Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath

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 keep. Mr.Z-man 22:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath

Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Some assertions of notability made in the article, but no reliable sources cited, and a Google search shows up little that is authoritative. Arguably fails to meet criteria for a biography. Content could be merged to Syro-Malankara Catholic Church with a redirect? Likely conflict of interest, given username of prime editor. I am also nominating the following related page because it covers similar topics and could likewise be merged:

Salvific Law (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Presumably the name is a transliteration and could be spelled variously, making the Google test less useful than usual. --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment The author is an accepted writer among the kerala people and not only among Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuzhinapurath (talk • contribs)

Dr. Philip Chempakassery has reviewed the book Salvific Law in the following words, "Salvific Law is a precious book on law highlighting the fact the law has a salvific nature. The author Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath, who is specialist in Oriental Canon Law had his studies in Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome. He publishes his research findings for the degree of Doctrate in Canonical studies in this volume. ...The author has written these pages after a hair-spliting perusal of all that has been written on the subject. This fact is proved by the long bibliography given at the end of the book. ...And he concludes that,"The supreme function of Canon Law is to help the Christian faithful to lead a life, which is oriented towards the ultimate communion with God."[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuzhinapurath (talk • contribs) 05:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • keep for now He seems notable and as stated earlier a google search will not always be useful in cases like this. Citations should be requested for the assertions of notability. JASpencer (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I am confused, because as far as I understand the author of that article and the subject appear to be one person! We should ask for an expert in the Eastern Catholic Christianity about the importance of that matter. Generally I think, that because he has written these books he has his place in Wikipedia, but he has to focus his contributions not only on his life experience and work, but on items that are of greater interest - the history and the rites of the Syro-Malankaran Catholic Church maybe,its structure :dioceses, bishops, schools and churches, etc. This is one very old Church with long and interesting history and life and it is not enough presented in the Wikipedia, I think.Drjmarkov (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for now : I would suggesting keeping this page as the notability of the person is shown by a no of references. The same name issue might have happened due to another family member using the id with the same family name. With additions from other wikipedians , we may improve the article , especially from the newly formed Indian Christianity Wikiproject partipants. Any unverifiable stuff may b removed to Wikify the article - Tinucherian (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly Keep : Reasons are given below as Comment by me. - Tinucherian (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article has been almost entirely written by an editor with the same name as the subject. He has now confirmed to me (editing from an IP address!) that he is in fact the same person [1] although he sometimes writes about himself in the third person on talk pages etc. I have suggested that there is a conflict of interest problem here, but it seems to me this may be too widespread to be solved by a simple AfD. I still feel this article, when judged against WP:BIO, fails to meet the criteria. But this is not the usual 'vanity' editor and if the consensus is that, despite his eccentric editing style, the article should stay I will continue to try and help him conform to Wikipedia style. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Despite the conflict of interest and the writing style I think Wikipedia is better off with this article. It's not like we have too many articles about Syrian clerics. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - Article seems to be a clear copyright violation of another article here. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    The article you have listed is a copy from wikipedia under the GNU Free Documentation License. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    Duh. I are so shtupid. Sorry about that. Removing tag now. In any event, though, still Delete based on now independent assertions of notability. John Carter (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    John - if you're saying delete, you presumably mean "...no independent assertions..." above? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - The article includes unpublished facts and the references are self published that fails WP:RS. The notability is also not established as no sources address the person directly in this case per WP:N. Can anyone provide at least a single reliable source? We understand that there are many priests and church leaders who are notable in some extend in the society where they preach and write some booklets we appreciate their service also. But it doesn’t mean that we need to merely create articles for them. It is exempted to people who are well-known by their contributions, work, etc. --Avinesh Jose  T  05:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - The article is notable because the subject of the article is not only a priest but also a well known writer. His writings are recognized by the University of Kerala. And the former students of the university has qualified him a well known writer on the discussion page of the article. The soources are rliable because some of them carrying ISBN. None of the sources are selfpublished. The publishers include the University of Kerala, Carmel International Publishing House. So the arguments of Avinesh Jose are not factual. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 17:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete His writing might be notable, but there is no way of telling from the sources. Nor can I figure out how to tell is his essays are student work, or scholarly. His one book is actually a PhD thesis. I think this has to wait until he is more firmly established. DGG (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - (reply to Simon Cheakkanal) If your comment is factual, please explain the following: Do you have any evidences of his writings that are recognized by the university of Kerala? Is there any source available in the University of Kerala website about him or his title? Is there any additional-independent-reliable source about his writings? (as you said if he is well-known, I assume it should be there) Could you again explain the ISBN link you mentioned? I’ve again checked (even carmel publsiher's website though we can't accept since it is self-pblished kind) it but did not find anything useful. Please explain. As you have further commented, we can’t agree with talk page comments (by anonymous ip) unless references are furnished. --Avinesh Jose  T  08:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It says the book is archived in the following libraries :-
1. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN Austin.
2. University of Chicago Chicago.
3. Library of Congress Washington, DC.
4. University of Pennsylvania Libraries Philadelphia, PA United States
- Tinucherian (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Subject of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, meets WP:BIO. MrPrada (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Requesting opinions from Christianity Project members - Tinucherian (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment :It is easier to delete an article than to create one. Every time an article is deleted, the contributions that were made to it are lost. Wikipedia administrators can access the information in deleted articles, but they are not necessarily experts on the article's topic. Once an article is deleted, its appropriateness can no longer be evaluated by the general public.
A contributor who writes a poor article on a notable topic is likely to be inexperienced. If their first efforts are deleted, they may be discouraged and refrain from creating further articles, or even editing. Everyone starts somewhere. I strongly suggest to keep this article and improve it with contributions from many people. - Tinucherian (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment :I had a look at this article earlier today. I suppose we could keep it, but it needs serious, serious editing. As it exists now it is very poorly written. I will try to work on it, but I suspect it will be significantly reduced in length. Dgf32 (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for now and ask for an expert My confusion is bigger, because when I went to the WorldCat link, provided up in this page there appeared other similar name as the author of the book Daivajanam - Tōmas Kul̲ināppuram. I just don't know what to say, it may be because of the transliteration from Malayam language, but... Drjmarkov (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC).Changed to KeepDrjmarkov (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment : That may be right.It may have messed up due to transliteration. I searched for his other book Salvific law : the salvific character of law: an historical overview on worldcat http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/63146776?tab=holdings and found that it is archived in Washington Research Library Consortium Washington, DC also. - Tinucherian (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment based on scanned images sent by author. Author has sent me two scanned images. One is that a collection of prose selections compiled & approved by Kerala University named ‘Bhashathilakom’. There is a section (chapter kind) in that ‘Paalam thettunna koumaram' (The youth that derails) is written by Fr. thomas Kuzhinapurath. There is a brief intro about the author i.e Fr. Thomas Kuzhanapurath in the same chapter. According to the intro, Fr. Thomas has written some articles on social & cultural issues. He served as student editor for a magazine called ‘relegion & thoughts’, wrote a book ‘daivaganam’ (gods people). At present he is serving as a chancellor of Trivandrum archdiocese. If it meets WP guidelines of keeping (weak?) it, the entire WP article has to be re-written & remove all WP:OR from it. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose  T  05:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on scanned images Rightly pointed out the signifance of the article. It is I, Simon Cheakkanal who scanned and sent on demand of Avinesh Jose, those pages of the book published by the University of Kerala. And I am not the author of the book.Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think user:DGG already commented about this book. --Avinesh Jose  T  08:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

comment I've been asked by Avineshjose to comment on the material in the images. Only he really doubted they existed--I said before, and can only say again, that the material cited, taken at its full value, does not come anywhere near notability for a writer. An essay in a collection published by a university does not make it, and everything else together in the bio as given there does not make it either. What would be notability in a poet is third party reviews of his work, in reliable independent published sources, outside his own university. But what also needs to be evaluated for notability is ecclesiastical position. But chancellor of an archdiocese, though very impressive sounding, is an administrative not leadership position, a great deal less than archbishop. If he becomes a bishop he would probably then be considered notable. The very small number of libraries holding the book does not make for notability. Normally it would do just the opposite, except for the country of publication and the topic only very few US holdings would be expected even if it is important. Looking again, the assertions in the article are those typically made of those not really notable: when he sent a copy of his book to the pope (though he was not able to arrange a personal audience to present it), he got a formal thank you note ; he attended eminent schools; he studied under eminent people; he was a student editor. Changed from weak delete to Delete. DGG (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

comment The University of Kerala is secular university of Kerala Government. The Governor of Kerala State is its chancellor. Its is very rare that a work of a ctholic priest was selected for the syllabus of the University of Kerala. May be the first event in the long history of the University of Kerala. The relationship of Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath is only that he was a student of it. The notability and usefullness of the work made selection board to select the article for the predegree syllabus.

I have consulted with Fr. Thomas and he said to me that he met the Pope personally in 2000. He said he had the photoraph of the event with him. So I disagree with the arguments of the user DGG. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviews- Many Reviews on Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath's book Daivajanam were published in various journals. A few of them are the following:

1. Dr. Geevaghese Panicker, "Jeevithasparsiyaaya Daivasasthram", Aikyadeepam, July 1998, p.34.

2. M. V. Thomas, "Daivajana Jeevithathinte Vilayiruthal", Deepika Daily, July 26, 1998.

3. Johnson Karoor, "Yesuvilekku Nayikkunna Daivasasthram", Talent, July, 1998, pp. 429-431.

4. Daniel Poovannathil, "Uthamamaya Vayananubhavam", Christava Kahalam, March, 2002, p. 58. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achasu (talk • contribs) 06:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments : The above said Deepika Daily is a reputed ,trusted and 121 year old histroy Indian newspaper in Malayalam language . Seehttp://www.deepikaglobal.com/about.asp - Tinucherian (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see the Deepika news also. If anyone has it, please scan & send me a copy of it? If it meets notability, I will edit my comment based on it. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for now - This article suffers from several; problems (1) it began as an autobiography (which is discouraged) (2) whether the subject is sufficiently notable. Except that he has published a couple of books in more than minimal sized editions, he seems to be serving in a very ordinary priestly ministry. My view is that he is on the borderline of notability, in which case the best solution is probably to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment based on Deepika book review. I’ve checked the image sent by Simon now. It looks like a two column review of the combined articles of Father Thomas Kuzhinapurath, reviewed by a person M V Thomas published by Deepika newspaper. The column looks like an announcement / review that I don’t know. It says the book ‘god’s people’ has three sections of Jesus Christ’s congregation, Christ-as a human being and social issues etc. According to the reviewer that Father Thomas has done a good job by authoring this book. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

*Delete Based on what I found [2] one of the subject's most notable works appears to be a 36 page term paper. The article appears to be a self-promoting autobiography. I'm going to try to edit the article to improve it, but no matter how much I am able to improve it, I still maintaint that the subject is not notable and that the article should be delete. Dgf32 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I have significantly edited the article, and I think I have improved its quality significantly.
  • Weak Keep After reviewing all the citations and other evidence, it seems that the subject of this article is very borderline for notability criteria. Erring on the side of caution, I suggest keeping it. Dgf32 (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2008 (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.