Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saurav Dutt


 * 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 a consensus for Delete. Yes, I opined strongly for a keep, but I find that at best this article is simply TOO SOON. We can allow a recreation if or when he or his works ever receive more solid and better coverage.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Saurav Dutt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR; the subject has not received coverage from more than one reliable source. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm doing some cleanup of the article and I've cleaned the bibliography section so far. So far I've pretty much removed a B&N link and a bunch of Google Books links, none of which can show notability. I removed a link to IMDb that linked to Horror Asylum, which I'm familiar with for the most part. The only problem is that HA doesn't really have any verifiable editorial oversight that would satisfy Wikipedia's criteria, so it's not usable as a RS. I've removed the Broadway World link. At first glance one would think it is usable, but in the past they've been generally considered non-reliable because they tend to post a lot of barely re-worded press releases and because their site is pretty gung ho on selling the reader various things like hotel rooms or theater tickets. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of mixed on this one. He's received some coverage but not a whole lot for the most part. At the very least I do think that this should be userfied if the AfD is closed as delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and draft/userfy as although the article is neat and sourced, there's room for improvement and my searches found nothing particularly good here (this is literally the best I found, nothing at Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary). SwisterTwister   talk  06:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree - I think that this is likely the best outcome here. On a side note, if this guy is reading this (or someone who knows him is reading this), then I'd recommend that he submit his work to some of the horror movie websites out there. Some of them will review books and one review in a truly reliable source like Bloody Disgusting or Fangoria would go a long way towards establishing notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:INDAFD: Saurav Dutt


 * Keep as a suitable stub per meeting WP:CREATIVE in that he and his works have received coverage in multiple reliable sources. And to, I wonder on the efficacy of suggesting his works addressing gender bias and discrimination be submitted to horror review sites. Also, and aside from the multiple sources already used in the article, the bottom of THIS page hints that he and his works have far wider coverage than currently used... coverage to underscore WP:AUTHOR. Thanks,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was more referring to Cannibal Metropolis, The Exorcist: Pazuzu Unbound, and Licence to Dream: The Life of Corey Haim. The first two are horror novels and the third is about Corey Haim, who starred in quite a few horror films prior to his death (Lost Boys, Watchers, and so on). If he'd been female, he'd have been labeled a scream queen. The other stuff not so much, although sometimes some of the horror sites will cover them in an overall article about the author. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * a fair enough suggestion then... but even if a stubby article, I feel inclusion criteria are already met and it serves the project for this to remain and grow over time and through regular editing.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 20:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The only criterion that the subject could arguably meet under WP:CREATIVE is #3. Only one of his works (The Butterfly Room) has been covered by more than one independent reliable source (it's been covered by two, Desiblitz and India West), and there is no indication that book is a "significant or well-known work", which is also required for criterion #3.  The only other reliable, independent source, The Asian Today, just mentions him in passing as being nominated for an award, with no indication that he won the award.  If the author continues writing, he may achieve notability, but two book reviews and a passing mention do not meet the requirements of WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow. You first show a possible lack of WP:BEFORE in your nomination statement by incorrectly saying he "has not received coverage from more than one reliable source", yet now grant more than just one, and you are incorrect to demand or expect world-wide "fame" or dozens or hundreds or even more than 2 reviews. Being unknown in the West or in English is not a deletion rationale, and the "as featured in" section on THIS page is a reasonable indicator that he and his works HAVE coverage not yet dug out or used. So sorry, but I disagree with limited before and I will not judge an improvable topic by only its current format or used sourcing. Read WP:SURMOUNTABLE. You might wish to disagree, but we do not demand immediate perfection and needing work is not a deletion rationale.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Some other possible searches:
 * I didn't find the Desiblitz article when I made the nomination (possibly because it was only 4 days old at that time). I don't understand the criticism about my concession that there are now two reliable sources; would you rather me ignore new facts and blindly stick only to my original statements?  In my opinion, the article isn't notable whether there are one or two sources, but I'm not going to pretend that there is only one now that there are actually true.  As for WP:UNKNOWNHERE, I have never claimed that being unknown in the West is a deletion rationale (and I never would claim that, as I don't believe it), but the burden of notability isn't "look through a couple hundred Google pages and prove there's no other reliable sources we can use"; I've done a search, and there are two that I found.  Those who are claiming there are claiming that there are likely more sources out there should add those sources to the article and indicate that is a reason for keeping the article.  But I found no reliable sources via the Google searches you've posted. You're right; needing work isn't a deletion rationale, but lack of notability is, and that was the reason I made the nomination. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Missing sourcing per a poor search happens and your original opening assertion "has not received coverage from more than one reliable source" has been speedily proven incorrect. And while nominating a 4-day-old article seems a bit hasty to me, a decent indication that The Butterfly Room is a "significant or well-known work" as required by Creative's criterion #3 is bolstered by the sourced facts that the book HAS received more than one review and the author has been recognized for his work. ALL his works do not need reviews as the article is not about a book, and he or his works being repeatedly being spoken of directly and in detail in at least five (multiple) sources meets WP:GNG. And please, even if not directly stated in your comments, he being Indian is a consideration. If he and his works are covered in Bangalorean or Asian sources, that is perfectly fine. And removed after nomination, was evidence that he is also a published journalist. Please, he does not have to be Ernest Hemingway to meet WP:AUTHOR. And you may have not found sources, but in looking I quickly found he won a Manchester Young Poet and Young Writer award in 1998 and additional reliable sources CNN, UK Asia.  More that "two" reliable sources... it all depends on how deeply one looks or is willing to look. Thanks,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't find the Desiblitz article when I made the nomination (possibly because it was only 4 days old at that time). I don't understand the criticism about my concession that there are now two reliable sources; would you rather me ignore new facts and blindly stick only to my original statements?  In my opinion, the article isn't notable whether there are one or two sources, but I'm not going to pretend that there is only one now that there are actually true.  As for WP:UNKNOWNHERE, I have never claimed that being unknown in the West is a deletion rationale (and I never would claim that, as I don't believe it), but the burden of notability isn't "look through a couple hundred Google pages and prove there's no other reliable sources we can use"; I've done a search, and there are two that I found.  Those who are claiming there are claiming that there are likely more sources out there should add those sources to the article and indicate that is a reason for keeping the article.  But I found no reliable sources via the Google searches you've posted. You're right; needing work isn't a deletion rationale, but lack of notability is, and that was the reason I made the nomination. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Missing sourcing per a poor search happens and your original opening assertion "has not received coverage from more than one reliable source" has been speedily proven incorrect. And while nominating a 4-day-old article seems a bit hasty to me, a decent indication that The Butterfly Room is a "significant or well-known work" as required by Creative's criterion #3 is bolstered by the sourced facts that the book HAS received more than one review and the author has been recognized for his work. ALL his works do not need reviews as the article is not about a book, and he or his works being repeatedly being spoken of directly and in detail in at least five (multiple) sources meets WP:GNG. And please, even if not directly stated in your comments, he being Indian is a consideration. If he and his works are covered in Bangalorean or Asian sources, that is perfectly fine. And removed after nomination, was evidence that he is also a published journalist. Please, he does not have to be Ernest Hemingway to meet WP:AUTHOR. And you may have not found sources, but in looking I quickly found he won a Manchester Young Poet and Young Writer award in 1998 and additional reliable sources CNN, UK Asia.  More that "two" reliable sources... it all depends on how deeply one looks or is willing to look. Thanks,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't find the Desiblitz article when I made the nomination (possibly because it was only 4 days old at that time). I don't understand the criticism about my concession that there are now two reliable sources; would you rather me ignore new facts and blindly stick only to my original statements?  In my opinion, the article isn't notable whether there are one or two sources, but I'm not going to pretend that there is only one now that there are actually true.  As for WP:UNKNOWNHERE, I have never claimed that being unknown in the West is a deletion rationale (and I never would claim that, as I don't believe it), but the burden of notability isn't "look through a couple hundred Google pages and prove there's no other reliable sources we can use"; I've done a search, and there are two that I found.  Those who are claiming there are claiming that there are likely more sources out there should add those sources to the article and indicate that is a reason for keeping the article.  But I found no reliable sources via the Google searches you've posted. You're right; needing work isn't a deletion rationale, but lack of notability is, and that was the reason I made the nomination. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Missing sourcing per a poor search happens and your original opening assertion "has not received coverage from more than one reliable source" has been speedily proven incorrect. And while nominating a 4-day-old article seems a bit hasty to me, a decent indication that The Butterfly Room is a "significant or well-known work" as required by Creative's criterion #3 is bolstered by the sourced facts that the book HAS received more than one review and the author has been recognized for his work. ALL his works do not need reviews as the article is not about a book, and he or his works being repeatedly being spoken of directly and in detail in at least five (multiple) sources meets WP:GNG. And please, even if not directly stated in your comments, he being Indian is a consideration. If he and his works are covered in Bangalorean or Asian sources, that is perfectly fine. And removed after nomination, was evidence that he is also a published journalist. Please, he does not have to be Ernest Hemingway to meet WP:AUTHOR. And you may have not found sources, but in looking I quickly found he won a Manchester Young Poet and Young Writer award in 1998 and additional reliable sources CNN, UK Asia.  More that "two" reliable sources... it all depends on how deeply one looks or is willing to look. Thanks,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't find the Desiblitz article when I made the nomination (possibly because it was only 4 days old at that time). I don't understand the criticism about my concession that there are now two reliable sources; would you rather me ignore new facts and blindly stick only to my original statements?  In my opinion, the article isn't notable whether there are one or two sources, but I'm not going to pretend that there is only one now that there are actually true.  As for WP:UNKNOWNHERE, I have never claimed that being unknown in the West is a deletion rationale (and I never would claim that, as I don't believe it), but the burden of notability isn't "look through a couple hundred Google pages and prove there's no other reliable sources we can use"; I've done a search, and there are two that I found.  Those who are claiming there are claiming that there are likely more sources out there should add those sources to the article and indicate that is a reason for keeping the article.  But I found no reliable sources via the Google searches you've posted. You're right; needing work isn't a deletion rationale, but lack of notability is, and that was the reason I made the nomination. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Missing sourcing per a poor search happens and your original opening assertion "has not received coverage from more than one reliable source" has been speedily proven incorrect. And while nominating a 4-day-old article seems a bit hasty to me, a decent indication that The Butterfly Room is a "significant or well-known work" as required by Creative's criterion #3 is bolstered by the sourced facts that the book HAS received more than one review and the author has been recognized for his work. ALL his works do not need reviews as the article is not about a book, and he or his works being repeatedly being spoken of directly and in detail in at least five (multiple) sources meets WP:GNG. And please, even if not directly stated in your comments, he being Indian is a consideration. If he and his works are covered in Bangalorean or Asian sources, that is perfectly fine. And removed after nomination, was evidence that he is also a published journalist. Please, he does not have to be Ernest Hemingway to meet WP:AUTHOR. And you may have not found sources, but in looking I quickly found he won a Manchester Young Poet and Young Writer award in 1998 and additional reliable sources CNN, UK Asia.  More that "two" reliable sources... it all depends on how deeply one looks or is willing to look. Thanks,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't find the Desiblitz article when I made the nomination (possibly because it was only 4 days old at that time). I don't understand the criticism about my concession that there are now two reliable sources; would you rather me ignore new facts and blindly stick only to my original statements?  In my opinion, the article isn't notable whether there are one or two sources, but I'm not going to pretend that there is only one now that there are actually true.  As for WP:UNKNOWNHERE, I have never claimed that being unknown in the West is a deletion rationale (and I never would claim that, as I don't believe it), but the burden of notability isn't "look through a couple hundred Google pages and prove there's no other reliable sources we can use"; I've done a search, and there are two that I found.  Those who are claiming there are claiming that there are likely more sources out there should add those sources to the article and indicate that is a reason for keeping the article.  But I found no reliable sources via the Google searches you've posted. You're right; needing work isn't a deletion rationale, but lack of notability is, and that was the reason I made the nomination. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Missing sourcing per a poor search happens and your original opening assertion "has not received coverage from more than one reliable source" has been speedily proven incorrect. And while nominating a 4-day-old article seems a bit hasty to me, a decent indication that The Butterfly Room is a "significant or well-known work" as required by Creative's criterion #3 is bolstered by the sourced facts that the book HAS received more than one review and the author has been recognized for his work. ALL his works do not need reviews as the article is not about a book, and he or his works being repeatedly being spoken of directly and in detail in at least five (multiple) sources meets WP:GNG. And please, even if not directly stated in your comments, he being Indian is a consideration. If he and his works are covered in Bangalorean or Asian sources, that is perfectly fine. And removed after nomination, was evidence that he is also a published journalist. Please, he does not have to be Ernest Hemingway to meet WP:AUTHOR. And you may have not found sources, but in looking I quickly found he won a Manchester Young Poet and Young Writer award in 1998 and additional reliable sources CNN, UK Asia.  More that "two" reliable sources... it all depends on how deeply one looks or is willing to look. Thanks,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't find the Desiblitz article when I made the nomination (possibly because it was only 4 days old at that time). I don't understand the criticism about my concession that there are now two reliable sources; would you rather me ignore new facts and blindly stick only to my original statements?  In my opinion, the article isn't notable whether there are one or two sources, but I'm not going to pretend that there is only one now that there are actually true.  As for WP:UNKNOWNHERE, I have never claimed that being unknown in the West is a deletion rationale (and I never would claim that, as I don't believe it), but the burden of notability isn't "look through a couple hundred Google pages and prove there's no other reliable sources we can use"; I've done a search, and there are two that I found.  Those who are claiming there are claiming that there are likely more sources out there should add those sources to the article and indicate that is a reason for keeping the article.  But I found no reliable sources via the Google searches you've posted. You're right; needing work isn't a deletion rationale, but lack of notability is, and that was the reason I made the nomination. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Missing sourcing per a poor search happens and your original opening assertion "has not received coverage from more than one reliable source" has been speedily proven incorrect. And while nominating a 4-day-old article seems a bit hasty to me, a decent indication that The Butterfly Room is a "significant or well-known work" as required by Creative's criterion #3 is bolstered by the sourced facts that the book HAS received more than one review and the author has been recognized for his work. ALL his works do not need reviews as the article is not about a book, and he or his works being repeatedly being spoken of directly and in detail in at least five (multiple) sources meets WP:GNG. And please, even if not directly stated in your comments, he being Indian is a consideration. If he and his works are covered in Bangalorean or Asian sources, that is perfectly fine. And removed after nomination, was evidence that he is also a published journalist. Please, he does not have to be Ernest Hemingway to meet WP:AUTHOR. And you may have not found sources, but in looking I quickly found he won a Manchester Young Poet and Young Writer award in 1998 and additional reliable sources CNN, UK Asia.  More that "two" reliable sources... it all depends on how deeply one looks or is willing to look. Thanks,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the fact that he is Indian is not in consideration, and your accusation that it is is ludicrous and offensive. The reason that the The Asian Today source is not very significant is that it just mentions Dutt in passing; it's a reliable source, but a mere listing of names of people nominated for an award indicates a lack of depth of coverage.  This would be true regardless of who published the source.  The reason that the Bangalorean sources are not reliable is that they are promotional pieces published by a website whose founder (1) created this article and (2) has had repeated COI issues in the past with creating articles about and/or adding sources dealing with promotional pieces published on his website.  So without actual evidence, do not accuse me of having a bias against Indian writers or Asian and/or Indian sources; such an accusation is completely unwarranted, grossly out of place, and incivil.  As for your three new sources, the Amaleen Ison source is a self-published blog, with no indication that the publish is an expert on the subject who has been published by reliable third-party sources (her interviews and guest appearances are all on other blogs); iCNN stories are self-published stories not verified by CNN; and the story from UK Asian appears to be a user-written story, without any indication that it has been at all verified by the website's staff.  From the looks of the site, anyone can submit a story, and there is no published policy about story verification.  So of the three new sources that you found, none of them appear to be reliable. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What I see is that this Indian receiving recognition by his country's media is not as notable (here) as Mark Twain or Stephen King... but he does not have to be, as long as the inclusion criteria is just met. I think it is. You do not. Bye.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And by the way, I never said that the Amaleen Ison source was reliable only that it stated he was a winner in 1998 of a Manchester Poetry Prize... another notability assertion. Did you research it, or simply discount it?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I researched it, but I was not able to find a reliable source that confirmed that he actually won the prize or that the awards he won were even significant or noteworthy awards. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The author's difficulties with his Wikipedia contributions notwithstranding, the current article state is not the same as he wrote it or when you decided to send it to deletion. And Bangalorean Mag has an editorial staff and, as anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, educating a contributor in our guidelines and policies and format is more civil and better for our growth than deleting their contributions. So pardon, but I have no faith in your research abilities.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, Manchester Metropolitan didn't even have a poetry award until 2008; indeed, the Manchester Poetry Prize article that you linked to above indicates that the prize was started in 2008. I haven't been able to find any verification anywhere (other than claims by Dutt himself) that such an award even existed in 1998.  If you don't have faith in my research abilities, find a reliable source that indicates that verifies the claim, but the award that he says he won certainly can't be the same award that you linked to. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No where did I claim the award was from Manchester Metropolitan University, but did inappropriately link to an unreliable Wikipedia article (sorry). As far as poetry history in the UK, I have been able to research that The Poetry Society has been recording awards since at least 1998 and been responsible for The Poetry Review, itself founded in 1912. I do not fault your searches, and just wish you were a bit more inspired in setting your search parameters. I did find him spoken of in an authored article in Broadway World.  Even in discounting the questionable ones and in ignoring a questionable award when he was a teen, we still have he or his works spoken of in multiple reliable sources to meet WP:AUTHOR... and when inclusion criteria are met, our work becomes of of addressing issues, and not deletion.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And if you are concerned about applying or interpreting that SNG, feel free to look at WP:BASIC which he meets, as it states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," And clarifies "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" and "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject" and concludes that the SNGs may be dismissed if GNG is met when it telling us "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below."  Using WP:BASIC seems far clearer and less likely to be quibbled over.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, Manchester Metropolitan didn't even have a poetry award until 2008; indeed, the Manchester Poetry Prize article that you linked to above indicates that the prize was started in 2008. I haven't been able to find any verification anywhere (other than claims by Dutt himself) that such an award even existed in 1998.  If you don't have faith in my research abilities, find a reliable source that indicates that verifies the claim, but the award that he says he won certainly can't be the same award that you linked to. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No where did I claim the award was from Manchester Metropolitan University, but did inappropriately link to an unreliable Wikipedia article (sorry). As far as poetry history in the UK, I have been able to research that The Poetry Society has been recording awards since at least 1998 and been responsible for The Poetry Review, itself founded in 1912. I do not fault your searches, and just wish you were a bit more inspired in setting your search parameters. I did find him spoken of in an authored article in Broadway World.  Even in discounting the questionable ones and in ignoring a questionable award when he was a teen, we still have he or his works spoken of in multiple reliable sources to meet WP:AUTHOR... and when inclusion criteria are met, our work becomes of of addressing issues, and not deletion.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And if you are concerned about applying or interpreting that SNG, feel free to look at WP:BASIC which he meets, as it states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," And clarifies "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" and "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject" and concludes that the SNGs may be dismissed if GNG is met when it telling us "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below."  Using WP:BASIC seems far clearer and less likely to be quibbled over.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Looks genuine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.137.167 (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep significant enough coverage and interviews to meet WP:Creative, Sadads (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy although the article looks plausible, the sources don't seelm to be out there. Most of the references are to "Bangalorean Magazine", which is  not blue-linked and did not show up when I searched for it.  I did a more thorough search on Saurav Dutt, and the only source I turned up was a  Proquest link to an article on India-West.  A good source.  I think we need to send this article back to the drawing board until and unless better sources can be found.  By someone.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly, there are perhaps thousands of arguably notable sources which do not have articles in this admittedly imperfect and unreliable Wikipedia. But luckily, WP:BASIC does not mandate hundreds or even dozens of sources and, even if you personally choose to dismiss the multiple articles in Bangalorean Magazine, we still have this person spoken of in numerous authored articles in DESI Blitz, as well as in India West, The Asian Today and Broadway World, AND his work as a journalist is presented in such as The Asian Pacific Post.  The criteria of WP:BASIC are met. Thanks.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Schmide, if you actually have got the goods - say, an article validating your assertion that Bangalorean Magazine is a reliable source and supports notability, or any other sources not already reviewed and dismissed by editors here, bring them. It is not helpful to repeat arguments your have already made and others have already examined and refuted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Gregore, I repeat only because I have already said quite clearly and been ignored when stating that even in ignoring Bangalorean Magazine, we already have a meeting of WP:BASIC.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 10:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable author who does not have enough coverage from genuine sources to warrant an article. 38.95.109.35 (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry Anon IP, but your personal opinion notwithstanding, and as explained above, WP:BASIC is met through this person having enough coverage in multiple reliable sources. To repeat for you in case you missed it, even if you personally choose to dismiss the multiple articles in Bangalorean Magazine, we still have this person or his work spoken of in numerous authored articles in DESI Blitz, as well as in India West, The Asian Today and Broadway World, AND his work as a journalist is verified in such as The Asian Pacific Post. Inclusion criteria are met. Thanks you. 02:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to rehash the long back-and-forth from up above, but as Tokyogirl79 said above, the Broadway World article is not a reliable source, and, as I pointed out, the The Asian Today article only mentions him in passing and lacks depth. A guest column and notation that he has written other guest columns in two newspapers does not verify that he is a journalist.  That leaves two independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject more than just by mentioning him in a list. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not exactly helpful to personally choose to disregard multiple sources simply because they do not have their own articles on the admittedly unreliable Wikipedia. (IE: DESI Blitz and Bangolrean Magazine).. and a choice to dismiss the several decent sources even you appaer to grant are reliable runs contrary to WP:BASIC... a guide which does not in any way demand dozens. The article meets inclusion criteria and is not a policy violation. Thanks,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't disregard DESI Blitz at all; it was one of the two articles I referred to when I said "two independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject more than just by mentioning him in a list". As for Bangalorean Magazine, as I said above (and as confirmed below), I disregarded it because it's promotional material that was added by the owner of the Magazine who has repeated COI issues.  There is now evidence that the author of the Bangalorean articles may have even been paid to write the articles about Dutt (and paid to write the Wikipedia article).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inks.LWC (talk • contribs) 07:06, 27 July 2015
 * Two??? Sorry, but I have repeatedly stated you may ignore Bangolrean Magazine and still have India West, and multiples in DESI blitz, and the "mention" in The Asian Tofday is a required WP:V verifcation of his British Indian Awards recognition. ANd here I thought a little WP:V was required in a BLP. Am I somehow wrong??? Sheesh.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 10:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Reread what I said. You're ignoring the second half of the sentence where I used the word "two": "That leaves two independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject more than just by mentioning him in a list." Also, in the link that you used as evidence of "multiples in DESI blitz", only one link actually mentions Dutt!  Oops... you erred, but thanks.  The rest were results in the Google search only because DESI Blitz's single article on Dutt was in the "Related Reads" section at the end.  Did you even look at the articles when you stuck that link in there as evidence of allegedly multiple articles from DESI Blitz?  So, as I said before, there are only two independent, reliable sources that discuss Dutt more than by mentioning him in a list. Inks.LWC (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment after [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=673058650 investigating] it in conjunction with some stuff that came up at WP:COIN, I have concluded that "Bangalorean magazine" aka bangalorean.net, exists for SEO and/or placement of links and paid articles on Wikipedia. Its staff and/or ownership includes at least one person who has operated multiple accounts on Wikipedia and is now blocked for socking and promotional editing. Its value as a source for articles here is zero or negative. Brianhe (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The Bangalorean site is an SEO/link placement site, India West takes in a lot of user submitted content, Desi Blitz is per their own admission a site for "new, gossip and gupshup". We have to be careful in what we accept as reliable sources, a domain name for something that might just as well be hosted on blogspot should not be what it takes. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pardon SpacemanSpiff, even disregarding the questionable Bangalorean magazine, I think you are inadvertently offering misleading information about India West as a source. Others may read about it on Wikipedia or here. The India West citation is one attributed to their own staff and not in any way as a user submission. Oops... you erred, but thanks.  And while I think American readers find almost all Indian media sources have a gossipy feel, that one brags about including gossip as well as news does not make it automatically unreliable, and I find the DESI Blitz citation is an authored review that does not in any way feel "gossipy". Read about it here.  We have just enough that WP:BASIC is met. Thanks,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 10:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Michael, many people here disagree with your take on this, repeating the same argument isn't really helping the case; a newspaper available for free at grocery stores and a max claimed readership of 25,000 just doesn't cut it. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, disagreement exists... however AFD is not a count of heads, but rather the proper interpretation and use of current guideline and policy. One can opine pro or con, but for any to ignore or subvert policy and guideline carries its own risk. Best wishes thanks,  Schmidt,  Michael Q.


 * Delete my own searches for sources in the usual places where I would expect authors to recieve coverage have not turned up anything (there were zero hits in factiva). The only sources that approach what is required are all poor-quality and obviously originated as PR for his new book. The sources discussed above are extremely similar to other more blatant PR e.g. at CNN ireport also at asianecho. Multiple crappy pieces of churnalism are of no use for demonstrating notability. A notable author would have had their work reviewed in RS, which is clearly not the case. Also, MichaelQSchmidt's mention of WP:UNKNOWNHERE is irrelevant since he is a British Indian and anyone can claim to have been covered by the media on their own website, but that doesn't mean that it is actually true! SmartSE (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2015 (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.