Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramachandran: A Retrospective

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. ✗plicit 01:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramachandran: A Retrospective[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK or appear notable enough to warrant a standalone article. References listed may not be reliable, given they link to a Google Books listing and a web shop. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Merge or Redirect to A. Ramachandran. The book does not seem notable enough for a separate article. I searched online for reviews of the book in reliable sources but the mentions I found were in unreliable publications or blogs or book seller sites. Does not meet GNG & NBOOK criteria. If three solid book reviews in RS's are found I may change my !vote, but for now merging or redirecting makes the most sense. Not enough content to merge, and it is already on the A.Ramachandran article, so no need for a redirect either. Netherzone (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing to indicate this meets WP:GNG nor WP:NBOOK nor any other standard of notability. Jacona (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2024 (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.