weight to the assertion that the reference did not improve the notability. Unscintillating (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ecclesiastes 1:2: this is just a CV dressed up as an encyclopedia article. The sources provided are not enough to establish notability. Most of them are written by the subject, and the two that aren't do not amount to substantial coverage. The second source is the Indian Consulate, so not very independent of its subject, the coverage is only one line, and has been exaggerated in the article. That leaves source #1, a two-sentence WP:RUNOFTHEMILL little thing. So we have a grand total of three sentences of independent-ish coverage to justify this article. I don't think so. Reyk _YO! 11:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The WP:Notability of a topic exists independently of either the existence of an article about the topic on Wikipedia, or the content of any such article. Therefore, the absence of notability cannot be determined by only looking at the article. Analysis that leads to a delete outcome should also consider our policy at WP:ATD (alternatives to deletion), which is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Unscintillating (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article now references a list of more than 40 media references, including five interviews. Unscintillating (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete really isn't a consideration here. The strongest argument that delete proponents can probably make is to claim that WP:GNG can be ignored if WP:DIPLOMAT isn't met, and that WP:DIPLOMAT must be strictly interpreted such that increasing trade between India and Argentina by 40% is not one of the "events of particular diplomatic importance" that we would consider. Then the argument would have to be to where to merge the material; again, the point is that this logic does not lead to a delete. One other possible line of development is to start going through the 40-50 media references on this webpage, many of which I have found to be returning 404 errors. This line of argument would still have to work through the newer references that can be found at Google news including those dated 14Sep2011, and dismiss the copies of the 404 errors, saved by R Viswanathan, as not having a reliable publisher. Even after going down this road, we would be left with a question as to where to merge the remaining material, not a delete. Unscintillating (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This translation of an interview with the topic shows the in depth coverage that means that we should keep the material as a stand-alone article. We now have a list of media coverage with more than 40 entries, and additional material can be found on Google news dated 14 September 2011. This set of coverage appears to far exceed WP:GNG notability guidelines. In addition, the topic meets WP:N notability, "worthy of notice" because readers will expect that this prolific author and speaker and unusually prominent diplomat will have an entry at Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He doesn't appear to meet WP:DIPLOMAT. This appears to be a case where the subject has written a lot, but not had much written about him. Most of the articles on the "media" page of his website are just asking his opinions on world affairs, rather than being about him specifically. There is the exception of this article, but I would classify that as routine reporting and not really suitable to count towards notability. I couldn't find any sources through Google News or Google Books. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had no trouble finding two Google news references that talk about the ambassador and added them to the Bibliography. How did you miss the Google news reports from September 14, 2011 whose existence was already reported?

Regarding the statement that the topic doesn't meet WP:Diplomat: (1) Why doesn't increasing trade by 40% in nine months meet WP:Diplomat? (I'm not saying that I disagree because I don't know, but if you want to make this claim, what is your evidence?) (2) A failure to meet WP:Diplomat is not a sufficient argument to claim a lack of wp:notability without also claiming that WP:N is not met by other means—else WP:IAR must be invoked. (3) Failure to meet wp:notability means that we wouldn't have a standalone article, so it is not a cause for deletion, it is a cause to consider to what topic to merge the reliable material. (4) Being asked questions by multiple reliable sources in the US, India, and Latin America; means that the topic "attracts attention", which is one of the fundamental understandings of what makes a topic wp:notable. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article still sounds too much like a CV, we're dealing with an ambassador from a major country to several major countries, with a fair number of publications, media access, etc. We went over some of this issues on previous ambassador AfDs-- I specifically recall the case of Pulat Abdullayev, Russian ambassador to several African nations. In that case, it was decided, essentially, that there's little separating someone like R Viswanatha or Abdullayev from someone like John Beyrle, U.S. ambassador to Russia-- all that you'll find on a career diplomat like Beyrle are his writings and various documents associated with his everyday work as ambassador. His notability, like that of Abdullayev and R Viswanatha, derives from being at the top of his profession. Career diplomats generally aren't newsmakers who attract biographical works in the press. Avram (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are the quotes from the last two Google news sources added to the article,:

Miami: Latin Business Chronicle. December 11, 2009. "The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) calls him "Mr. Latin America"...is hailed for boosting business ties with India."
Andres Oppenheimer of The Miami Herald, "Unlike most Indian career diplomats...Viswanathan is a highly visible Latin America promoter." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unscintillating (talk • contribs)

Keep Reliable sources have been found providing significant coverage of the person. So the primary notability guideline of WP:GNG has been met. Nothing else matters. Dream Focus 09:45, 30 September 2011 (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.