Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pankaj Rag

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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Rag

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non Notable civil servant. His credibility as an author has not been supplemented by any awards or recognitions. The post held by him is also not significant. Not enough references. Uncletomwood (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 15:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V. An attempt to confirm sources that he was some sort of state cabinet minister found nothing. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Subject meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline given the significant coverage they have received in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources such as, Economic Times, Times of India 1, Times of India 2, The Hindu, Outlook India, Indian Express, etc. Subject may also meet the WP:NAUTHOR criteria #3, for they have written a book that was subject to multiple independent reviews ([1], [2], [3]). We may at least write a stub using these sources. There are many other passing mentions of the subject, may be found on clicking this link. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian and Uncletomwood, any thoughts on these new sources? czar ⨹ 06:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm making no further comment until somebody does the work of fastening those citations into coherent prose in the article. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow for analysis of sources presented in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting.... Bearian (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2014 (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.