Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravinder Kumar Soni

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. —SpacemanSpiff 09:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ravinder Kumar Soni[edit]

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

Ran across this author being used as a reference. Couldn't find the book on Amazon and can't find evidence that he meets WP:BIO. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references seem to be entirely self-publication, and my own searches are turning up nothing but social/professional networking sites. Mangoe (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sir, I beg to differ; not all references are self-publication. I made this Wiki entry confident about the same being retained. The subject, who is multi-talented and whose works are certainly note-worthy and known in his field of activity, does not appear to have invited attention that would have fetched reviews etc; of the kind that would have given him the needed publicity. I know many authors such as he who deserve to grace Wikipedia.Soni Ruchi (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "deserve" is a difficult word here. Sure, there are people who do wonderful things in life - and perhaps they do 'deserve' wider recognition and wider acknowledgement by the general public. But if they don't get that acknowledgement, then no matter how deserving they are, we can't write about them. We have strict rules on this subject. SteveBaker (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anywhere near enough notability here. SteveBaker (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources are all self-published or totally unreliable. My own Google searches turned up no relaible sources that could be used to establish notability per WP:BIO. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whereas I am in agreement with Mr. SteveBaker and that I had been overconfident I am to submit that none of the references are self-published; they are from books published by a leading New Delhi publisher in which publishing house the subject has no stake whatsoever, from a news-paper and from online articles. Moreover, without having acess to the cited books to conclude that the references are "totally unreliable" is a grave error. Even though deletion of this article does not in any way affect the reputation of the subject can I seek a merger of this article? Regards.Soni Ruchi (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I, too, think notability is totally lacking in this case.

One of the three nooks published by him and touted as 'significant' in the article is evidently a family publication viz. 'In Search of True Happiness' published by the Soni Parivar- 'parivar' in Hindi means family.

Just because he has translated or edited his father's works doe not make him notable either. In fact, it should make no difference whose son he is, which seems to be given additional importance to who he is and what he is doing in the article. Many people write books and poetry or paint pictures as a pastime or have well-known parents. It does not make them notable per se or worthy of an article on Wikipedia. I wrote something similar on the Dougweller talk page a couple of days ago. Apparently, it should have been posted here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zananiri (talk • contribs) 11:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Sir, I am proud to be a member of the Wikipedia family and I know one learns through mistakes one commits, I have been corrected, and I have also owned my mistake. I have never participated in discussions on this page because I do not consider myself to be competent enough. I appreciate all kinds of creative work which the person involved alone knows how difficult that work is. Being a part of this family I have to tread the long winding path carefully this I know. You are a senior member and I am aware and appreciative of the hardwork you are capable of. You may not know I have learnt a lot from the efforts put in by you and also by other seniors. Regards.Soni Ruchi (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of the multiple WP:RS-compliant sources giving nontrivial coverage of notability that a topic requires in order to have a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2012 (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.