Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Naickamparambil

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. Cirt (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Naickamparambil

Seems to fail WP:PROF. VG ☎ 11:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:22, 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]
Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF for the moment. A single published book (based on his dissertation) that is not particularly widely held by libraries[1] or widely reviewed. Nsk92 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF and WP:NOTE. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. GS search [2] shows no citations to his work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unsourced but for one self-published biographical note. SunDragon34 (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Non-notable. Springnuts (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep A professor at a theological school. one work mentioned, and it wuld be hard to verify if there are others. This is the sort of article which would obviously not be kept for a mainstream western academic. But given the problems of cultural bias, both with the very obscure Christian sect, and the nationality, and the lack of good sources for verifying Indian publications, I'd be prepared to stretch the tolerance. DGG (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF by a mile or so. RayAYang (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless further publicatons can be found. It is not clear to me whether the one listed is a book or merely a chapter in one; if only the latter, certainly delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a book - 291pp and there is a preview on Google Books. The title makes it sound like a ref to a chapter in a book, but it is in fact a whole book - perhaps a bookified doctoral thesis. Springnuts (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pontifical Gregorian Univerity, the biggest Pontifical University publishes only very selected doctoral thesis of its students. Naickamparambil's thesis was published by the Univesity. The official website of the University gives an introduction to this work as follows, "This study outlines the process of personally appropriating the cognitional dynamism of human consciousness, inquires into the foundational character of this exercise in Lonergan and draws out its important implications for contemporary thought and life. The exercise of self-appropriation is shown to shape one's philosophical convictions, to provide the basic principles of one's personal authenticity and development and to equip the human subject with the basic directives for a creative, collaborative and methodical search for truth." [3].Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet there is no evidence (i.e. none provided so far) that his work has had an impact on other scholars. Have you even read WP:PROF? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:52, 26 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.