Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahuldeep Gill


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Rahuldeep Gill

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Based on their ResearchGate page, Gill does not have the level of citations needed to meet WP:NACADEMIC. Searching online, I was unable to find any significant, independent coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Gill has contributed articles to several notable media outlets, but I don't think this is sufficient to make up the lack of independent coverage or academic citations. signed,Rosguill talk 19:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Being the creator of the article, I would like to stress on the fact that book written/translated by the author has been published by OUP. I found another book by OUP about Sikh Studies which includes a chapter by the author. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 05:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. I found two published reviews of his book  but I don't think two academic-journal reviews of one book is enough for WP:AUTHOR. And the reviews make clear that the book is mostly translations rather than original content. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON - he is apparently writing some books, and if these books receive significant academic attention and reviews, or when he has achieved greater academic prominence (e.g. a chair in a prestigious institution), then the article can be recreated.  As it is, being primarily the translator in a single book that is not widely reviewed, he may not be qualify under WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR. Hzh (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.