Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhikshu Satyapala
From 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bhikshu Satyapala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. The article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, working at a university does not convey notability and nothing indicates (nor does the lone source indicate) anything that would make the individual meet the critieria of WP:PROF. SudoGhost 13:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the sake of clarity, I did not say that working at a university conveys notability when I contested WP:PROD deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- the biggest question for me is how rare is the title of Agga Maha Pandita -- not mentioned in the article, but mentioned in the UN citation of him. If this is a rare title with only one or two given a year, I think we can count that as a major award and then I'd lean towards "Keep". If dozens or hundreds of monks receive this title yearly then I'd need to look for other evidence to pass the bar. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think rarity isn't as important as significance. I could create an award and only issue it once every five years. That would make it rarer than the Nobel Prize, but my rarer-than-Nobel prize wouldn't make a recipient notable enough for an encyclopedia. The title isn't an award per se, but it's the same logic, how significant do reliable third-party sources consider this title? I can't find anything that would suggest that receiving this would make someone notable in its own right. - SudoGhost 19:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, so I should have mentioned that I have found a lot of significant (passing of GNG) bios which mention the award prominently, so it seems like at least at one time it was a quite significant award. But it seems as if there are more of them recently; that may be because there are more recent bios of winners or it may be that the award has become less significant. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think rarity isn't as important as significance. I could create an award and only issue it once every five years. That would make it rarer than the Nobel Prize, but my rarer-than-Nobel prize wouldn't make a recipient notable enough for an encyclopedia. The title isn't an award per se, but it's the same logic, how significant do reliable third-party sources consider this title? I can't find anything that would suggest that receiving this would make someone notable in its own right. - SudoGhost 19:43, 9 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Both Outlook and Times of India are reliable sources, they are english magazine and newspaper repesctively but in English. For me the subject does meet WP:BASIC and all four references sattisfy WP:VERIFY. -Wikishagnik (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are reliable sources, but they don't discuss the article's subject in any capacity, only briefly quoting him in a single mention. That's not significant coverage and doesn't satisfy WP:BASIC, which says the sources need to be about the subject, those sources are discussing something completely different than the article's subject, and only quote him briefly. - SudoGhost 18:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Given the number of articles that have mentioned the subject as an authority on a subject, it would be fairly simple to establish notability. I am giving some more references[1][2][3]. In all of these works he is quoted as an expert in Buddhism (2nd point of WP:ANYBIO) -Wikishagnik (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a look at the references you included below. The first one is from a student of his and only mentions him in a single sentence that he contributed to her "academic understanding", there's nothing to draw from that reference, which is trival coverage, and doesn't seem to be independent either. The second ref looks like it has nothing to do with it; he was supervising dissertations from students, it's not about him and only mentions his briefly as the one who supervised the dissertations in the book, I don't think that's either a third-party source or anything to do with him, and the third one was something he wrote that was published by his school, not a third-party source. - SudoGhost 04:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we are going around different requirements for notability. Again the 2nd point of WP:ANYBIO is 2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. The two news articles and the various articles listed here and in the parent article are sufficient to establish that at least this person is recognized as an expert in his field (Budhism) and has been referred to by academics and Newspapers alike. The first argument here is 1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. Yes, for his country he has recieved a significant an honor called Agga Maha Pandita. You also talk about significant coverage about the subject then please refer the line after the policy which says Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. And this is again a point I am coming back to with the references. Beyond these we have a problem, i.e. we run into WP:BIAS. The subject is from a South East Asian Country where english is neither the primary nor the secondary language. His area of expertise (Budhist philosophy) is not going to make any eartch shattering discoveries or inventions. There very few reliable english language sorces. I will add an expert-required tag to this article to get some print sources about the subject maybe in offline sources, but for a Budhist Philosopher (based in SE Asia) this is really the best I would expect -Wikishagnik (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the best you would expect, it's probably because most Buddhist professors aren't notable the same way most professors of math are not notable. A school publishing papers that are marginally related to a professor is routine, not indicative of any notability. Concerning the "notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources" aspect, the references are also not about his ideas, but again are trivial mentions. This is further expanded upon in WP:PROF (which what you quoted links to), which the article's subject also fails to meet. The Agga Maha Pandita award is not is "significant or well-known" award, but since WP:BIAS is a concern I'll draw a Western example; it's no different than Sagamore of the Wabash or a similar award. Yes, both are awards given by a government body but they aren't significant or well-known enough to grant notability solely on that basis. - SudoGhost 00:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROF and WP:ANYBIO are sufficient for notability and meeting one does not mandate meeting the other. I am talking about the notability of the subject as an academic and as authority on Buddhism recognized by the media as supported by the references. Regarding quoting of the award, no that alone is not the basis of my argument. Both awards are notable enough to be independent article and can be considered along with other arguments. The quotes I make says amongst other things notably influential in the world of ideas , its not about the individual ideas of the subject alone. This person is not a professor alone who has published few papers on the basis of which I claim notability. He is a notable voice of Buddhism in India. -Wikishagnik (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but he doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:ANYBIO. The award is not "significant or well-known" and he certainly hasn't "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." You say he's a notable voice of Buddhism in India, but the sources in the article and the ones you provided don't really show that, he's a professor with a bunch of trivial mentions in mostly primary sources, who won a non- (Wikipedia) significant award. - SudoGhost 04:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like a few more voices on the notabilitty of the subject so I am opening a notability discussion for the subject. Can we keep this discussion open till we get some resolution there?-Wikishagnik (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but he doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:ANYBIO. The award is not "significant or well-known" and he certainly hasn't "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." You say he's a notable voice of Buddhism in India, but the sources in the article and the ones you provided don't really show that, he's a professor with a bunch of trivial mentions in mostly primary sources, who won a non- (Wikipedia) significant award. - SudoGhost 04:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROF and WP:ANYBIO are sufficient for notability and meeting one does not mandate meeting the other. I am talking about the notability of the subject as an academic and as authority on Buddhism recognized by the media as supported by the references. Regarding quoting of the award, no that alone is not the basis of my argument. Both awards are notable enough to be independent article and can be considered along with other arguments. The quotes I make says amongst other things notably influential in the world of ideas , its not about the individual ideas of the subject alone. This person is not a professor alone who has published few papers on the basis of which I claim notability. He is a notable voice of Buddhism in India. -Wikishagnik (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the best you would expect, it's probably because most Buddhist professors aren't notable the same way most professors of math are not notable. A school publishing papers that are marginally related to a professor is routine, not indicative of any notability. Concerning the "notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources" aspect, the references are also not about his ideas, but again are trivial mentions. This is further expanded upon in WP:PROF (which what you quoted links to), which the article's subject also fails to meet. The Agga Maha Pandita award is not is "significant or well-known" award, but since WP:BIAS is a concern I'll draw a Western example; it's no different than Sagamore of the Wabash or a similar award. Yes, both are awards given by a government body but they aren't significant or well-known enough to grant notability solely on that basis. - SudoGhost 00:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we are going around different requirements for notability. Again the 2nd point of WP:ANYBIO is 2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. The two news articles and the various articles listed here and in the parent article are sufficient to establish that at least this person is recognized as an expert in his field (Budhism) and has been referred to by academics and Newspapers alike. The first argument here is 1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. Yes, for his country he has recieved a significant an honor called Agga Maha Pandita. You also talk about significant coverage about the subject then please refer the line after the policy which says Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. And this is again a point I am coming back to with the references. Beyond these we have a problem, i.e. we run into WP:BIAS. The subject is from a South East Asian Country where english is neither the primary nor the secondary language. His area of expertise (Budhist philosophy) is not going to make any eartch shattering discoveries or inventions. There very few reliable english language sorces. I will add an expert-required tag to this article to get some print sources about the subject maybe in offline sources, but for a Budhist Philosopher (based in SE Asia) this is really the best I would expect -Wikishagnik (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a look at the references you included below. The first one is from a student of his and only mentions him in a single sentence that he contributed to her "academic understanding", there's nothing to draw from that reference, which is trival coverage, and doesn't seem to be independent either. The second ref looks like it has nothing to do with it; he was supervising dissertations from students, it's not about him and only mentions his briefly as the one who supervised the dissertations in the book, I don't think that's either a third-party source or anything to do with him, and the third one was something he wrote that was published by his school, not a third-party source. - SudoGhost 04:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Given the number of articles that have mentioned the subject as an authority on a subject, it would be fairly simple to establish notability. I am giving some more references[1][2][3]. In all of these works he is quoted as an expert in Buddhism (2nd point of WP:ANYBIO) -Wikishagnik (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are reliable sources, but they don't discuss the article's subject in any capacity, only briefly quoting him in a single mention. That's not significant coverage and doesn't satisfy WP:BASIC, which says the sources need to be about the subject, those sources are discussing something completely different than the article's subject, and only quote him briefly. - SudoGhost 18:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References
[edit]- ^ Satyendra Kumar Pandey (2002). Abhidhamma philosophy. Indo-Asian Pub. House. p. 8. Retrieved 14 October 2012.
- ^ University of Delhi. Dept. of Buddhist Studies (2007). Researches in Buddhist studies: a descriptive bibliography. Dept. of Buddhist Studies, University of Delhi. p. 260. Retrieved 14 October 2012.
- ^ Maheśa Tivārī (1989). Perspectives on Buddhist ethics. Dept. of Buddhist Studies, Delhi University. p. 34. Retrieved 14 October 2012.
- Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Ryan Vesey 19:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely fails to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Qworty (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't see it satisfying WP:GNG or WP:PROF either. Lexlex (talk) 15:39, 19 October 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.