Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kedar Joshi (2nd nomination)


 * 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. RogDel has made a valiant, but ultimately futile, effort to defend this article. The claim that the newspaper sources amounted to significant coverage did not have consensus amongst other editors. I have to agree with this, the articles are not about Joshi either in whole or in part. Instead they merely ask Joshi for an opinion on the MANS questionnaire. Newspapers ask opinions of all sorts of people all the time, my local paper asked mothers their opinion on a new school crossing, a national paper might ask claimants their opinion of a change in the benefits law. That does not make them notable. Perhaps it is being implied that Joshi is some kind of unofficial spokesman for the astrologers. That doesn't cut it either, it has been established over many many deletion debates that spokespersons being named in newspapers does not establish them as notable. The WP:ACADEMIC claim was completely rejected and I won't comment further on that. The claim for him being a notable aphorist has a little more going for it, but this was not accepted in the discussion. Widely quoting an aphorism may be evidence for notability of the aphorism, but only if the source then goes on to discuss it. In none of the sources quoting one of Joshi's aphorisms is either the aphorism or its author discussed at all. All we have is the quote. This does not mean that Joshi is definitely not notable, but the sources currently presented are inadequate to verify that he is notable and we cannot have an article on that basis. SpinningSpark 23:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Kedar Joshi
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a previously deleted title. Previous discussion here found the person is not a notable philosopher, even as one on the fringe. The present article asserts that he is a notable aphorist, but previous discussion at Wikiquote found otherwise (sustained on [//en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Deletion_review&oldid=1604217#Kedar_Joshi review], and extensively discussed [//en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Village_pump_archive_39#Kedar_Joshi_quote_farming here] and elsewhere). This much is old news, but this is a new article. The present article contains new material asserting that he is an astrologer notable for defending the field. The citations provided do not rise to the level of significant coverage under WP:GNG, nor do they indicate particular recognition for accomplishments under WP:BIO. Notwithstanding an awful lot of useless stuff on the interestnet (noted in previous discussions), I am not finding anything that supports these claims of notability. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The following three points seem to indicate that this subject is notable:
 * 1. Notability as an astrologer and a critic of the MANS's campaign:
 * The fact that multiple published sources, which are presumably independent and reliable, cover the views/opinions of only two to three among quite a few experts (i.e. astrologers and others, The second source mentions that most astrologers are dismissive of the MANS's efforts ), seems to indicate the prominence and notability of those experts, who include the subject. (Note: The coverage clearly seems to be nontrivial (or more than a trivial mention), which is a requirement for notability.)
 * Note: Regarding the reliability of those two sources:
 * The Indian Express is a broadsheet newspaper (and not a tabloid) founded in 1931, which seems to have received several awards, and there are loads of WP articles that link to the article on it. The Caravan, which is a long-form narrative journalism magazine, also seems to be cited in a number of WP articles. I think they are presumably reliable and acceptable sources.
 * 2. Notability as an aphorist:
 * Correctly attributed citations of a person's aphorism/s in multiple (and presumably independent and reliable) published sources would be sufficient objective evidence that the person is notable as an aphorist (i.e. noticeable or capable of being noted or worthy of notice as a source of aphorism/s).
 * Note: Regarding the requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources to write a whole article:
 * Per WP:NACADEMICS, a person is notable if s/he is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. Now, it is possible for such person to have no significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. In such case, WP:ACADEMIC says that once notability has been established through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details. Also, per WP:BASIC, primary sources may be used to support content in an article, though they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Thus, once the notability of an aphorist is established through independent sources, non-independent sources may be used to write a whole encyclopedic article.
 * 3. I think it is presumable that Gokhale's seven (7) works related to the subject amount to an independent published source, since Gokhale is given as the sole author of these works; and I think it is also presumable that it is an acceptable source, since the journal is deemed academic (it is listed in DOAJ, which lists quality controlled scientific and scholarly journals). And these two presumptions seem to support the subject’s notability. ~ RogDel (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 19:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 19:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. (NSTP, UQV) Ningauble (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. (aphorist) Ningauble (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments rebutting some particulars in the three points by RogDel:
 * 1) Notability as an astrologer and a critic: Here is the news flash – A skeptic invited some astrologers, clairvoyants, & etc. to demonstrate their prognostic abilities, none of them took him up on it, and a few, including this "self-described philosopher and purveyor of theories" (theories that don't even have a fringe following), voiced their disdain for his methods. (It must have been a slow news day in Pune.) The news that one Kedar Joshi was among those who were baited for this "study" that never happened is trivial coverage, and it is unsurprising that there were few other people available to quote for opposing views.
 * 2) Notability as an aphorist: Having things that are plastered all over the interestnet quoted a few times does not make someone a "notable aphorist". Regarding the claim that significant coverage is not required: Kedar Joshi meets none of the criteria at WP:NACADEMICS and, in particular, is certainly not the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal. He holds no comparable position of authority at any prominent institution, academic or otherwise.
 * 3) Gokhale's works: As described in previous discussions linked above, articles in the newsletter of an organization catering to undergraduate and amateur philosophers are not sources of any academic gravitas. An article on Gokhale himself has been deleted due to no apparent importance or significance.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Raam_Gokhale] A large proportion of his works (appearing in that newsletter or self published) are concerned with Kedar Joshi, so I would describe them as non-independent colleagues, except "colleagues" would imply they have some sort of professional standing – which neither of them does.
 * Note also that the contributor may have a conflict of interest. Informal/amateur snapshots uploaded at commons (e.g. [//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Kedar_Joshi] [//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Kedar_Joshi's_family] [//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Kedar_Joshi_in_Pune] [//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:RogDel] and others) give the appearance that User:RogDel is, at least, personally acquainted with the subject. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments The Caravan source clearly mentions that most astrologers are dismissive of the MANS's efforts. The Indian Express source says that the MANS got around a dozen informal queries from astrologers and others. There are much stronger reasons to believe that the two to three experts (including the subject) whose views are covered by the two sources are considered important/notable by the sources. And the coverage is clearly more than a trivial mention; in other words, it is significant coverage which is required by WP:GNG.


 * Again, if the sources are presumably independent and reliable then it, I believe, is irrefutable that correctly attributed citations of a person's aphorism/s in such published sources would be sufficient objective evidence that the person is notable as an aphorist (i.e. noticeable or capable of being noted or worthy of notice as a source of aphorism/s).


 * Philosophy Pathways, even if it is at some places self-described as a newsletter, is deemed an academic journal (it also seems to be self-described as an electronic journal). A listing in DOAJ seems to be a sufficient indication of that, since DOAJ lists quality controlled scientific and scholarly journals. The fact that a large proportion of Gokhale's woks are concerned with the subject does not seem to imply that the works are not independent.


 * I have no conflict of interest. And this is not the only article that I have recreated after deletion. These are few examples: Abhay Thipsay, Christina Singer; and they look notable and worthy of inclusion. I'm indeed a very determined contributor. It is only the challenges to the existence of this article, such as notability boilers, which made me work on it. And I would work on any other challenged article I created as long as I believe in the reasons for its inclusion in WP. I may have made mistakes; my knowledge of notability and stuff may have been incomplete; but I believe to have improved and have made improvements. The images I uploaded at commons were merely downloaded from the Internet Archive, where presumably the subject himself had uploaded them. E.g. Kedar Joshi (sometime between 1998 and 2001). The appearance you mention is completely false and deceptive. ~ RogDel (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first paragraph in the foregoing post: Neither of the sources describes the subject as an expert. "The Indian Express" describes him simply as an astrologer. The Caravan piece further qualifies him as "self-described philosopher". (I also think the credibility of the Caravan source is diminished by overstating the case. I do not doubt that those who replied to MANS were critical; but I seriously doubt there is any basis for believing that "most astrologers" have even heard of MANS, much less taken a position on their study that never happened.) Regarding Philosophy Pathways (home page, [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_Pathways Wikipedia article]) and its International Society for Philosophers (home page, [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Philosophers Wikipedia article]): I am not going to re-argue the case at this point, but I encourage others to investigate their nature. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By expert I only meant a person who is skilled at something; e.g. an astrologer is supposed to be skilled at astrology. That's all. I don't understand why the credibility of the source would be diminished. Do you not believe that he is evidently a self-described philosopher? MANS, founded in 1989, seems to be quite a well established and well known organization which appears to have declared astrology as a superstition on its website. I think there are good reasons to believe that most astrologers would be pretty aware of MANS. ~ RogDel (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The two references consist of #1 a two-line quote #2 a single line quote. The related works section is unclear how it relates to Joshi. The source appears to consist of a web site run by a single person (George Klempner klempner@fastmail.net) since the contact information is his email and phone number, and no editorial board is mentioned. The articles that are "dialogs" with Joshi are written by Raam Gokhale, and at least one is prefaced with "An Imagined Dialog on Eastern and Western Philosophy and the Nature of Knowledge". So this is Gokhale having an imagined dialog with Joshi. All of those "related works" are by the same author in the same publication, and none of them purport to be the words of Joshi, nor do they cite any works by Joshi, who could himself be imaginary. Note that I also removed the superlative terms from the article ("noted" "notable") as those are not appropriate for a WP article. LaMona (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Even if the two references consist of quotes, the coverage clearly appears to be more than a trivial mention of the subject; and seems long enough to write useful content. Gokhale's works seem to cite some of the subject's aphorisms or quotes at least at the beginning which indicates that the Kedar mentioned in the dialogues is no other than the subject, even if one of the dialogues may have been mentioned to be imaginary. (e.g. 'If knowledge is my God, doubt would be my religion.' - Kedar Joshi, cited in JUST-IF-ICATION at the beginning.) Philosophy Pathways appears to have numerous editors, including Christopher Norris, Distinguished Research Professor in Philosophy at Cardiff University. And the subject seems clearly to be a notable aphorist. ~ RogDel (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This is kedar joshi, the subject of the article being discussed. Raam Gokhale is my relative (cousin), and although he contacted me and initiated dialogues after coming from the USA, i suggested him philosophy Pathways for publication. So i don't really think that his works could be considered independent of me in the Wikipedia sense for notability. However I'm indeed a notable astrologer. I was Interviewed on phone by a reporter from the Indian Express named prasad joshi (he is not my relative, though we have a common last name) about my opinions regarding the MANS issue, because I'm kind of known to be a staunch critic of its campaign. A reporter from the Caravan, anosh malekar, also independently contacted me and personally came to my house and Interviewed me for about an hour. Reporters from Marathi language newspapers have also interviewed me several times in the past. I hope this will help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedar joshi 1979 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 22:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment WorldCat seems to mention that the subject has authored 12 works in 14 publications in 2 languages and 21 library holdings worldwide; e.g. Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, |collandb|480986 Jesus College Library, University of Cambridge, Pembroke College Library, University of Oxford, Central Library, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, University of Melbourne Library, Yale University Library, British Library of Political and Economic Science, etc. Is that too, then, not an indication of his notability, maybe per WP:Creative? The subject's works appear to be self-published and yet they seem to be included or represented within the collections of several notable academic libraries, which may be equivalent to meeting the WP:Creative criterion that a person is presumably notable if his/her work (or works) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. In other words, would such reputable academic libraries hold the works unless they consider them (and/or their author) notable or important? They presumably would not. ~ RogDel (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Worldcat is a union catalog of over 70,000 libraries. Being held by 21 of them is not highly significant. (I wrote a book that is held by over 1,100, and believe me, I'm neither famous nor noteworthy!). As one academic librarian said in an interview "We are the people who buy the books that no one wants to read." In other words, major academic libraries have contracts in which every book published in X language is shipped to them automatically. Even if no one ever takes it off the shelf. That's their job. LaMona (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Karen, I find it hard to believe that you are not notable. You seem to be widely cited by peers, so you may meet WP:Creative criterion that the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Ala.org mentions about you that She has spoken frequently at conferences and meetings and has been quoted or interviewed in a variety of media. loc.gov mentions, She is a well-known metadata expert and has served on the MARC standards committee, the NISO OpenURL committee, and has advised in the development of MODS and other metadata efforts. ~ RogDel (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the WP article "Academic library" seems to mention in the lead (though this may be unsourced), Academic libraries must determine a focus for collection development since comprehensive collections are not feasible. Librarians do this by identifying the needs of the faculty and student body, as well as the mission and academic programs of the college or university. ~ RogDel (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * More to the point, works in the permanent collections of notable galleries or museums, referred to in WP:CREATIVE, are prominently featured by those institutions. Being in the catalog of a large academic library is not remotely equivalent - they collect vast quantities of obscurities. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are right about the non-equivalence, but I still think that inclusion within the collections of several notable/reputable academic libraries (some small, some big) might indicate some notability. It may not be high notability like the one indicated by representations within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, but it may be notability still; especially considering that academic libraries are required to determine a focus for collection development since comprehensive collections are not feasible. ~ RogDel (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article require additional independent sources to establish the notability as well as the article seems to be written for promotional purposes as suggested in earlier AfD. Delete as per BPL and nomination. — C</b><b style="color:#F0A000">ute</b><b style="color:#00A300">st</b><b style="color:#0A47FF">Penguin</b><sup style="font-size:50%">Hangout 15:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment It was only my relative incompetence in article writing and the knowledge of RS and notability that, I think, messed the earlier article on the subject. I've no promotional interests and I don't think there is any good reason to believe that I do. My talk page suggests that many of the articles I created were challenged on speedy and prod grounds and I made efficient efforts to save those articles. Even I argued the Philosophy Pathways source to be independent but the subject himself seems to have commented contrary to that. Two of the sources given seem to have non-trivial (i.e. significant) coverage of the subject, which should be sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG. Let me quote WP:ONLY: Notability is about having published, non-trivial information (i.e., more than a mere mention) in multiple sources independent of the subject, and the article itself not being the first place to provide the information. And as argued before, the subject also looks notable per WP:Creative, as an author as well as as an aphorist. ~ RogDel (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, presuming that User:Kedar joshi 1979, who commented in this discussion, is indeed the subject himself as he claimed, I weakly doubt the validity of his (presumably honest) opinion that the mere relation between Gokhale and the subject (as cousins) and the subject suggesting Philosophy Pathways for publication of Gokhale's works make the source "non-independent". ~ RogDel (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete&mdash;Sources in the current version of the article aren't sufficient to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment WP is not a Democracy, and a mere statement that the sources are not sufficient to establish notability does not look helpful especially when so much detailed rationale have been given in support of notability. ~ RogDel (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I don't find any of the discussion above convincing, and in my experience when someone is having to try that hard to establish notability, it's because the subject just isn't notable.  In particular, I think you're abusing WP:ACADEMIC.  You're making the best argument you can with the materials you have in front of you, and while your argument is logical, thoughtful and well-written, I think it falls well short of being persuasive.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (1) If my argument is logical, thoughtful and well-written, how can it fall well short of being persuasive? (2) I don't know how I'm abusing WP:Academic. (3) I think I had to try hard to establish notability because sadly many folks don't seem to understand the concept of significant coverage and notability. From what could be written in the article, it is clearly more than a mere mention of the subject. WP:GNG seems to be clearly met. ~ RogDel (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep - as per the points outlined by RogDel. However, I would also like to see more Indian sources included in this article, as I suspect that would strengthen claim of notability. Sadfatandalone (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC; relies entirely on two sources, coverage of subject in which is in-passing and trivial. Doesn't even come close to WP:GNG. Same concerns raised in prior AfD are valid here. -- slakr \ talk / 00:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The coverage in the two sources is more than a trivial/mere mention, given that about 5 to 6 sentences could be written about the subject based on the two sources. Also, I never in fact thought that the subject is notable per WP:ACADEMIC; I only wanted to cite it as an example regarding the issue of writing a whole article. The subject seems clearly to be a notable aphorist (i.e. noticeable or capable of being noted or worthy of notice as a source of aphorism/s). ~ RogDel (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To sum up, the subject is at the least (1) a notable astrologer, since the coverage in the astrology related sources is plainly non-trivial; and (2) a notable aphorist, since correctly attributed citations of a person's aphorism/s in multiple (and presumably independent and reliable) published sources would be sufficient objective evidence that the person is notable as an aphorist (i.e. as a source of aphorism/s). ~ RogDel (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, then also append WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to the list of reasons for deletion, because the article's labeling of "notable aphorist" is synthesized&mdash;in a footnote I might add&mdash;from arbitrary mentions in sources (likely mentions by subject's friends, colleagues, or simply followers of the subject's blog). The fact that even one of the the reliable-source mentions label him a "self-described philosopher and purveyor of theories" is the equivalent of the reliable source letting us know that he's just some random dude. -- slakr \ talk / 06:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The label "self-described philosopher and purveyor of theories" does not imply that he is not a notable astrologer, only that he is not a notable philosopher, and the citations of aphorisms are in quality sources, like notable newspapers and journals (e.g. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, The Times of India, Progress in Oceanography, etc.), which are presumably independent and should be sufficient to establish notability as an aphorist. ~ RogDel (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: Sorry, I'm not sold. I don't think the coverage in reliable sources passes the bar.  Nha Trang  Allons! 21:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be prejudice against coverage that is short yet nontrivial; but I don't think that would help Wikipedia. The idea of nontrivial coverage seems to be misunderstood. ~ RogDel (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton is plainly trivial." — WP:Notability; whereas the coverage in the case under discussion is nontrivial. ~ RogDel (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails GNG. Vrac (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2014 (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.