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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was:delete.BD2412T20:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of this philosopher isdisputed at Wikipedia. The cited works are a pair of vanity pages at bepress.com, and the Wikipedia article indicates these comprise the entire body of his work (also self-published via Red Lead Bookstore print-on-demand service asSuperultramodern Science and Philosophy,ISBN 978-0-8059-8130-8). Notwithstanding a claimed handful of mentions in Indian popular press, he clearly does not meet Wikipedia's criteria forNotability (academics) at this time. (Cf. thesuite of articles on this person's ideas at Wikiversity, where there does not appear to be a Notability policy or guideline, and where the policy of citing sources that are considered to be reliable by experts who publish in peer-reviewed sources appears to have been ignored.) —Ningauble21:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 22:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. ~Ningauble21:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I’ve added some more external links atthe talk page of the Wikipedia article on the subject. I reckon the subject is notable. Should be a weak keep perhaps. ~RogDel23:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The one claimed citation from a scholarly article is not about his work. It merely quotes the sort of random quip that may be expected to turn up when someone is aggressively spammed all over the internet. Notice that on his paper posted atSSRN he is identified as "affiliation not provided." He is a self-published nobody. The industrious spamming of numerous hosting sites, wikis, quotation pages, &tc. has not received the sort of independent coverage that would place him inCategory:Notable eccentrics either, it is just a sad cry for attention. ~Ningauble20:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t quite agree. The subject’s quotes appearing at places likeThe Times of India,The Nassau Guardian, and also like larepublica.net (see the way it appears there with praise), Quoteland.com, todayinsci.com, etc., does not give the impression that he is a nobody. Yes, there do seem to be sites where anyone as a registered user may add stuff, but that does not seem sufficient a ground for the conviction that it is spamming (though some of it looks likely to be spam); and there also seem to be numerous quotations’ sites where only site admins can add quotes. (Even a WQ admin seems to have added one of his quotes to the pageSuperstition, as sourced from Anon.?,Quotations: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy (2005).) There seem to be websites (as sources on Google news) and blogs where main editors and writers seem to have taken interest in publishing works of/about the author, though none of the sites may be notable enough for a WP article. And there also appear to beclaims of significant coverage in 4–5 notable, mainstream Indian news sources. Some of the subject’s works also seem to appear at e-prints such asCogPrints and HTP Prints, which seem to have academic editorial oversight; and some, though apparently self-published, seem to be indexed atWorldCat and at the Library of Congress Authorities. Terms and acronyms coined by him also seem to be included in a few, notable online dictionaries such asAcronym Finder. He is identified as affiliation not provided to SSRN, but does one need to be affiliated to some institution to be considered notable, say underWP:Notability? For these reasons, and considering the seeming quotability of the quotes (and notability of some of the quotes), I believe keeping the page makes more sense unless the WP article on the subject is deleted. Also, many WP editors may find the subject notable, and the WP article may remain as a result of a possible AfD. ~RogDel21:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The quote atSuperstition was added by an IP (dif), an administrator (that wasme) later merely labeled it as "Anon.?" because the author was not identified (dif). Linking to home pages that contain no mention of him, listing indexes that cover everything published, citing sites that scrape quotes from all over the web, & etc., &etc., are red herrings that show nothing. Self publication showsless than nothing: "It should be especially noted that self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press indicates, but does not establishnon-notability." [emphasis in original]  Looking at the links you posted this month on the Wikipedia talk page, but disregarding the ones described as merely quotes, and the ones that are obviously user-generated-content or open hosting sites (blogs, newsgroups, wordpress):

  1. The "biographical entry" atThe Carbon Capture Report is no such thing. This is just an automated web indexer.
  2. TheGround Report piece is a single paragraph noting that Joshi called theBhagavad Gita inherently satanic, posted by a pseudonymous one-time contributor to a user-generated-content site.
  3. TheParanominal piece appears under the masthead "All things weird, strange and slightly unimportant. Send us your paranormal story!" Enough said? No? They are an aggregator of oddities, and the content is a link to a post by "Anonymous" atbeforeitsnews.com, a user-generated-content site.
  4. TheRupee News piece is a "letter to the editors" in which material is merely copied from Joshi'sbepress.com page with no analysis or comment other than "Just have a look."

  In terms of theGeneral notability guideline:

  • Is it fair to disregard random "quotes"? Yes, that is not "significant coverage."
  • Is it fair to disregard user-generated-content? Yes, they are not "reliable sources."

  (I also disregarded the a non-English post atlarepublica.net, sight-unseen, because it crashed my browser when I tried to look, I couldn't read it if it worked, and ".net" is not usually indicative of reliable sources anyway.)

  In short: it is hard to take a self-published person seriously; and as more non-serious links are added it only gets harder. A notable farce can be a very fine thing. This isn't one.~Ningauble02:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ningauble andWikiquote:Quotability, because the quotes are nearly-incoherent attempts at creating aphorisms. -Sketchmoose13:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and further discussion above. ~UDScott15:42, 9 July 2010 (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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.