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. And salt; recreation ought to be discussed in WP:DELREV. It seems like while the keep camp is far more verbose, the arguments by the delete camp do address the keep arguments and have convinced more people. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Kedar_Joshi

Kedar_Joshi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This is the third incarnation of this page, with no increase in notability, and obvious signs of self-aggrandizement and disruptive editing of other pages. LordQwert ( talk) 19:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Additionally, the deletion should extend to the stub pages in the Interlingua, and Interlingue languages. (Those are different things?) I'm not a speaker of those languages, so I'm not comfortable instigating those deletions. LordQwert ( talk) 22:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Please note that the page Kali has been heavily edited by Hinduresci, including significant content related to Kedar Joshi's personal beliefs. I have reverted those edits and addressed the topic on the talk page. It is likely to me that several other articles related to Hinduism may have been edited by Hinduresci to align with his personal perspective. LordQwert ( talk) 17:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Other pages which may false under the auspices of a general review/deletion: Kshipra_Joshi, Bhanumati_(Mahabharata), Durukti, The_Mahābhārata_(Smith_book), and W._Douglas_P._Hill. Note that Durukti is, I believe, the entity Kedar Joshi claims to be, and that Hinduresci has added many links to the page, and references to the entity, from other Hinduism related Wikipedia pages, not listed here.

• Keep And you really seem to misinterpret my activity here! Hinduresci ( talk) 19:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The article as it stands clearly appears to denote that the subject is notable. Hinduresci ( talk) 19:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 10. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

@nom, In view of the message you left on Spinningspark's talk page, if I had been Joshi himself as you seem to suggest, do you really think I would ever at all introduce the article on Kali (demon) in such scathing (though advertently factual) manner, e.g. fetid man who holds his penis in the left hand? I wonder whether it is possible for any sensible and equitable man to imagine the answer to that question in the affirmative! Hinduresci ( talk) 20:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Was deleted by consensus twice already. Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or WP:NPROF (in relation to philosophy). I failed to find coverage in large English papers. Also has obvious WP:PROFRINGE and WP:PROMOTION issues in its current state (I removed an undue section with WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE and MOS:QUOTE issues for now). — Paleo Neonate – 23:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete and salt. Failed to establish notability like in the second version of this article. Alexius08 ( talk) 23:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I never intended to promote the subject. And I do not understand how it fails to establish notability. The 3 to 4 foreign language sources are not presumably unreliable. They are objectively deemed important, and so must be the topic covered by them substantially. Also, take, for example, a look at the manner in which the subject has been quoted by a reputed scholar at the Arizona State University! Do you not think it seems to suggest that the subject is worthy of notice? And would you, by the way, presume that the scholar intends to promote Joshi as well? Hinduresci ( talk) 01:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I reckon there is more than sufficient objective evidence that he is a notable philosopher, though he may, of course, not be exceedingly notable. Hinduresci ( talk) 01:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Put differently, I do not understand how it is objectively deniable that the subject meets WP:BASIC and maybe WP:AUTHOR too. Hinduresci ( talk) 01:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: I'm not notable myself but can find plenty of references to my name in computer science related literature including by professors and some notable people, and I authored some published books (although I am anonymously editing here). Google results are plenty because of my participation in many opensource projects. There is no article about me on Wikipedia and doubt that I'll ever meet notability requirements for other volunteer editors to write one about me. If I wrote one, or hired someone to, it likely would not pass AfD. Wikipedia is simply not an indiscriminate collection of information or directory. Significant coverage should be available, not only mentions, quotes, press releases, non-independent sources coverage, bibliographies, etc. — Paleo Neonate – 01:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Significant coverage indeed looks available, and it is presumably independent and reliable. Also, in fact, the varied citations in scholarly articles by others who are presumably independent of him, look good enough to understand that the topic is proved to have worth of being noticed. Hinduresci ( talk) 01:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

If there is any prejudice against the foreign language sources, the prejudice is rather disruptive, not constructive. Hinduresci ( talk) 01:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: Neither online nor English language sources are necessary for establishing notability. And the sources with substantial coverage cited in the article are some of the most prominent and established ones (some even in existence since 1881) from a major language other than English, with around 73 million native speakers. Also, since he is the author of multiple notable (or important) aphorisms (which are pieces or works of literature), cited in the main prominently by presumably independent reputed scholars from academic disciplines (which even seem different from his own) including physics, cardiology, oceanography, as well as by rhetorician/s and editor/s of some of the most important newspapers such as The Times of India, he is manifestly a notable (or important or influential) author, though the degree of notability (or importance or influence) may not be exceeding and does not have to be either. Hinduresci ( talk) 07:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

@nom, If the significant content you mentioned at all appears to relate to Kedar Joshi's personal beliefs, let me apprise you that the appearance merely seems to result from a queer combination of accident, factuality, and bibliographic reference to his work, none of which, I suppose, is gratuitous. Hinduresci ( talk) 17:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete I couldnt find any in depth coverage. Also, per Paleo's vote, and his other comments in discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per Paleo and prior deletion discussions. WP:FRINGE personality who fails to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 04:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Substantial (or non-trivial) coverage is given; and non-English and offline sources are acceptable. That "I couldnt find any in depth coverage" makes no sense. Hinduresci ( talk) 06:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: Not every source must be of the standard of The Washington Post, for instance, to be deemed reliable and acceptable.

Let me also cite a couple of relevant and interesting statements:

"Notability of articles is sometimes very subjective, varying with time and geography. For some people, US 1980 presidential candidate John Anderson might be a noted person; others who don't live in the United States might feel that Scottish 18th century scientist John Anderson is more prominent."
"Deletionism may favor rich countries, since it's there most people have a computer and the Internet at home. (poor countries are usually less in the medias, except wars, famines and natural disasters or sporting success) This would give a very Western World-fixed POV. Sure Wikipedia is no charity project, but it still shall cover the entire world." — Inclusionism Hinduresci ( talk) 07:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Insufficiently notable, self-promotional. Nothing has changed since the last discussions. QuiteUnusual ( talk) 16:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

As far as I can see there is nothing self-promotional, and he definitely does not look insufficiently notable either. Are you just totally looking down upon the non-English sources? If you are, I have to say you are mistaken; and I believe to have already mentioned the reasons. Hinduresci ( talk) 16:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

In fact I clearly get the impression that since a number of suitable sources have so far been found, it is likely that even more sources exist as well. Also see WP:NPOSSIBLE. Hinduresci ( talk) 16:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I could actually disclose how I ran into this topic; how I managed to procure the sources and so on. However, the only trouble is the terrible controversy that potentially surrounds my contribution to Kali (demon), which discourages me from revealing much information. 17:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

In other words, since my contributions, especially the ones to the article on Kali (demon), are, it can certainly be argued, religiously controversial to a great extent, I better be reticent for my own security. Hinduresci ( talk) 17:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: Let me substantiate it to you how this topic is notable! Let's keep aside the substantial coverage in the presumably independent and reliable non-English published sources as well as the questionably substantial astrological coverage in the couple of English sources which include The Indian Express. What seem to remain then are the dialogues published in Philosophy Pathways and several presumably independent and reliable, published English sources which appear to cite him along with his aphorisms. Now, if we keep aside the dialogues too, we would be left with the following: Kedar Joshi is the author of multiple noted aphorisms, one of which has been cited in a column as prominent as the Sacred Space of The Times of India, while another one has been cited by an American cardiologist right at the beginning of one of his research papers published in a journal as reputed as the Journal of the American College of Cardiology; yet another aphorism has been quoted by a very reputed researcher affiliated to Arizona State University on the first page of one of his published academic works, along with a picture of Kedar Joshi himself. There is one more aphorism which has been cited, along with an aphorism by Confucius, in a scholarly journal right at the beginning of the paper published in it. There is also a Spanish author who not only seems to have cited him in his reliable, published work but also appears to have mentioned him as a philosopher who is so young and yet so lucid. A journalist from southern India once asked a noted individual for his opinion on one of Joshi's works. And a book written by an independent author and published by a noted publisher cites one of his aphorisms too; and so on.

Now, according to WP:BIO, "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life." Is it not apparent from description above that there is objective evidence that Mr Joshi is indeed interesting or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded? Remember, it is not at all necessary for a biographical topic to have a full account of its life covered in independent and reliable published source/s; because, although, for example, Kshipra Joshi is clearly a noted topic which seems to meet WP:NGYMNAST as well as WP:ANYBIO, even its full date of birth could not be known from any independent and reliable published source, let alone a full biography. And let me ingeminate that although I created the articles on both of the aforementioned Joshis, I have no personal connection to any of them, and I also believe to have mentioned fairly strong logical evidence to the contrary. — Hinduresci ( talk) 23:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: See also: The rationale opposing deletion of the article on W. Douglas P. Hill & The quotations as to notability, especially the second one

Similarly, is it wonted for an average author from this planet to have their work (independently) cited in a column as discriminating as the Sacred Space of The Times of India? No, not at all! That means Joshi is notable (or unusual or rare or uncommon). Is it, at all, wonted for an average mortal to beget multiple works of noteworthiness? No, not at all! Again, that means Joshi is notable. Is it wonted for an average person to have their works independently featured in most renowned publications in virtually the most prominent fashion imaginable? Of course not! That means Joshi is notable, yet again. Is it wonted for an average human to be independently alluded to in a fairly reliable source as an intellectual with astonishing intelligibility? Obviously not! Joshi is notable on that account as well; and so forth. And do remember the incontestable please: The sole thing notability boils down to is unusualness (or rarity). — Hinduresci ( talk) 22:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete fringe theorists need exceptionally good sources to be kept, and we lack that here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply

He is notable on account of the rationale given above; ends the matter. — Hinduresci ( talk) 04:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply

If the concern as to fringe theorist is indeed credible, the sole trouble with the article would be the "Philosophical views" section; and not the article itself. — Hinduresci ( talk) 05:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply

And as long as the fringe views are not given undue weight, the trouble should be trivial. — Hinduresci ( talk) 05:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: The topic is obviously unusual (or notable) enough to be recorded in Wikipedia, especially when Wikipedia is not made of paper. Even the aforedescribed nature of the citations of his aphorisms is indicative of striking unusualness (or clear notability); and that truth is, in fact, also noticed in a fairly reliable Marathi source with an article about him. Besides, since it is quite presumable that almost all of those citations have been independent of Joshi, it should also be presumable that the substantial biographical coverage of him in the non-English source(s) did not result from self-promotion either. Furthermore, it is equally evident that a substantial (or encyclopedic) article could be written from reliable sources. Deletion is nearly out of the question. And pretty much the same could, of course, be said about Hill as well. — Hinduresci ( talk) 17:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non notable self-promoter. It looks like that this person has spent less time in being an "author, philosopher" and spent more time in promoting himself across Wikipedia projects. Capitals00 ( talk) 16:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Yours is a subjective viewpoint virtually contradicted by evidence. — Hinduresci ( talk) 16:59, 17 October 2017 (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.