Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Champappilly

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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Champappilly

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

Subject fails WP:NACADEMICS--has no significant claim in his field. In terms of WP:GNG, a few passing mentions in Google news and books. Currently, the page is unsourced and badly needs cleanup because of promotional content and external links. The article talk page suggests that it and a few other pages linked here, are maintained by an editor with a COI. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Subject appears to have done lots of worthy stuff but sources are weak. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I agree with Xxanthippe. In addition, the same article creator has created a bunch of articles that mainly seem to serve to promote the books written by this subject. --Randykitty (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sadly Wikipedia is only too open to exploitation of this sort as its structure makes it easier to create articles than delete them. The changes in the nature of Wikipedia since it was formed give rise to a need to change its policies in these areas. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Worldcat shows only tiny library holdings of his books, and Google scholar shows only tiny citation numbers for them. No other evidence of notability per WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With regret Delete -- He appears to be an advocate who has written a number of books (probably only pamphlets). These could be the articles that appear as "see also" items. In India where each person has his own personal law according to his religion, his subjects are probably important, but those I checked have several tags on them. I am not whoilly convinced by the low number cited for Google scholar and Worldcat, both of which may have a western bias. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I initially came across this while reading about Christian personal laws in India for another related article which I'm working on. I first thought of doing a cleanup but soon found the subject's notability doubtful, that's why I brought it here for better scrutiny. Though there are some achievements mentioned which may warrant it, I think it's more of a below-borderline case and it being unsourced only makes it worse. After this, I'll attempt to clean up those Christian law-related pages--all these together seem to have grown into a obscure "walled garden" which no one has edited for ages. I'll see if it can be merged into a single "Christian Personal laws in India" page; individually they do not have that much notability or coverage and need content trimming. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! --Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2014 (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.