Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santosh Sharma

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 keep. causa sui (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Sharma

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

Article that basically says he is an accountant. Sources are to a book he ~~read~~wrote. An article about the book was deleted before this article was created. I can find nothing on google other than book reviews. noq (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:AUTHOR or any other notability criteria. No WP:RS to indicate notability. Also recommend deleting Next What's In as it appears to be part of this walled garden. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe links are not only book reviews but also interview with the author. The referenced journals are highly respected in Indian media i.e. The Hindu and Live Mint. I think this author satisfies the point no. 2 in WP:AUTHOR. This can be confirmed by his interview in the Hindu. He might be new, but his book has already been widely read. Infact, I gained a lot by reading htis book. So, I thought it would be worth to put it on wiki. As far as the article on the book is concerned, I request Kinu to please specifically state what exactly is the criteria that the book doesn't satisfy. The earlier article on the book was deleted because I copy-pasted it from its website. So, it looked like an advertisement. I volunteer to change the article so as to meet all the neccessary criterion. Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 04:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Hindu, at least, I know to be a major media player in India, and these look like sources which amply satisfy the GNG, which of course trumps WP:AUTHOR. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 13:46, 30 June 2011 (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) 00:02, 6 July 2011 (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) 00:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - satisfies WP:AUTHOR Whiteguru (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Basically per Ravenswing, since the sources are certainly reliable and seem to offer significant coverage. However, we should consider merging Next What's In here given the overlap in sources and the small amount of content available on each topic. Alzarian16 (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The refs are primarily about the book and only incidentally about the author. noq (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2011 (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.