Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabri Prasad Singh


 * 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. Not enough coverage to pass notability guidelines Less Unless (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Shabri Prasad Singh

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails GNG and the sources available in the article are mostly about the subject's single book entitled Borderline, that's to say the book might be notable but the subject is not. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  18:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women,  and India. ─  The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  18:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and SALT This was originally written by a paid editor and even despite cleanup from third party editors I still don't see a case for the author's notability. Subject still fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. The Indian news pieces are acceptable but I don't see enough for GNG. The WEF.org link isn't independent and the FPJ cite reads too fluffy for me to take seriously. The vast majority of humans will never be notable and of the few that are, many won't be notable until after they die. If this hadn't been written out of craven vanity they might've written about the book, instead. As we know there's commercial interest in this article staying live, I recommend salting the ground so it can never come back. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly fails WP:NAUTHOR. Theroadislong (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt, as per nom. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, db-g11 fits it like a glove.  – Athaenara  ✉  15:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: as a draft article that was accepted to mainspace after several rejections, I wanted to know if there was more to NAUTHOR, which is why my comment and queries at the article talk page prior to this AfD nomination. Does being the founder of a literature festival, curator of another, and director of a cultural festival, come under purview of NAUTHOR, or does combined coverage of those (which were facilitated because of the authorship, no doubt) contribute to notability? Jay (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The source linked at the end of the paragraph that claims these things, "Business News This Week", is extremely poor and unreliable in my opinion. Looking at these things in individuality, I do not think they add anything to notability given that they've no significance even at a regional level, they're part of something else. The thing she's director of, isn't itself notable. That said, I must say that combining all of this doesn't add anything to notability, unless these things are significant on their own. Even then, notability isn't inherited but one may argue differently. I hope this helps. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  05:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Combined coverage that has been facilitated because of authorship is in my opinion best for arguing the notability of the book, Borderline, but there's no article on that. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  05:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SNOW. The Hindustan Times is not of the same quality as the paper of record, India Times. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - this article seems to have had a chequered history, but it's been cleaned up and unorphaned. Looking for significant coverage in reliable sources, I think the Tribune India News Service and Hindustan Times show notability. Mujinga (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Both of these sources in my opinion are too less to determine notability of the subject. However, thess could be argued for notability of the book. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  07:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per the nominator and 's and 's comments; none of the sources presented really pass RS, and the repeated re-creation of this article by parties who seem to have a vested interest in it is good reason to salt. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Mujinga for cleaning up and improving the article. There is significant coverage for the author and the book, but not in a context outside of the book (which is what I was interested in, in my comment above). I understand that the author is working on a second book, but Delete for now, and keep the draftify option open for future. Jay (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2022 (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.