Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson C. Philip

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnson C. Philip

This looks as if it's a real and notable subject, but on closer investigation things might not be all they seem. For example, the books mentioned appear to be either free e-books or published by Philip Communications (i.e. self-published). Google shows under 600 hits, with Wikipedia top of the list. No citations are provided outside the subject's own websites. I can't decide whether the problem here is systemic bias or whether the guy simply is not as important as the article would have us believe. Just zis Guy you know? 09:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The redirects of the unaccredited schools ran by him will likewise have to be deleted then. Arbusto 03:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Rob 17:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless notablity is established. Arbusto 03:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sadly. This person would easily be notable, if we could verify the information that is contained. Without independent sources, this article will always be POV. It will always be either used for promotion or for attack. We already have a problem of discussing something as basic as his education in the article, due to the lack of independent sources writing about him. It's to important to not mention, yet we haven't the sourcing to do it verifiably, neutrally, and completely. --Rob 03:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, Rob, that was exactly the view I came to. Nice to know it wasn't just me :-) Just zis Guy you know? 08:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I am the person who last worked on this article. I notice that some of you who want deletion are not presenting the whole fact. For example, one of you say that bibliography leads to the personal sites of this person. You ignored several regular commercial publishers who are listed there. Similarly none of you is ready to consider the definition of "accredited" other than the American model, though mosts older institutions in India work under a British model and do not come under this classification. Some of our greatest scientists, doctors, lawyers, journalists, and ALL theologians come out of these "older" institutions patterned after the British model that are not listed as "accredited" yet they find no difficulty in getting admitted or appointed in the newer institutions that are pattered after the American system and listed in many places as "accredited". Institutions within India know about the British and American models that work here. Since it it difficult to work against so many people who simply are not willing to consider these points I raised, I too recommend that this article be deleted. If this guy is really of any importance let someone else write about him somewhere else. --Nonikay2k

• For info, we list books by ISBN number, not with links to the publisher or any individual seller. Just zis Guy you know? 08:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think in this case, if there's a link to an independent publisher, who may have info on the book and author, that would be useful for this article. Wouldn't it? --Rob 08:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Not if it is a print-on-demand sales operation or some such, no. Much better to use the ISBN I think, it's less open to abuse. Just zis Guy you know? 11:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 12:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN adcruft. 102 unique G-hits, and the kiss of death: the lead Google hit is the Wikipedia article. RGTraynor 15:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:40, 27 April 2006 (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.