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The result was withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Enjoyer of World — Talk 02:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avay Shukla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is a journalist. The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:IS WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth (see below).

Sources in article

1. Article written by the subject
2. Blog article, does not mention subject, but name is included in list
3. List of articles titles, does not mention subject
4. Article written by the subject
5. List of articles titles, does not mention subject
6. List of articles titles, does not mention subject
7. List of articles titles, does not mention subject
8. List of articles titles, does not mention subject
9. List of articles titles, does not mention subject
10. Book by the article subject
11. A Goodreads page about a book the subject wrote
12. A Goodreads page about a book the subject wrote

BLP articles should strictly follow WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements.   // Timothy :: talk  04:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the current sourcing in the article is not good but I found independent reviews of his books here and here as well as this piece about him. I didn’t do an exhaustive search and other book reviews are likely. Mccapra (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mccapra, I agree that with some poking around the sources are there. - Astrophobe (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply @Mccapra and Astrophobe:: The above reviews are about the books, and do not contain SIGCOV about the author. If the reviews had SIGCOV addressing the author directly and indepth they would count towards the author's notability, but they do not. The proper standard for an author is WP:AUTHOR. Authors do not inherit notability from their works, except in rare circumstances covered in #3 in WP:AUTHOR, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."   // Timothy :: talk  05:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• His books have been reviewed many times (it's trivial to find more reviews), his current affairs blogging is cited widely in major Indian media outlets where it is described as being widely followed (New Indian Express, Hindustan Times, The Week, etc), and passing GNG is always sufficient. I continue to believe that with some poking around the sources are there. - Astrophobe (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is also a BLP. BLPs should strictly follow sourcing and notability guidelines.   // Timothy :: talk  05:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is true. And the solution is to bring pages up to that standard, not to delete pages about notable subjects. - Astrophobe (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment hi your ping prompted me to look again and I easily found two more good reviews of his books here and [1] so the subject looks like a pass under WP:AUTHOR to me. Mccapra (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Tentative delete: There's some editors who suggest that this article should be kept on the basis of book reviews. I would counter however, that wp:anybio generally requires significant coverage about the subject themselves, as opposed to book reviews or reviews of their work, unless their work has been recognized as foundational in a field, or "part of the enduring historical record in a field". WP:Creative would probably be the closest guidelines for this subject, but it also requires that "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", which I cannot find evidence for beyond the book reviews (that are generally not considered substantial coverage). BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 06:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The very guideline that you cite says that independent reviews count towards it, but you then go on to discount them. Why? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable either as an author or in professional capacity. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR, WP:SIGCOV RationalPuff (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As an author the subject is notable because of what he writes, so reviews are very much the sources that we should accept, in the same way that we expect citations for sportspeople or politicians to be about their work, not their favourite colour or their inside leg measurement. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn: Two IS RS reviews with SIGCOV about the author, not just about works here [2] and [3].

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.