Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Kedar Joshi


 * 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. —LrdChaos (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Kedar Joshi
Seems to be an attempt at puffery. The book cited is a vanity-press publication, and all of the other sources seem to be associated either with the anon who created this article or the subject (who, I suggest, may be one and the same). 121a0012 06:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Vote closed. Result: delete (six votes to delete, two votes to keep). —LrdChaos (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too bad in a way, I like some of the quotes, but it is a vanity page. I looked up Joshi's vanity press book on Amazon, and it has one review &mdash; by Joshi himself. There are thousands of hits on him in google but damned if they aren't all his own work -- his blog, his profiles, his storefront, his reviews of his own work. The man seems like an indefatiguable self-promoter. I could not find a single appreciation of his work by a second party. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ubiquity (talk • contribs) 08:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No publications in the Library of Congress. He does have several publications in the British Library Catalogue, although they are listed as published by "Author". No mentions in British press in at least the last decade. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I also note that Kedar Joshi was apparently deleted a while back for the same reason (see w:User talk:Mark C Lipton), even though I found no AfD or VfD for it. (Possibly a speedy-deletion or a prod?) The only other traces of Joshi I found were w:User talk:KedarJoshi (suggesting Joshi is at least aware of if not directly involved in these articles); some Joshi material to Controversial science (which I've removed) that was added by w:User:61.17.193.192 (our was the major contributor to our Kedar Joshi article); and a section in Perceptual dynamics, a rather wooly and mostly unsourced article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are two entries in Wikipedia's deletion log:
 * 03:51, June 24, 2006 Makemi (Talk | contribs) deleted "Kedar Joshi" (nn-bio)
 * 08:47, June 22, 2006 Kcordina (Talk | contribs) deleted "Kedar Joshi" (Copyvio)
 * Of note is that the Wikiquote article was created on June 25. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 12:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. ~ UDScott 16:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. ive read a ton of this guys work. hes awesome. if this isnt a voting process why do you guys insist on voting and leaving no feedback as to why your opinion of delete should even be considered? Chadbishop 18:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Participants in VfD discussions are expected to read Deletion policy before participating, as it says — in bold type — at the top of this page. Votes here are counted based on the policies described there. To answer your second question specifically, we count votes from any editor who shows at least a minimal interest in Wikiquote in general (i.e., not just here to push a particular article), signs their vote properly, and doesn't attempt to disrupt the discussion by forging signatures, changing votes, or committing other forms of vandalism. As to the first question, the phrase "this is not a vote" (that you picked up during the VfD on "Chad Bishop") is shorthand for the idea that we don't allow ballot stuffing by editors whose only editing at Wikiquote is to push a view regardless of project policy. We require all editors, even (and especially) sysops, to abide by these policies. We have had discussions about how to change the name of this page to reduce the confusion, but we have achieved no community consensus on this yet. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To add just one more point to Jeff's words above, when you see an opinion rendered as just a Delete, usually the editor simply agrees with what has been written above and does not feel the need to repeat the reasons already articulated. That is usually my intent, and I usually opt for this tacit, assumed agreement when there are many VFD nominations to review. It does not mean that I have not reflected on the article and reviewed it before entering my opinion. I usually will only enter more comments when I do not feel the argument has been fully made. ~ UDScott 20:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. - InvisibleSun 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep.- Joshi’s works are cited in The Philosopher’s Index. -Mark
 * ...As are the works of anyone else who sends copies to the Philosopher's Information Center. As noted earlier, Joshi seems to like to promote himself. I'm sure he sends a copy of each of his vanity press books to the Index. --Ubiquity 12:46, 3 December 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.