Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathrose Parathuvayalil

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pathrose Parathuvayalil[edit]

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

Not Notable Drajay1976 (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

seems notable with references. SefBau : msg 13:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1, reference 2, Reference 3 are self published. They cannot be used to assess notablity.
Ref 4 only mentions that Trivandrum Govt. Ayurveda Medical College is affiliated to the Kerala University. This does not mention the subject of the article at all. This does not support the claim in the article, but only proves the existance of the college.
Refernce 5 is self published as well. This cannot be used to assess notablity.
Ref 6 is an article published in an unreliable online magazine where you can send an article about your organization and it gets published. Ref 7 is the photograph of the subject of the article getting an award. Ref 8 is a self published press release (the link is dead). Ref 9 is self published press release. Ref 10 is another self published press release. Ref 11 is another self published press release (link is now dead). Ref 12 is another press release given by respublica consulting. Ref 13 is another press release given by the same firm. So is Ref 14. Ref 15 is a dead link.
All the claims under the section "achievements" are unreferenced except the last one. The last achievement is that his institution can train three students because he is a recognized teacher (guru) (ref 16) I dont think this confers any notablity. Only his name is mentioned in the reference, which is not significant. The other references (ref 17, ref 18, ref 19, ref 20) does not mention the subject of the article at all. These references are about the autonomous institution which oversees the course.
Out of the 20 sited sources, only two (Ref 7 & 16) is independant. They do not contain any significant mention of the subject of the article. Ref 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 are self published. Refereces 17, 18, 19 & 20 do not mention the subject at all. The two independent references do not contain the necessary significant coverage necessary to prove WP:GNG or WP:BASIC
The personal details about the individual are all original research and are not verifiable.
The article appears to be manufactured self publicity material. The subject is NOT notable enough for a stand alone article. --Drajay1976 (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you're right. Most references are selfpublished. I suggest for deletion. SefBau : msg 13:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.--Praveen:talk 08:21, 14 August 2013 (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.