Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. P. Yohannan

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC) The result was delete. With due respect to Peterkingiron's comments, I could not pinpoint the exact reasoning he forwards to keep this article. He does mention the test to see whether the subject is notable. An organisation's notability may/may not confer notability on one of the heads/founders. Irrespective, I see consensus as delete. In case of issues, please feel free to contact me on the talk page. Wifione Message 05:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K. P. Yohannan

K. P. Yohannan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:Notable. Article is sourced now only by the website of his organization. I checked out Google and found books written by him and a few news articles in which he was quoted but no substantial coverage in secondary sources. BigJim707 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: lack of significant independent coverage. Coverage seems purely from his own writings and organisation, plus occasional quotes of him. It may also be appropriate to look at deleting the article on his organisation, Gospel for Asia, which suffers from similar problems. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a lack of notable coverage that is at least presented on the page. The only source used is from the official site of Gospel of Asia, and using one source multiple times does not make a page notable. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 06:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keep Everyone and his brother wants a Wikipedia page now. The standard for inclusion must be much higher than this. They seem to have added better sources now. History2007 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have they? The vast majority of the article is still cited to the same, single, closely-affiliated source, and what window-dressing has been added has been to sources of questionable independence (plus one that only makes bare mention of the topic). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You say "now", but the article was created in 2005. StAnselm (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Lots of sources exist. It's a shame that they weren't added to the article, or that the nominator didn't find them. First, there are profiles here and here on independent websites. He is featured in a journal article here. He often gets quoted in news articles - for example this one and this one. But most importantly, he has received substantial coverage in mainstream Indian newspapers here, here, here and here. StAnselm (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the first five sources come across as particularly independent (and largely accept Yohannan's self-evaluation uncritically). The first The Hindu piece is merely "routine news reporting on things like announcements" (WP:NOTNEWS) and contains only a bare mention of Yohannan. The second has a bit more coverage of him, but not much. The Indian Express piece appears to be the only substantive independent coverage, but I don't think it amounts to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" on its own. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we disagree with what "independent" means in the context of notability. The first five references are all independent because they are not "produced by those affiliated with the subject." StAnselm (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. crosswalk.com: softball interview -- Yohannan describing himself in his own words, therefore WP:PRIMARY source and not even remotely independent.
  2. christianet: eulogising puff-piece from a marginal source.
  3. christianitytoday: Yohannan describes his first prayer meeting -- no depth of biographical information -- and not even a fig-leaf of journalisitic distance (piece is presented entirely from Yohannan's perspective).
  4. christianitytoday #2: Yohannan describes a terrorist attack -- again no depth of biographical information -- and no attempt at journalisitic distance.
  5. crosswalk.com #2: another softball interview that is mainly Yohannan talking about himself.
Does eulogising Yohannan and letting him talk about himself count as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? I don't think so. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: References have been added to the article. StAnselm (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I think that this page and Gospel for Asia (which is a poorly written article) must stand and fall together. That orgainisation claims to have 67 Bible Colleges; I presume that is true, but have no idea how substantial these colleges are. Nevertheless, it sounds substantial to me. Another option might be to merge the two articles together. The test is not whether the article is well written, but whether the subject is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is the lack of independent coverage to substantiate this, or most other, claims about this organisation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 14:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the vast majority of the article is still sourced to a single, closely affiliated source: Yohannan's own Gospel in Asia. "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Nosiree, not even close. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Nomination is invalid, being based on the current state of the article and ignoring the wide range of biographical material (in reliable sources) on this person, as demonstrated by Google Books and Google News search. Clearly a major figure in Indian Christianity. -- 202.124.74.194 (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of notability proven by third party reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't consider the books and newspapers mentioned here and/or cited in the article to be third party reliable sources? -- 202.124.73.141 (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable, at least as an author. His books are in several hundred US libraries--and that's not counting the country where he mostly works in, India. [1] DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 1 February 2012 (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.
  1. ^ [1]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/K._P._Yohannan&oldid=1137962627"