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. Synergy 00:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Karakunnel[edit]

George Karakunnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Another entry in the walled garden that a few of us seem to have stumbled across that just keeps growing. Fails WP:NOTE, a run of the mill (no offense intended) priest/academic of the type we don't write articles about. Cameron Scott (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The notability is shown through References. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was explained to you in another AFD - WP:NOTE is clear about this, notability would be shown by *other* people write about him NOT what he has written himself. You have not demonstrated notability in that article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Kuzhinapurath. VG ☎ 11:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, notability is not asserted, nor demonstrated, nor available in external sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think this falls under any sort of speedy delete criteria, though I could be wrong. --Banime (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notability is not perfectly demonstrated but seems to be appropriate. No problems, better to err on the side of caution. WilyD 12:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it demonstrated? notability is demonstrated by what other people write about you, not what you write yourself. What in that article demonstrates notability as outlined in WP:NOTE please be specific. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative Delete with a question. There is one footnote [this one] that appears to be a secondary source giving non-trivial coverage on this individual, but I'm unfamiliar with this particular source (i.e. widely read peer-reviewed vs blog or self-published website). Even if the former this article doesn't pass the "multiple" requirement of notability, but would at least give evidence that sources are perhaps out there. -Markeer 15:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per sources below. Article needs to be cleaned up and (preferably) expanded but seems to pass notability.-Markeer 20:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hum - dunno is the answer - I *think* it's self-published but that's a guess on my part since most of the content is in a language I cannot speak or read. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is decided that this is not a self-published website, it ought to be clear that this is not even close to meeting the standard of WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to change to a weak keep for now. --Banime (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fr. George Karakunnel is handling the Systematic Theology department of Syro-Malabar Church's Doctrine Commission. Ref. [1]Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep at least for now, or until the source mentioned by Markeer is proved self-published. I'd say that along with the teaching position would be enough for a small claim to notability. --Banime (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically linked that citation because it's a potential candidate, but please keep in mind that the teaching position announcement is NOT a viable argument for a notability keep. Every corporation and university in the world releases announcements about their staff changes to the press and some periodicals publish them, but those sort of reports are why notability guidelines refer to "non-trivial" coverage. The linked citation is an article specifically about the subject with some detail, so barring evidence of self-publishing it's viable, but it still only makes for one citation, and therefore fails notability.

If we can see one more hard citation I'm willing to change my "vote" above, but until then I at least would still suggest a delete for the time being. -Markeer 17:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I just would rather err on the side of caution especially with a teacher in India. That one source you mentioned could potentially be some good non-trivial coverage and I'd like to hope that that means more could be found. Unfortunately it's hard for us to determine how notable the subject is in India without knowing the language and so forth. I'd rather keep until all possibilities are exhausted for finding claims to notability. If that article proves self-published then perhaps I'll change though. --Banime (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough-Markeer 17:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I think he doesn't quite pass WP:PROF. The somewhat remarkable achievements seem to be:
  • former membership in International Theological Commission in Vatican. The commission seems to have only 30 members, so it's quite selective. But the only verification of this info (on the web) is related to the individual in question http://www.kothamangalamdiocese.org/php/parish_appointments_list.php?action=search&category=priest_reg_id&txt=208&sel=bio_data&name=Rev.+Fr.++Karakunnel+[Pulparambil]+George (sorry link has brackets).
  • the Bishop Jerome Award (0 ghist outside this article) and KCBC Media Award (5 ghits total) seem utterly obscure.

Overall, I'm still not convinced. VG ☎ 17:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The wayback machine verifies his former membership in the ITC.[2]. He is also a member of the Pontificia Accademia di Teologia [3].John Z (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'm back to a full keep from weak keep after these. Thanks John Z. --Banime (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per sources found by John Z, Karakunnel clearly passes WP:PROF as theologian. VG ☎ 19:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm surprised & pleased to find such sourcing--I wouldn't have had the patience. DGG (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Until VG zeroed in on the possibilities for notability in the article, it didn't look like a keeper to me, so thanks are due him.John Z (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was collaborative effort, as it should be. VG ☎ 08:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- An academic theologian, perhaps only of minor notabillity, but not a nonentity. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep scrapes in for his membership up to six years ago of the ITC (under an alternative spelling of his name as Karakkunnel (not Karakunnel)). Springnuts (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Per sources found by John Z. --Jacob.jose (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.