Talk:Anil Kumar Kohli

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because neither it is intended to promote any person or entity nor any organization he is/was linked with; as the person has retired from his services and does not gain by this article. The notability of the article has been questioned by a Wikipedia agent and more data is requested for backing the biographical content. The display message read "BRIT is notable, and has its own article, but Anil Kumar Kohli isnt nearly notable enough for this. No reputed sources found which actually discuss Anil Kumar Kohli or anything categorically about him. They only contain his bytes in former capacity of CE". In this view, I may question Wikipedia to establish notability of the page dedicated for its founder Jimmy Wales as majority of his discussions are in his capacity of Wikipedia founder only. In India, reaching the position of Distinguished Scientist is very rare and only possible when someone has dedicated his/her entire efforts to develop or initiate work that has major societal deliveries and relevance. The vision of Dr. Anil Kumar Kohli was very strong and was aligned to make a country like India self-sufficient in the area of nuclear medicines, by which many poor people are benefited who suffer from very serious diseased conditions like Cancer. His work is not a direct delivery to the public and cannot be compared to a politician or an actor but has significant weightage to support a biographical article here. He has been listed in "Marquis Whos Who" in "Science and Engineering" and hence is really credible. Please remove the notability and orphan tags from this page and if you need anymore clarifications, kindly write to me in my talk page Thankfully, Sbatdaeindia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.48.232.25 (talk • contribs)

Dear Sbatdaeindia,

Please respect Wikipedia guidelines, and don't resort to edit warring by repeatedly removing the tags without any sort of consensus. Additionally, it is apt to discuss the matter on this page rather than your talk page, so here you go. As for Jimbo, there are a plethora of independent and reliable sources that discuss categorically about him. As for Anil Kumar Kohli, "Marquis Whos Who" has had its share of criticism, and is not regarded as sufficient for notability. Also, please note that Wikipedia articles must not contain original research; which is what the rest of your comments can be regarded as, since no sources, even of primary nature, were found to back these claims. However, if you can find any, please share them. Until then, I am reinstating the tags.

Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.196.217.184 (talk • contribs)

First, the article is still an orphan at this time and that tag remains valid until other Wikipedia articles link to here. A couple of talk pages do link, but those are not articles.

As for the notability, there seems to be some secondary coverage, there is claim to various articles and papers that are not self-published, and there may be a case to remove the notability tag. However, a bit more scanning through the references is needed to confirm there is sufficient reliability of the references, and that these make significant mention of Kohli. About a quarter of the citations are currently from BRIT (i.e. WP:PRIMARY), although there seems to be a few reliable secondary sources e.g. The Hindu. The article still has numerous unreferenced items, including some "filler" or trivia content e.g. the unref and vague paragraph starting "Dr. Kohli has interests in reading, creative activities...". It's probably best to review and clean up the content and references first before deciding on the notability status.

Dl2000 (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the obvious "false citations". And, I have scanned through all the secondary references, and some of the primary references as well. They do not make a significant mention of Kohli. The articles are centered on the work of BRIT or BARC, and Kohli is quoted on the subject. Arguably, the source that comes closest is article, and about half of the quotes in the small article are taken from him. However, the article is a general one talking about the social applications of radiation, and his quotes, on that subject were valuable as he was the then chief of BRIT, but that's about it. As for other articles, some don't even mention or refer to Kohli, like the Business Standard article. If Kohli has had a key role in the significant projects of BRIT, beyond having headed the organization at some point, why don't any of the affiliated sources at least credit him in such a manner. The reason I originally tagged the article for promotional content was because, the author is clearly boasting, and by self-confession is a member of DAE and has a conflict of interest. The only reason why I am not flooding the page with citation needed tags is because, I think improving the article may be a waste of time, since it just needs to go. 2602:30A:2C4D:9B80:6C36:D1FF:DA49:A0DF (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I have removed and moved a couple of references which did not talk about the content that they were placed around. There are still more irrelevant primary and other references lurking around. Anyway, even now, two sections are completely unsourced, and other sections are also almost unsourced too. If I go by the prompt that comes with the tag, I must remove the unsourced material immediately. Depending on the stringency with which this is followed, probably just the first sentence, and a couple more would be left. How about deleting the article? The author of the article doesn't seem to even understand what citations are, and I've looked myself to confirm that sources don't exist for most of the content in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.196.217.184 (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Based on the above, it seems more practical to propose a merge/redirect into the BRIT article. Merge discussion is based at Talk:Board of Radiation and Isotope Technology#Merge Anil Kumar Kohli. Dl2000 (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Agent, whosoever you are.. Please don't take unnecessary actions for the page created for Anil Kumar Kohli. Give time as we too are busy here and just do not do Wikipedia like you and a weekend is required to rewrite the content. Kindly discuss. Or I will have to bring this matter to your top management. I hope you understand. Kindly undo your editings and leave the page to where it was. I will do the needful and bring to your notice. Thankfully — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbatdaeindia (talk • contribs) 04:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Drmies (your name seems to be illogical and maybe some form of code) and other administrators linked in this connection, I respect you to be an administrator but I am strongly expressing my displeasure in the way you had reacted (can be termed as a dictatorship over the Wikipedia administratorship) by placing unnecessary comments that are cited on the view history and repeated undoing the entire article. This is not a signature value attached to a collaborative media like Wikipedia. As suggested by you I will choose to place four tildes for signing the document but nonetheless my identity is secret. You and some fellow administrators have taken the article down and in a very unprofessional manner which is suggested to be reported to Wikipedia Corporation (if required). Lets not waste anymore time in debating and I should come to point-wise clarification of what 3-4 administrators (maybe you are friends - jointly decide without even reading policies what is right or wrong and keep on attaching new things everytime in an added comment and action). All your IP describes that the accounts are operated from a shared network from US and it is quite possible that you people are freelancers working for the corporation and reside in the same campus. Point-wise response: - Marquis who's who is not-credited by a set of administrators and I suggest to put a complaint to their office that they should rather come to Wikipedia standards which in turn shares tremendous criticism "http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/" and "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia" to name a few (standards of the claimed administrators). Even Google discredits. - I guess you people have not visited this place and hence, cannot know the credibility of the work that is undertaken here and the kind of vision attached to a leader or his capabilities. Therefore, it is suggested that before arriving to any conclusion please do a bit of literature survey of how complex things are and not just as you see within your four wall boundaries and internet. - Some senseless edit summary like "well now. rm more images (not the family photo album)", "who's who is nothing. not a resume: rm resume", "is BRIT an airplane that can reach "new heights" (whatever that is supposed to mean" and many more is suggested to be notified to the top leaders of the corporation as very educated, sophisticated and fully ethical administrators like you seem to behave running the corporation. - Regarding references that are hosted in a third party website - Kindly extend your logical reasoning and question yourself that do the third party website that were cited are registered ones, if so on what laws and principle they are governed!? In this respect you people lack substantial maturity and logic. Additionally, The Hindu is not the only publishing edition that is available here, there are many more and kindly update your knowledge. - Dr. Kohli has had a key role in the significant projects of BRIT, beyond having headed the organization at some point, but due to the strategic nature they are not supposed to be public. Moreover, big institutes like Indian Railways and so on and so forth have been interviewed him because of his sheer capabilities but those are standalone articles and are not in web and if they happen to be hosted in third party websites; you people will start arguing regarding that too. - I agree to the fact that scientific references are not endorsed to be put into Wikipedia but the redirection of publications that were done need not be undermined as they carry a huge impact factor with them. - Lastly, I can help locate you people a huge list of candidates that are not notable in nature from the US and West apart from this place (upto the standards of Wikipedia as claimed by administrators) and can be taken down within 24 hours as well. In consolidation, I suggest you to do whatever you feel as administrators (or dictators and not collaborators of collaborative media in principle). But things will not remain unreported to the corporation and those who are involved in vigilance. You may merge or do whichever way you people wish to project our things and boost your things (undue advantage of your own publishing platform) but make sure that days are not far ahead for us too. If you still feel that I may rewrite the content in a neutral manner (I initially felt that not a fundamental rewrite was required and needed revision) and allow standalone articles to be referenced. Kindly put to the talk page of Dr. Kohli and give a minimum time line or I suggest to let go and not to waste time (as I am fully occupied and can devote time to constructive projects only) as even if I attempt you people will undo. Please communicate! Thankfully Sbatdaeindia (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)sbatdaeindia

Dear Sbatdaeindia, Wikipedia takes the Neutral Point of View and Conflict of Interest policies very seriously. As a result of the same, it appears that it may be in your best interest to refrain from editing articles connected with the Department of Atomic Energy. Even outside of that domain, if you're really interested in contributing to Wikipedia, your contributions may be welcome. However, it certainly wouldn't hurt to read a few things about Wikipedia, especially after people post messages on your Talk page linking to areas that you really need to pay attention to. 2602:30A:2C4D:9B80:6CD1:1652:D571:690B (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear /2602:30A:2C4D:9B80:6CD1:1652:D571:690B|2602:30A:2C4D:9B80:6CD1:1652:D571:690B, please don't suggest me what I need to do or what not as the last article was absolutely neutral. I truly had respect for the founder and the programmers involved for the developing Wikipedia and now I regret that I and a group of friends had donated generously to Wikipedia when its founder did appealed for it. It's shameful fact as the administrators linked with this wonderful organization are taking it down.Sbatdaeindia (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Sbatdaeindia

Yeah, right! 2602:30A:2C4D:9B80:41D4:5C52:51AA:6592 (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)