Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Kazanas

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Kazanas

Nicholas Kazanas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

"biography article" on a WP:NPF teacher who published a couple of papers. Created to push ideological fringecruft. Kazanas' notability can be fully addressed in the articles on the subjects treated in his papers (out of India and indigenous Aryans). dab (𒁳) 09:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This Indologist has published in many peer-reviewed journals like ABORI and JIES. The nominator of the deletion does not assume good faith when he claims the article was "created to push ideological fringecruft". Dbachmann is himself at least aware that this Indologist has published in JIES and was reviewed by others, including Witzel and Parpola. This seems all part of an effort to paint everybody who has written on Indo-European/Indo-Aryan theories related to India from a non-mainstream view as Hindu Nazis or to delete articles on people who have written on such things. --RF 13:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • re "Indologist", a Master's degree clearly doesn't establish any sort of notability as an academic. His papers are citable; not evey author of a citable paper is notable enough for a biography article. dab (𒁳) 13:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You have written in the article that he has a Master's degree, but this site [1] describes him as Dr. Nicholas Kazanas. I do think that his publications and to a lesser degree his work at the Omilos Meleton institute establish enough notability. --RF 14:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • sigh, a PhD would also not establish sufficient notability (but we won't take a voiceofdharma.com page as evidence, I think). He would need tenure at least if you're going to claim he is notable as an academic. I think you should concentrate on arguing he is notable as an author. oops, no ISBNs, just a bunch of journal articles. Maybe his article can be merged with one on his organization? Well 123 google hits (including its own homepage) doesn't seem that convincing. I think you'll need to think of something else yet (such as WP:ILIKEIT). dab (𒁳) 14:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

He has also published articles in edited books. Anyway, Wikipedia is not paper, and Kazans is clearly notable at least in the field of the IAM debate, with reviews by Parpola, JP Mallory and Witzel. I don't know how much notable his works in other fields (such as Greek and Indian philosphy) are. --RF 14:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep If there are enough papers and cited enough, they establish N. There are other roads to learning than a PhD. Agreed its unusual, but its an unusually impressive list of publications. The fact that the theory is a s minority position and involved political matters is all the more reason to include it, to avoid the possibility of POV.DGG 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • According to one of his homepages, he does have a Ph.D. --RF 13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable academic. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In his particular niche it would be diffuclt to claim that he has no notability, having been reviewed by Parpola and JP Mallory.RF 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • He meets the primary notability criteria: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." --Rayfield 19:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep His contribution to Indology is similar to Michael E. J. Witzel although on the opposite side of argument. Sbhushan 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • vote is patent nonsense. dab (𒁳) 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Kind of like your trolling on this afd eh?Bakaman 23:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable academic who is only "interesting" because he supports a nationalistic fringe theory.--Berig 20:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe he is for some people only notable because of like you say "nationlaistic fringe theory", but that he is only interesting because of that is pure pov. RF 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • AFAIK, there are no policies against voicing "POVs" during votes, so I fail to understand your objection.--Berig 21:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • RF, notability is unrelated to POV. He wouldn't be notable even if I thought his work was brilliant and he was a fabulous cook and a great guy to have a pint with. dab (𒁳) 22:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Have you read our comments? I criticized him because he said "interesting", not because he said "notable". I must say that I find his works on philosophy more interesting than his works on Indo-European issues, even though he probably is more notable for his works on Indo-Aryan topics. --RF 23:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • He meets the primary notability criteria: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." --Rayfield 19:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per RF. His work has been published in multiple academic journals.Bakaman 23:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Multiple publications don't make one notable unless they are significant or well-known. In this case, the only publication that comes close to being important is JIES; and in my personal opinion, it's not sufficient to earn this person an article on Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 11:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Which one? He had at least 3 publications in JIES. (Or to mean to say that JIES is the only important publication where he published? In Indology (not general IE Studies), Indological publications like ABORI are at least as important as the general IE publications. --RF 13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • He meets the primary notability criteria: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." --Rayfield 19:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. His foray into the JIES merits at best a footnote. rudra 21:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What I don't understand is that a main proponent of the OIT should not be notable enough for its own article, while an article about claims on the ideological motives of said theory should be. --RF 23:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • He meets the primary notability criteria: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." --Rayfield 19:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
      • he does not. the phonebook is a reliable secondary source, yet we don't allow articles on anyone just on grounds of being listed in the phonebook. That Kazanas is the "main proponent" of the "Out of India" theory speaks volumes about the notability of that, but this is the Kazanas AfD, not the OIT one. dab (𒁳) 12:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman 23:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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.