Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jai Kumar Jalaj


 * 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   no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Jai Kumar Jalaj

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Unable to find any coverage of the subject. The lack of specifics in the article makes judging notability particularly difficult. As such, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:PROF, or WP:AUTHOR. — J04n(talk page) 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Does this http://books.google.com/books?id=LJzkAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Jai+Kumar+Jalaj%22+-inpublisher:icon&dq=%22Jai+Kumar+Jalaj%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&cd=1 Principal at Government Arts & Science College, Ratlam meet  WP:Prof 6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. ?
 * Keep - in addition to the comment the alternative transliteration Jaykumar Jalaj yields more evidence on his books and three pages of ours refer to them (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Jaykumar_Jalaj). The pages are: Jainism, Nathuram Premi and Pujyapada. Perhaps we should move the page FROM Jai Kumar Jalaj TO Jaykumar_Jalaj (this is just a redirection page at the moment) But this might be better after this Afd (Msrasnw (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC))
 * I have removed the orphan tag and added a few links via the Jaykumar Jalaj (redirect page). There are now, what are I think appropriate links on Jainism, Nathuram Premi (This page includes Also, highly respected modern scholars such as Premiji himself, Prof. Ludwig Alsdorf, Prof. Maurice Bloomfield, Prof. Willem Bollée and Dr. Jaykumar Jalaj have been a), Pujyapada and Ratnakaranda śrāvakācāra. We seem to be relying on him as the authoritative translator when looking at some of these. Does our use of someone in this way add to their notability? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC))


 * Delete. Regardless of what this person has written, there is not enough reliably published material about him (rather than his writing) to write a biography. Kevin (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * * I have added some extra details with some extra refs including some old awards....not only a state award level (an MP Bohj) but also an all Indian one. Hope they help. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC))


 * Comment Without offering an opinion on the subject's notability, I oppose Kevin's reasoning entirely. It is settled and storied convention that encyclopediae, being compilations of useful knowledge, must cover significant creators of such knowledge - who are, in large part, academics. This is a convention that goes all the way back to the Encyclopédie, and Wikipedia hews to this tradition through WP:PROF. To quote from the second point in the summary, "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." If Kevin wants to overturn WP:PROF, he's welcome to try. If he should be successful on the grounds as stated, I can see a lot of us exiting Wikipedia for good. Ray  Talk 16:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So what material would you propose using to write the bio? Kevin (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * His publications are clearly self-sourcing, as are citations to them. In most academic fields, it's common for review articles to discuss the impact of various forms of work. For such minimal personal details as are common in academic biographies, primary sources (like the subject's CV and website) are usually good. Ray  Talk 21:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, however under WP:PROF Caveats #3
 * It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * It is that lack of reliable independent sources that concerns me here. Kevin (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For what? The standard is verifiability. To verify significance of work, true, we would like reliable independent sources, such as, say, those provided by a review article, or by a prize citation when the prize is given by an independent group, or by the act of an independent author citing the subject's work. In this sense, citations are self-sourcing. To verify trivial personal details? Of course we take the subject's word for them unless we think he's lying. No need for independence there. Ray  Talk 21:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Ray's arguments are sound. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Weak keep. Two award wins seems like enough to meet WP:ANYBIO, although some more content would be nice. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.