विकिपीडिया:पृष्ठ हटाने हेतु चर्चा/लेख/केदार जोशी

निम्न चर्चा नीचे लिखे पृष्ठ के प्रस्तावित विलोपन का पुरालेख है। कृपया इसमें बदलाव न करें। अनुवर्ती टिप्णियाँ उपयुक्त वार्ता पृष्ठ पर करनी चाहिए (जैसे कि लेख का वार्ता पृष्ठ)। इस पृष्ठ पर किसी भी प्रकार का कोई संपादन नहीं होना चाहिए।

परिणाम: हटाया, सदस्यों का मतैक्य साफ़ है कि लेख हटाया जाना चाहिए। मैं यहाँ यह साफ़ करना चाहूँगा कि विषय के कार्य से इस परिणाम पर कोई प्रभाव नहीं पड़ा है। <>< बिल विलियम कॉम्पटन^{वार्ता} 13:49, 10 अगस्त 2013 (UTC)

नामांकन

केदार जोशी (संपादन|वार्ता|इतिहास|कड़ियाँ|ध्यान रखें|लॉग)

केदार जोशी -विकिपीडिया -wikipedia के लिये गूगल परिणाम: खोज • समाचार • पुस्तक • विद्वान •

नामांकन के लिये कारण:

नमस्कार
I am proposing deletion of this article, this person is famous for his anti India rants (see some of his rants). Anyway, the point where I am mostly concerned is "notability". Wikipedia English article has been deleted and like the editors there, I also feel he is a pseudo philosopher, and is not notable!
धन्यवाद
Titodutta (वार्ता) 19:10, 24 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

• Delete — केदार जोशी एक उल्लेखनीय दार्शनिक नहीं है। वह केवल इंटरनेट पर अपने भारत विरोधी प्रचार के लिए जाना जाता है। इसलिए इस आलेख को हटाया जाना चाहिए। धन्यवाद CorrectKnowledge (वार्ता) 19:46, 24 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)
• Keep – In light of the significant coverage of the subject in renowned Indian (Marathi language) sources; in light of the various scholarly dialogues with the subject at Philosophy Pathways (In the editor’s note, the editor says, “If you haven't seen Raam's previous works published in Philosophy Pathways, it might help to know that these are in fact constructed, or reconstructed, from actual dialogues, based as closely as consistency permits on what was actually said by the participants.”) ~ RogDel (वार्ता) 01:56, 25 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

• Where is/are signigicant coverage of Marathi sources? And about the Pathway link, all I can understand, that is a writing of and/or about the subject in 14 August, 2012 journal in a newsletter! The site states "Philosophy Pathways is the electronic newsletter for the Pathways to Philosophy distance learning program". The article does not add any weight! --Titodutta (वार्ता) 04:45, 25 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

Both significant coverage in Marathi sources and the pathways dialogues appear to have been mentioned in this wp article on the subject itself; though mr:wp: on केदार जोशी looks more comprehensive. Also, there seem to be 5 works in pathways ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) And, pathways is listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals which lists scientific and scholarly journals that meet high quality standards by exercising peer review or editorial quality control. DOAJ is reliable; pathways is therefore a notable, scholarly, and reliable source. ~ RogDel (वार्ता) 05:26, 25 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

5 articles in a distance learning program's website? Your English language Wikipedia |debate rationales were much better than this! Please read विकिपीडिया:उल्लेखनीयता (the English version Wikipedia:Notability) --Titodutta (वार्ता) 05:38, 25 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

It is not a mere distance learning program website. It is a journal listed in DOAJ. On the top of the profile, DOAJ explicitly says Free, full text, quality controlled scientific and scholarly journals, covering all subjects and many languages. ~ RogDel (वार्ता) 05:47, 25 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

Please read the notability policy, and see search results in Google news, Google scholar etc! There is not information on subject! Who is Kedar Joshi? --Titodutta (वार्ता) 05:59, 25 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

Works in pathways related to Kedar Joshi appear in Google Scholar; and the coverage in Marathi sources does not appear in Google News. ~ RogDel (वार्ता) 06:06, 25 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

Please read the notability policy! Your better points have already been ruled out in English language debate! And please give the Marathi language reliable sources links too what you have said above. I understand Marathi very little! --Titodutta (वार्ता) 06:17, 25 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

My points were not ruled out; there were only weak objections to them. That pathways can be considered a reliable source is almost undisputable for reasons I have given here earlier; and the Marathi sources seem offline. ~ RogDel (वार्ता) 06:25, 25 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

• NOTE: I would just like to point what User:RogDel did on the sa.wiki with this edit, and wonder if this is not an abuse of smaller wikis. Pages on this guy have been created on many other Indian language wikis too. Regards, लवी सिंघल (वार्ता) 10:55, 25 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

I did that because "delete|Page does not cite notable reference" template was added to the article; I added notable references to prevent deletion and improve the article. ~ RogDel (वार्ता) 11:05, 25 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

And I would like to point out that some wp articles on the subject seem to have been created by established users. (e.g. ta.wp, gu.wp) ~ RogDel (वार्ता) 11:09, 25 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

There are numerous such open access journals on the internet whose reliability for extraordinary claims has been refuted many times at the RSN (I particpiated in one such discussion recently). But that is besides the point. Even if Kedar Joshi's conversations/thoughts are published in a reliable source that still does not make the author himself notable. CorrectKnowledge (वार्ता) 22:06, 25 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

PS A lot of effort is being made to promote Kedar Joshi. Since the subject himself does not find siginificant coverage in reliable secondary sources his Hindi article is filled with quotes. Quotes by him or a trivial mention about him does not constitute notability and Hindi wikipedia is not Wikiquote. CorrectKnowledge (वार्ता) 22:20, 25 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

Certainly it does make the subject notable, because the conversations are not articles by the subject; they are works by somebody other than the subject who is supposed to have had the conversations with the subject. And there are other things too that indicate the notability of the subject, such as the coverage in Marathi sources. (Pathways could be considered reliable because it’s not its own claim alone. It is considered to be a quality controlled scientific and scholarly journal by DOAJ). ~ RogDel (वार्ता)

Being published in a journal listed by DOAJ does not make its author notable. We can't have hundreds of articles on people who were published in some journal. There has to be significant covergae on the author in reliable sources independent of the subject. Which isn't the case here, particularly with Hindi and English sources. Unfortunately, none of those Marathi sources are online for anyone to verify. CorrectKnowledge (वार्ता) 17:18, 28 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

As I said in my previous comment, he is not the author (the conversations are not articles by the subject; they are works by somebody other than the subject who is supposed to have had the conversations with the subject); the fact which makes him notable. Marathi sources could be offline. There is an interview of the subject by Mid Day too. ~ RogDel (वार्ता) 00:36, 29 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

An academic must be notable in his/her field or covered significantly by multiple secondary sources to have a separate article. The articles you quote, such as this, do not demonstarte either of the criteria. They are just dialogues between Kedar Joshi and Raam Gokhale (which would make them primary sources) published in an open access journal. A youtube link of a tabloid doesn't help much. Marathi sources can be offline but their veracity must be demonstrated when challenged. CorrectKnowledge (वार्ता) 04:11, 29 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

They are not primary sources since the subject is not the/an author of them. Marathi sources seem to be neatly sourced; good faith could be assumed. ~ RogDel (वार्ता) 04:33, 29 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

A source is classified as primary when it documents opinions, personal knowledge or original ideas no matter who the publisher is. A dialogue involving (not about) Kedar Joshi would fit in here. I am asking for Marathi sources to determine whether they cover Kedar Joshi in detail or not. None of the sources given yet demonstrate significant coverage on him, even if they cover his ideas. We can't just fill up articles with quotes. CorrectKnowledge (वार्ता) 16:26, 30 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

A dialogue written by somebody other than the subject who is supposed to have had the dialogue with the subject would not be primary. Sources written by others covering the subject's ideas would also be significant & secondary related to the subject; the Navshakti source cited is mentioned to have 150 word biography of the subject. ~ RogDel (वार्ता) 18:22, 30 जनवरी 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable for Hindi Wikipedia. Marathi Wikipedia page is also in process of deletion. --Abhijeet Safai (वार्ता) 10:11, 29 मई 2013 (UTC)

I have checked the sources; they have significant coverage of the subject; the subject clearly appears notable. ~ RogDel (वार्ता) 11:34, 29 मई 2013 (UTC)

• हटाए: यह व्यक्ति विकिपीडिया के मायनेसे उल्लेखनीय नहीं है। बल्कि जोशी के अनेक लेख निंदनीय भी है। इनके लेखोंको अनेक जगहोंसे हटाया गया है। अनेक जगहोंपर लेख लीख इनका प्रचार हो रहा है जो अनुचित है। इसलिए इस लेख को यहासे तुरंत हटाना चाहिए। Dharmadhyaksha (वार्ता) 04:07, 18 जून 2013 (UTC)

ऊपर की चर्चा इस पृष्ठ पर हुए विचार-विमर्श का पुरालेख है। कृपया इसमें किसी तरह का बदलाव न करें। अनुवर्ती टिप्णियाँ उपयुक्त वार्ता पृष्ठ पर करनी चाहिए (जैसे कि लेख का वार्ता पृष्ठ या पृष्ठ हटाने हेतु चर्चा का वार्ता पृष्ठ)। इस पृष्ठ पर किसी भी प्रकार का कोई संपादन नहीं होना चाहिए।