Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prakash Kothari

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. Sandstein 08:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Kothari[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find coverage in multiple secondary sources other than some passing mention dubbing him "leading sexologist". SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Weak delete. ~~The sources calling him a "leading sexologist" don't appear to be exaggerating.~~ He has received coverage here in The Hindu and his opinions are discussed here in the Chicago Tribune. He is also discussed directly in this book. In addition, according to this reference he is the president of the Indian Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists. The shortcomings with the article can be dealt with through editing, rather than deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 21:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make him pass WP:ACADEMIC. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 23:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, true, I'm not sure that the Indian Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists counts as a "major academic society". (I fully admit to not being up to speed on my Indian medical societies.) My thoughts were more along the lines that those references show that he passes the basic criteria of WP:BIO. It looked like there were more sources out there too - I'll try and find some when I have a spare moment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Worldcat lists a few books, but their holdings are almost non-existent. For example, the book touted in the article, Orgasm, new dimensions, is held by only 13 institutions. The others are held even less: 1, 10, and 2. Could only find 1 paper in WoS, Ethical Aspects of Sexual Medicine. That paper has >10 authors and has been cited only 10 times. Whatever work/scholarship this person has produced, the world has clearly not taken note of it. Agricola44 (talk) 15:27, 30 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 5 April 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, BusterD (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've had another look through the sources, and I'm a little torn. I've found out that he has received the Padma Shri award, the fourth highest civilian award in India, and I can find copious mentions of him online. However, I haven't managed to find any other sources which cover him in detail. He seems to be one of those people that the media automatically turn to when they need a quote for articles about sexuality in India, but not someone who is considered worth writing about on his own. I think there may well be a suitable source or two out there that I have missed, but until any such sources are found, I think we must consider him as falling just short of the notability guidelines. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I've changed my !vote to "weak delete" above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:32, 19 April 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.