Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Chempakassery

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 delete. The "keep" arguments are rather weak.  Sandstein  19:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Chempakassery

Philip Chempakassery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:PROF by a country mile. All of his books are published by the organisation that he works for, no notable independent 3rd party coverage. Cameron Scott (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MS Publications may not exactly be a vanity press, but it is the subject's employer, and without independent third-party coverage, notability may be asserted but is far from established. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it *isn't* vanity press - all it seems to publish is books by employees (he's runs the publishing arm but I'm unable to establish if this pre or post-dates his books). anyone able to shed any more light on the organisation? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to be nice ;) ...and either way, there is at least the appearance of a COI, no? Drmies (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a whole maze of articles that are based on presenting different aspect of this church as separate entities and then using references from the different bits to provide the illusion of sourcing. It's a bit of a minefield. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak keep Faculty at major seminaries who publish works of scholarship can be notable. I'm not sure the available information would be sufficient for notability normally,but given the nature of the group and the area it works in, the criteria can be appropriately interpreted broadly to avoid cultural bias. DGG (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry? Am I understanding you right, it shouldn't be deleted so we don't appear to be racists? Does it help that I'm black? Can you explain further why you think a special exemption such be given under those vague claims of "cultural bias" when it clearly fails WP:PROF (on ALL 9 points of the general criteria for academics), when it fails WP:NOTE when no evidence of notablity is presented, when no independent third sources are presented. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just doesn't meet the notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly fails our notability criteria. I note that he is the director of M.S. Publications which publishes his books, which are thus essentially self-published. There is no evidence of notability, thus no reason for him to have an article. Doug Weller (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Faculty at major seminaries who publish works of scholarship *ARE* notable. Proxy User (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The word 'major' in the phrase 'major seminary' means that it is not a Minor Seminary, a boarding school for older boys. It does not mean 'important'. And in this case 'published' is virtually self-published, as he was in control of the publishing and it is in-house publishing which is basically self-publishing. This does not give evidence for notability. Doug Weller (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By extension, this would mean that faculty at major universities who publish works of scholarship are notable. That is in direct contradiction with WP:ACADEMIC, which says that publishing alone is not enough to establish notability. It is the impact that those publications have on the work and thinking of others that counts. Unless there is evidence of the latter, there is no notability. --Crusio (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and he is also complete and utterly wrong in that notability is not conferred by writing something, it's about someone ELSE writing about what you have written. Please read up and understand what notability actually means. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I fail to see how he passes WP:PROF. The professors at major research universities (top 10-20) that don't have Wikipedia articles because they don't meet WP:PROF. I don't quite see how Chempakassery being prof at a seminary makes him special. He might be notable as chief editor of Aikya Samiksha, but with 7 ghits and no comments on the relevancy of that journal here, I strongly doubt this a significant achievement. VG ☎ 09:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what? that doesn't push him pass WP:PROF. Where is his scholarly impact? Where have his peers commented on his impact on his academic area? where's...anything? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh - two editors who only turn up vote in AFDs to keep articles in this walled garden. I certainly wouldn't think they were sockpuppets - oh wait, yes I would. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please review: WP:CIV and WP:AGF. Proxy User (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with both documents and they don't require any of us to suddenly become brain-dead and stupid. By the way, are you going to address your misunderstanding of "major" in this discussion? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing shows that the notability requirements of either WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC are met. As for the SPA votes, even if we WP:AGF and disregard the possibility of sockpuppets, their votes do not give any real arguments to keep the article, nor do they provide any sources establishing notability. So any closing admin that doesn't just count !votes should disregard those votes. --Crusio (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. OpenSeven (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philip_Chempakassery&oldid=1069824011"