Deletion of Goparaju Ramachandra Rao

Comment: bad faith nom, 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: anyone reading my AfD votes knows I am a HUGE fan of google searches, but in this case this is the wrong way to go. This nomination is remarkably US-centric. Amazon.com is not big on books published by Indian presses decades ago. Nor is an English-google search going to tell you that much about Indian authors.  says that for deceased people we must ask: Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field? I note that atheists tend to cite this person as influential - see http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/history.html this history (where he goes by the name of Gora) which cites him as one of the most influential atheists in history or http://www.atheism.ru/old/DulAth17.html this one (in Russian) which labels him "India's most prominent atheist." In short, its clear that this person deserves a place in the history of atheism
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: are books published in India in the 1970s generally listed on Amazon?  As co-founder of the Atheist Centre (his wife, Saraswathi, received numerous awards for her work in social reform as well), prolific author and speaker, and an associate of Mahatma Gandhi, it seems obvious that a low number of Google hits for this patently notable person can be attributed to a combination of alternate/misspellings of his name and |systemic bias. This man's work was done in a largely non-English-speaking environment, before the advent of the internet
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:CSB)

Comment: Yet another bad faith nomination/ violation from Gastrich
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: per Pierremenard, also  and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: as blatant violation of .  Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich|RFC and his motives are clearly suspect
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)