Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surjit Singh Sethi


 * 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. The sources and information from PWilkinson and Secret of success raise enough doubt that there isn't a clear consensus to delete, even after a relist. If a Punjabi speaker has more information that indicates that these aren't sufficient to meet WP:GNG, then there is no problem with a speedy renomination. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Surjit Singh Sethi

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:SCHOLAR. Dwaipayan (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TheSpecialUser TSU 00:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: A Google book search gives 10,000+ results for the subject, with some of them mentioning his name with commentary. I am unaware as to whether this is sufficient, but we need to take a look into this. Secret of success (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: The GBooks search is frustrating: after promising thousands of results, it then tails out after less than 100, many of which are the subject's own works in, presumably, Punjabi. However, a significant proportion of the rest are admittedly passing mentions in surveys of twentieth-century Punjabi literature or Indian literature in general - but the kind of mention that, in surveys of literature in English or any major European language, would pretty much guarantee the subject's fulfilment of WP:AUTHOR#3 and #4 several times over. In this case, the two GBooks references most likely to establish notability that I could spot are this short discussion in English of one of his works, apparently in the context of a longer discussion of similar work by another author and these two in Punjabi, both of which appear to be book-length studies of the subject's work. I would guess that there are significantly more similar reviews and studies in Punjabi, and that the only reason we are picking up just these two is that GBooks has descriptions of them in English. However, we could certainly do with a Punjabi speaker to advise here. PWilkinson (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2012 (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.