Talk:Nicholas Kazanas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 March 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Isn't this called Wikipedia:Vandalism by Dab? Or is he a super admin and beyond the policies of Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.73.145.231 (talk • contribs).

I didn't delete anything. No Afd consensus is required to redirect articles that fail to establish notability. The Afd might suggest that it is permissible to keep this redirect around rather than deleting it as obvious spam, but that's as far as it goes. Once you establish NK has any notability beyond his handful of JIES articles, we can recreate this article. Not that I would need to explain anything to "Wikipedians" who log out for their trolling sessions. dab (𒁳) 11:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Then, Dab should redirect each & every OIT supporters to OIT page since all will be `non-notable' as per Dab's law. Wow, I created a new law named Dab's law ( like Dab created Indigenous_Aryan_Theory on Wikipedia ) ! WIN 05:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be clear that 'each and every' supporter of a theory need not be redirected. The AfD clearly stated that this article was useful as a redirect, and that is how it is being used. Hornplease 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The AfD said no such thing, Hornplease. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The strongest supporter of article said "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." In other words, notability is because of the theory, and is a strict subset of the theory. Hence a redirect.

Now, can you please indicate what you mean by 'no such thing'? Keep it civil, please, and comprehensible, if possible. Hornplease 17:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Result of AfD was "(AFD no consensus --> keep)". One of the the opinions during the AfD claimed Kazanas is non-notable, but others had the opposite opinion. That's the purpose of an AfD. But the end result of the AfD, again, was "(AFD no consensus --> keep)". So you see, the AfD did not clearly state that this article should be redirected - one person just said that. The AfD said this article should be kept. Deleting this article, and then redirecting, is an abuse of the AfD process. Bring it up for AfD again if you think it's non-notable, but don't delete and redirect. Surely it will be kept again, because simply disagreeing with a person, disliking them, or simply being uncomfortable with their views, does not make them non-notable, in terms of Wikipedia. ॐ Priyanath talk 17:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have clearly not read the AfD carefully at all. 'The AfD' established no consensus as to deletion - which I think was laziness on the part of the closing admin - but it was clear that even people who voted keep viewed Kazanas as non-notable except as a subset of OIT.

In addition, please watch your statements very carefully. Nowhere have I claimed that imply disagreeing with a person, disliking them, or simply being uncomfortable with their views makes someone non-notable. Both I - and people on the AfD, including some of those who voted 'keep' - have doubts on Kazanas' notability per Wikipedia's established notability criteria for academics, which, simply, he does not satisfy. That does not mean that this is not a useful redirect. Hornplease 19:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

When the AfD was closed, the closing admin added this edit comment "(AFD no consensus --> keep)", when he removed the AfD tag from the page. You can see his comment by going to the edit history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Kazanas&curid=4516266&action=history
A deletion, under the pretense of a redirect, is an abuse of the AfD process which determined "(AFD no consensus --> keep)". If you want to delete the article again, bring it up for AfD again. Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 19:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How on earth does your citing the edit comment, which is identical to the statement the closing admin made, which I have already addressed above, advance the argument? You have not yet made your point. Hornplease 19:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Advance the argument? The AfD ended the argument, by stating "(AFD no consensus --> keep)". ॐ Priyanath talk 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only assume that you are deliberately being obtuse. Keep is a superset of merge and redirect. Please familiarise yourself with deletion procedure and then continue this discussion. Hornplease 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL, the result of AfD was keep, it was not merge and redirect. Please read up on AfD: "If you think that an article was wrongly kept after the AFD, you could wait to see if the article is improved to overcome your objections; if it isn't, you can renominate it for deletion. If and when you do renominate, be careful to say why you think the reasons proffered for keeping the article are poor, and why you think the article must be deleted." from Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion. ॐ Priyanath talk 21:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point again. Please take a moment to think about this, rather than responding instantly without thought. I was pointing out that 'keep' does not necessarily mean that the article cannot be stubbed, or replaced with a redirect. In fact, the discussion at the AfD indicated that there is no reason not to do so. Do you understand? Merge and redirect is not a different result; I can merge and redirect any article without having to take it to AfD. Of course, if I merge Pakistan into India and replace the first page with a redirect, I will be reverted, and with good reason. In this case there is no reason to revert it, as Kazanas is inherently non-notable. What do you not understand here? Hornplease 21:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

He does not understand an inherently flawed argument that is not based on policy, rather on POV.Bakaman 23:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease, as with your hypothetical merge of Pakistan into India, you are being and will continue to be reverted in this case, with very good reason. Kazanas is notable enough to have a bio article here, as determined by the AfD. His bio is being kept, and not deleted (by subverting the AfD process through a delete/merge and redirect). Period. ॐ Priyanath talk 23:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You have not made a single argument in that statement. Not one. That is not good enough. Hornplease 14:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is still open.... Hornplease 14:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am agian cancelling redirect. `keep ' = redirect is like extracting meaning samundra not equal to sea. WIN 07:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is incomprehensible. Please attempt to state with minimal clarity what makes Kazanas notable more than as a footnote. Hornplease 14:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

we can keep the article separate for now if you insist, but note that you will have to establish notability, especially per WP:BLP, which states that you need a good reason to have dedicated articles about persons that are not public figures. dab (𒁳) 07:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Kazanas has written in JIES and presented his papers in related subject seminars. This webpage of Omilos Meleton in English & Greek http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/en_index.html contains much notable aspects so as to have a bio article here ( and not a mere merge with OIT ).

It's clear that since his articles are against Witzel's views, you are being zealous to `hide' him from the Wikipedia. This way you want readers not to read his in depth articles about Indo European linguists, Rig-Veda , invasion / migration problem.

Dab, you created separate Dravidian substratum in Sanskrit as a separate article to transfer harsh critics by other liguists and then ( after some months ) redirected it to Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit as per your desire. I know that you wanted to prevent some harsh liguistic crtitics by other linguists appearing in Indo-Aryan Migration's sub-section. It's all your desire to stop/ discourage readers getting idea that there is some good opposition from relevant scholars ( Western or Indian ) for the whole controversial subject.

Hence, I strongly oppose any merge or redirect of Kazanas with OIT. WIN 05:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Kazanas is both notable and a public figure based on his JIES articles alone, on his institute alone, or on his public dispute with Witzel. Another AfD would be the most appropriate venue for determining notability and whether it should be redirect/deleted. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep.Bakaman 15:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)