Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motiravan Kangali


 * 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 keep. The sources have been reviewed and general consensus is that they are just about sufficient. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Motiravan Kangali

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable author with no evidence of satisfying either WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. References are passing mentions with no in-depth coverage of him. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete no notability here. Additionally I see COI and cross-wiki promotional attempt, as they have created the same page on hiwiki and enwiki too.  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 18:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable and basically spam.  Java Hurricane  03:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources need to have significant coverge, not just be secondary and reliable, to establish notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Kangali has widely written on tribal issues in India and is considered as a scholar of Gondi language. His works have been cited by various publications including BBC Hindi.  Simple google scholar search shows his works have been cited by others, at one instance in Journal of Tribal Intellectual Collective India.  Kangali belonged to a marginalized section of society and his works are mostly in Marathi and Gondi language.  His inclusion in Wikipedia also makes it more inclusive.  Strong keep. Shivashree (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , not a valid 'keep' rationale. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Notability on Wikipedia is a demonstration of significant, in-depth coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources (see WP:GNG). By that standard Kangali is obviously not notable as a simple search will tell. Simply because others have cited someone's works doesn't make them notable automatically.  Java Hurricane  05:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on Google Scholar alone, the subject is very far away from being notable. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Only passing mentions, not significant independant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ref #1 Jothe (2020): Kangali is subject of the article; not just a passing reference.  The author himself a scholar of Tata Institute of Social Sciences.  The passing reference in BBC Hindi mentions Mr. Kangali as 'Scholar of Gondi language'.  The Hindu reference mentions Mr. Kangali as 'linguist and expert in Gondi language and culture', ref in Dainik Bhaskar (2015) is an obituary. His works are based on a language and culture that is vulnerable and is on the verge of extinction.  His exclusion from Wikipedia will be exclusion of the people who are already excluded from public discourse. The person is certainly notable.  Shivashree (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete or merge . I've changed to weak delete, as ref #1 is relatively significant coverage, but not much else is. Being a scholar is not inherently notable. The BBC Hindi reference is not significant coverage. Ref #6 (obit in 2015) is not significant either as it's very short. (Disclaimer: I had to use Google Translate for some of the sources.) Perhaps some of the contents of this article could be merged into Gondi language? -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge to Gondi language. Changed my !vote again, as seems to just about meet criteria 2 of WP:ANYBIO. Still lacks multiple independant sources with significant coverage of his life though, as ideally I'd be looking for a biographical book or equivalent. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I suggest we keep this article on Kangali based not only on his scholarly work, but on his advocacy for the Gondi language, a language spoken by 2 million people. He helped standardize Gondi, and invented a script for the language. (See here and here for his work on standardization, and here for how the script is being taught to students and here for the script's digitization.) Moreover, contrary to the claims above, there are several in-depth articles about him.(one, two three). The article does need more citations for much of its content, but the article itself is notable - it is important and is supported by many reliable secondary sources. Prad Nelluru (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As a very quick review of those sources:
 * 1) https://www.downtoearth.org.in/interviews/language-is-the-only-tool-for-expressing-identity-and-culture-46695 - interview, hence not completely independant
 * 2) https://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Telangana/2015-05-13/Standardised-dictionary-in-Gondi-language-soon/150633 - covers his work, not him as a person
 * 3) https://en.gaonconnection.com/in-chhattisgarh-tribal-community-students-will-soon-be-studying-in-the-native-gondi-language/ - brief mention of him, sounds more like it's the primer by Padda that's taught in schools
 * 4) https://jobsvacancy.in/gondi-language-digital-font-ready-books-will-now-be-published/ - again brief mention
 * 5) https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/seven-brotherhoods-and-the-love-of-trees-animals-and-birds-46698 - some mentions, which is good
 * 6) https://www.downtoearth.org.in/interviews/language-is-the-only-tool-for-expressing-identity-and-culture-46695 - repeat of 1st one
 * 7) http://www.adivasiresurgence.com/india-motiravan-kangalis-bahujan-eyes/ - this one I should say is an independant significant source
 * I think the first and last links in your list constitute significant coverage, though the first is an interview. The don't see a difference between articles of his work and him for the purposes of establishing notability - both establish his importance. The brief mentions, still, show his impact, which helps establish notability. I do think there could be better and more voluminous coverage of him, but there's no reason to outright delete this article. Prad Nelluru (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The man who wrote books, whose anniversary is remembered and who has monument after him, his 'Wikipedia' page is considered for deletion, and this is done 'by voting' which only a few people aware of and they quickly do it. The Wikipedia page on him has citations, all the information that is needed, links about person's immense contribution from sources ranging from BBC to Bhaskar, Jagran, yet it is 'considered for deletion', with the false claim that this is 'self promotion', though the person died long ago. Not everyone knows but this deletion is through voting and how many vote? 10-12? Certain individuals who perhaps work as a group, they are part of such action. Now, Wikipedia's aim was to make knowledge free, it was to put focus on people from communities that didn't have adequate representation, the marginalized, the aim was also to bring women as editors. However, who would have imagined that such possessed and intellectually dishonest people who create handles with a purpose would enter and try to erect a wall, be gatekeepers of information? Unfortunately, that's happening in a big way and it's going on unchecked. Communities that didn't have access to higher education for long, are being stopped and not allowed to tell their history. There are huge communities whose figures are known in these regions but information about them hasn't reached the internet. Tribal communities that had less access to higher education, can't be stopped in this fashion, from telling the world about their history, heroes. And those who shut others' account don't write either but stop others, deter them and turn Wikipedia into their own property--drawing power through a strange system, just because they have been there for sometime. Totally mindboggling, how will new people come to the platform, they will simply leave it, stonewalled. Wikipedia aim was to draw people, not turn them off. However, imagine, a user makes his account, he hasn't published anything, but there are strange characters who appear from nowhere, even go to the extent of 'deletion of account', citing mumbo jumbo, sounding as if they are speaking from pulpit to their subjects. And those doing it, seem to work in a planned manner, with a manic urge to remove references about communities. Is it because these leaders are opposed to dominant narrative! Don't let Wikipedia become a shrine of knowledge and a few becoming its gatekeepers who can turna minnow into a hero, and decide that a giant would be 'non-notable' and 'useless' and his name 'fit for deletion'. Via Shams Ur Rehman Alavi http://www.newsbits.in/wrecking-wikipedia-erasing-history-of-marginalized-communities-defeating-purpose-of-website /// END QUOTE Hawa-Ave (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I just want to let you all know that this is being discussed on Facebook by Adivasi Resurgence. I will quote them below, but I would be happy to "improve" this article if that would keep it, and if I understood what needed to be "improved." Indigenous peoples are extremely underrepresented on wikipedia. Link to original post: https://www.facebook.com/adivasi.resurgence/posts/3044333029026740?__tn__=-R /// Quote from that post:
 * 1) BHOPAL: A social leader who had thousands of supporters, who was scholar of an important but endangered language. Someone who got a huge populace take pledge to revive the language.
 * Keep Have found some notability references from reputed sources that I have already added to the article - ; it appears that Kangali does have significant contributions to the linguistic preservation and development of Gondi language to his credit. - Sdsouza (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep among the few writers from an oppressed community and comparison simply cannot be made on inappropriate notability scales (esp. since his writing is/has-so-far not been accessible to English speakers). In any case notability seems established by - the contribution to deciphering Indus and Hampi symbolism + working on Gond literary renaissance as mentioned in reliable sources (added a book with a chapter that has several references to him). Shyamal (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Strong support for keeping. It's important that editors from countries with a history of strong media and/or internet penetration understand how grave the issue of access is in developing countries. There is often very little documentation of works of many noted authors like Kangali. When it goes without saying that the work of many w:Adivasi (indigenous) or Dalit (historically oppressed) authors, it's much worse, and it might be futile to find online resources or publications in international journals. It's really hard for many researchers and scholars to get published without a strong institutional backing. Guidelines, like deletion criteria, are not above the equitable treatment many notable persons deserve. A maintenance tag should be okay to push editors here on Wikipedia to improve the article but deleting the article is more like killing it entirely without allowing it to grow, just on the basis of criteria that works very well for western authors. --Psubhashish (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I believe makes a convincing case with sources that this meets WP:N. It might be a bit weak, but I think it passes.    // Timothy ::  talk  18:55, 25 August 2020 (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.