Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldev Raj Gupta (2nd nomination)

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. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 06:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baldev Raj Gupta[edit]

No improvement since last AfD, and I can't find any reliable sources on him. Wizardman 05:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom could not find any reliable sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A WorldCat search returned 7 hits for his books. One of his books, Research in Indian Linguistics, is held by 46 libraries worldwide. The others are held by fewer libraries. This may sound like a lot, but does not establish WP:PROF notability decisively. I think that having at least one book help by 300 libraries would be a more acceptable threshold. A Google Scholar search returned 1 hit and no citations. A few searches on academic databases returned no hits whatsoever.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per earlier AfD, Baladwa Rāja Gupatā & Baladewa Rāja Gupatā are name variants and provide more results.John Z (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that, and also did other searches - e.g., Google Books. Those name variants all seem to refer to the same person.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 22:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Hard to know what's there until it's cleaned up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, hard to say definitively, as there may be non-English sources on this person, but a lack of non-trivial third-party coverage of this person and the fact that they do not appear to meet WP:PROF, definitely counts against it. Please disregard this if sources on this person are located in a language other than English. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete per Lankiveil. Beagel (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2008 (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.