Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. N. Srinivasa Rao

V. N. Srinivasa Rao

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

V. N. Srinivasa Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I do not think that this person meets the criteria for notability. I have been unable to find any reference to him other than the The Hindu article (https://web.archive.org/web/20240317044514/https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/the-lawyer-as-a-writer/article4683660.ece), which just effectively said it was nice to read. And cryptic metadata from library websites who happen to have the book (which seems to just be stanford and nyu https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/in00000071311 ) Mason (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Law, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Kommentar he was pretty clearly a Madras barrister[1]. He's cited for appearances a number of times in the Madras Law Journal[2]. I'm not finding a lot more than that.
  Are you questioning whether the Madras chief justices book exists? It is held by 8 WorldCat Participating libraries. The comment about cryptic metadata doesn't make sense. Oblivy (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - I believe you are confusing notability and verifiability. Just because a source is hard to find doesn't mean it isn't reliable. See WP:PAYWALL. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  For the record, I used my university's library to see if I could find anything else on the subject. My comment on cryptic meta data was that that was literally the only additional information I could find about him. I am not rejecting the source, for being difficult to get access to. My point was that there was literately nothing else when I searched other than that metadata. Typically for someone to meet notability they have to be covered by multiple sources. And, I can't find any support for independent coverage. The book in question wasn't even something he published. The book was edited by another person long after his death. Mason (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  That makes sense. Will respond more at bottom. Oblivy (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Page fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage on the subject in the sources which are also poor. Subject does not meet basic criteria to be considered notable due to insignificant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If this criteria can be met, I would reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Note to Closer. Page was created by sockpuppet and is good for WP:G5 speedy deletion. RangersRus (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

RangersRus, this article is not eligible for CSD G5. You've made this kind of comment several times which is a mistaken interpretation of G5. Please review WP:CSD carefully. G5 is for block evasion, not simply for being the work of a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Noted. I striked my comment. Is it right though that "when a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5"? WP:G5. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I see an SPI on 21 March and this article was created 19 March. Blocks were in April. Perhaps I'm misreading or missing something? Oblivy (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

G5 does not apply to the initial accounts that are blocked for socking if they are not evading a block at that point. It only applies to the articles created by accounts that come after the initial case/block.

In this case, both the accounts were used simultaneously and neither of them had an active block. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. Just FYI, a general comment for all AFDs, when an editor says "seems like" or "likely" or "appears to be" it means to me that the editor hasn't read or seen the sources and are basing their opinion on attributes like the title or the publisher. If that's the case, it's good not to have an absolutist opinion on what should happen with an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Draftify I am right down the middle on this. This guy seems to have been a prominent barrister, wrote a number of books including a treatise on administrative law. Maybe also wrote about temples (not sure if it's the same author).

But I've tried to find the sources, and don't find anything substantial about him except for the two links on the page, and as @Smasongarrison points out above that's a book by him, or perhaps comprising judgments curated by him. And one The Hindu journalist who liked his book.

Complaints about the origin of the article are, subject to further developments, misplaced. The author seems to have a particular interest[3] in Calamur.

If, on chance, there is someone out there who can improve this article let them do it. It will not be me. There's a conversation over unblocking going on so perhaps @Hölderlin2019 will live to edit another day. Oblivy (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd be onboard with draftifying. If he were in my subject area, I'd inter-library loan the book. Maybe someone will be so motivated. Mason (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)