Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldev Raj Gupta

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. Rlevse 14:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baldev Raj Gupta

Indian author/academic whose name might also be Baladwa Rāja Gupatā from a book ref[1]. Brought from prod to AFD to be sure: the prod nomination just said "nn", but the article does assert "honoured by" the Government of India. Mereda 08:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 08:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- DrKiernan 08:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would prefer the tags are put on and the article and that it is left for a few months. Tagging after/at AfD gives no change for authors to respond who might not be aware of the full requirements of notibility and verifiability. I think the nomination should be revoked.--Dacium 08:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - the article asserts that he's written a number of books and received honours, which might make him notable, but reliable independent sources are needed to back up this assertion. Delete unless sources can be found by the end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 10:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, the total lack of sources leave no choice Alf photoman 13:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Googling does reveal that he has authored at least two or three books, but none of these results indicate notability. utcursch | talk 14:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Amazon[2] and WorldCat[3] results indicate his name is probably "Baladwa Rāja Gupatā" or "Baladewa Rāja Gupatā"; using the later as a search term for WorldCat returns quite a few more results[4] for books that are quite widely distributed to libraries. John Vandenberg 04:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the current information. Publications are sufficient N.DGG 05:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Books seem to be notable.Baka man 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there seems to be enough. Perhaps we could organize this a little better with a checklist. As is , we seem to among ourselves be rewriting quite a lot of bios that should have been done better in the first place. DGG 06:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please only !vote once per nomination Pete.Hurd 06:11, 28 February 2007 (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.